The Crusader Empire

We are moving the blog to Blogger so that we can do more things with it. Here is the URL:

crusaderempire.blogspot.com

if that link doesn't work copy and paste in your web browser the following: http://crusaderempire.blogspot.com/

See you there

King Crusader and Big Jimmy

 

6/26/07

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Fred Thompson, a likely Republican presidential candidate, on Tuesday defended his work as a Washington lobbyist, telling The Associated Press that lobbying is an important part of life because "government's got their hands in everything."

The actor and former U.S. senator from Tennessee added, "Nobody yet has pointed out any of my clients that didn't deserve representation."

Thompson, who likes to cast himself as a political outsider, earned more than $1 million lobbying the federal government for more than 20 years. He lobbied for a savings-and-loan deregulation bill that helped hasten the industry's collapse and a failed nuclear energy project that cost taxpayers more than a billion dollars.

In a brief interview with the AP, Thompson said he expects to hear criticism about his lobbying activities as he moves closer to declaring his candidacy. Opponents emphasized his lobbying work during his Senate races in 1994 and 1996.

"They'll talk about it — probably with the same results," he said.

More than 200 supporters gathered earlier Tuesday at the Nashville airport to greet Thompson. He told the crowd he's "testing the waters" about a run, "but the waters feel pretty warm to me."

Thompson was scheduled to attend a fundraiser in Nashville later in the day.

Thompson declined to give a specific date for an official announcement about a presidential run.

"I have a general time in mind," he said. "You're either running or not running. I think the steps we're taking are pretty obvious."

 

---

"They'll talk about it — probably with the same results," he said. Just to let everyone know that the "results" were that he was elected in both '94 and '96 to the senate seat.

Fred Thompson is the right man for the job

Big Jimmy

 

 

Latest Polls from realclearpolitics.com:

 Tuesday, June 26

General Election: Giuliani vs. Obama Rasmussen 06/22 - 06/24
1200 LV Giuliani (R) 44%
Obama (D) 41%, Giuliani +3.0%

General Election: Thompson vs. Obama Rasmussen 06/22 - 06/24
1200 LV Thompson (R) 41%
Obama (D) 43%, Obama +2.0%

Republican Presidential Nomination Rasmussen 06/18 - 06/21
587 LV Giuliani 23%
Thompson 27%, Thompson +4.0%

Poll from realclearpolitics.com
link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Thats the question that us republicans and conservatives must ask ourselves, who is the right choice? Do we go with Mayor Guilliani who rides the fence on a lot of issues like abortion. How about Mitt Romney seemingly came out of nowhere from his governor position in the very liberal state of Massachussetts. Mitt says that he's against gay marriage but I must ask him, "why did you let them waltz right into your office in MA and sign a gay marriage bill right in front of your face?" Theres other no shotters like Ron Paul who is very limited gov't but also believes that Iraq is a complete waste of time, or Mike Huckabee who seems like he's got good morals and faith but not really a stand out type of guy. We've got John McCain whos pretty much committed political suicide by sticking too close to the Bush administration. So who is the best choice in 2008? Its not any of those men.

The best choice in 2008 is Former Tennesee Senator Fred Dalton Thompson. Fred is a true American who will lead this back slidden country back. The only other President or politician we can accurately liken him to is Ronald Reagan. But who is Fred Thompson and what does he stand for? Thats exactly what I'm going to tell you. 

Who is Fred Thompson?

-got his undergraduate degree in philosophy and politcal science from Memphis State University

-he also got a law degree from Vanderbilt

- It was at Memphis State and Vanderbilt, Thompson recalls, that he linked the kitchen table politics and issues he’d grown up hearing to the “First Principles” of America’s founding embraced by the conservative movement – freedom, free markets, and the rule of law. “I read Sen. Barry Goldwater’s book, The Conscience of a Conservative, and the ideas were as clear as a church bell on a cold winter night,” Thompson says.

- In 1968, while running a congressional campaign in Tennessee, Thompson would again be influenced by a leader of the modern-day conservative movement, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan. “I was 26 years old when I met him in Jackson, Tennessee,” Thompson recalls. “Governor Reagan came to help my guy and some others, and I had the privilege to sit back stage with him one-on-one. He was the nicest man I’ve ever met in politics. He asked me a few questions about the audience, and went out and gave a stirring speech. He had me for life.”

-1969 Fred is named Assistant Attorney General in Nashville, Thompson was thrust into the spotlight in Washington as an attorney playing a major role in the trials following the Watergate scandal

- elected in'94 to the be a US senator from the state of Tennessee; reelected in '96 in one of the most historic comeback wins in US politcal history

What does Fred stand for?

Abortion-

• Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
• Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
• Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
• Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

On the issue of abortion Thompson was unequivocal: "Prolife." Asked if he supported overturning Roe v. Wade, Thompson was equally unequivocal: "I think Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad medical science And the way to address that is through good judges. I don't think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It's contrary to what it's been the past 200 years... That's what happened in this case [Roe v. Wade]. I think it was wrong." 

Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.143-144 Jun 3, 2007  

Civil Rights-

• Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
• Voted NO on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
• Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
• Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
• Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
• Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
• Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
• Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
• Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)

Education-

• Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
• Voted YES on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000)
• Voted YES on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
• Voted YES on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
• Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
• Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)

Energy and Oil-

• Solar system is warming, not earth. (Apr 2007)
• Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
• Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
• Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
• Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
• Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
• Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)

Foreign Policy-

• Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
• Voted NO on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)
• Voted YES on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
• Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
• Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
• Voted NO on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
• Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)

Free Trade-

• Market does more for freedom & prosperity than planners. (Jun 2007)
• Protectionist trade policies are defensive & defeatist. (May 2007)
• Markets do more for freedom than any central planner. (May 2007)
• Protectionist trade policies are defensive & defeatist. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
• Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
• Voted NO on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
• Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
• Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
• Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
• Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (May 1995)

Government Reform-

• Passionate supporter of states rights. (Jun 2007)
• Term limits counter professionalization of politics. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
• Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
• Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
• Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
• Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
• Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996)
• Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)

Gun Control-

• Allowing concealed carry could have limited VA Tech massacre. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

"How is it that one man with two handguns could reload time & time again, and go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.

Virginia allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. Incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

But Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus. Those "Gun-free Zone" signs don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people."

Homeland Security-

• Europe mothballs its fleet, when all should build military. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
• Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
• Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
• Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
• Voted YES on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
• Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
• Voted YES on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty. (Jun 1996)
• Voted YES on 1996 Defense Appropriations. (Sep 1995)

Immigration-

• Opposes amnesty in any form. (Jun 2007)
• Nation loses sovereignty if it cannot secure its own borders. (Apr 2007)
• Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
• Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
• Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)

Thompson has made it clear that he opposes amnesty, in any form, and that securing our borders from a further flood of those who do not enter legally is essential to the security of the US: "As usual, we avoided the illegal-immigration problem for as long as we could. I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country's economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?"

 

Somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed. It's like we went overnight from "no problem" to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution.

We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we've got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it -- president Calderon of Mexico.

Pres. Calderon criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents.

I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like: Hey guys, you're our friends and neighbors and we love you but it's time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so.

 

War and Peace-

• would do essentially what the president's doing in Iraq. (Jun 2007)
• Take any chance to not get run out of Iraq. (Jun 2007)
• Internationalizing war effort will not win the war. (Jun 2007)
• President must decide on war based on unclear evidence. (Jun 2007)
• Prophets of doom are wrong--we can't cut-and-run. (Jun 2007)
• Goal of Iraqi enemies is to demoralize us. (Jun 2007)
• Serious & painful international sanctions on nuclear Iran. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
• Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
• Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
• Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
• Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
• Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995)

 

---

All these of these points stating how Fred voted were taken of ontheissues.org, theres a link set up in the links section if you want to take a look.

Also if you want to know more about Fred Thompson or support his campaign I'm going to put his official websites link in the links section.

---

 

Fred Thompson: A Real American, A True Conservative, A Patriot for Freedom

Big Jimmy 

 

 

 

 

I guess I'm not the only one making these "drastic" claims

The following is from NPR.org. And for all y'all liberals if you don't except NPR then, you ain't liberal. NPR is like the Clinton News Network times 10 (on the liberalometer). enjoy.

On a serious not though, Putin has got to go. Along with the crazy short man in Iran. 

---

January 18, 2007 · Iran may be under United Nations sanctions for nuclear arms technology, but Russia has recently sold Tehran new conventional weapons. This week, Moscow said it has completed deliveries of anti-aircraft missiles — and it is ready to sell more arms to Iran.

Iran may be under United Nations sanctions for nuclear-arms technology, but Russia has recently sold Tehran new conventional weapons. This week, Moscow said it has delivered anti-aircraft missiles to the country.

Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced the fulfillment of Moscow's billion-dollar deal with Iran to reporters on Tuesday.

"We have supplied modern, short-range TOR-M1 anti-aircraft missile systems in accordance with our contracts," he said. "Iran is not under international sanctions."

The deal has angered Washington, which accuses Iran of being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Tehran, which is suspected of developing a secret nuclear arms program, is also under U.N. sanctions against atomic materials and technology.

But that hasn't stopped Russia from building a nuclear power plant in Iran, which says it's only interested in atomic energy for peaceful purposes.

Defense Minister Ivanov said this week that Moscow may supply Tehran with more weapons in the future.

"If Iran wants to buy defensive, I underline defensive, equipment for its armed forces," Ivanov said, "then why not?"

Tehran's recently acquired TOR-MI missiles are highly advanced battlefield weapons mounted on armored vehicles. They were designed by the Soviet Union to protect tank and infantry formations in a conflict with NATO forces in Europe.

Pavel Felgenhauer, a leading defense analyst, says the missiles are offensive, not defensive weapons.

"This is a serious development," Felgenhauer said." It gives the Iranians military possibilities if they can sort of believe that they can withstand to some extent American air supremacy in any kind of clash on the battlefield."

Iran isn't the only U.S. opponent Russia supplies with weapons. Moscow became the largest arms supplier to developing countries last year. Its biggest customers are India and China. But Russia also sells arms to countries like Venezuela and Syria.

Israel has accused Syria of supplying Russian rockets to Hezbollah — something Moscow denies.

The United States recently enacted sanctions against the main state arms export company, Rosoboronexport, and other Russian arms companies. But the growing standoff looks set to worsen strained relations between the two countries.

 

---

Once again I ask:

How long do we sit on our nice warm couches and wait?

I'm tired of waiting

Big Jimmy 

 the exact address for this article is http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6906839

 

MOSCOW —  President Vladimir Putin warned that Moscow could take "retaliatory steps" if Washington proceeds with plans to build a missile defense system for Europe, including possibly aiming nuclear weapons at targets on the continent.

Speaking to foreign reporters days before he heads to Germany for the annual summit with President Bush and the other Group of Eight leaders, Putin assailed the White House plan to place a radar system in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in neighboring Poland. Washington says the system is needed to counter a potential threat from Iran.

In an interview released Monday, Putin suggested that Russia may respond to the threat by aiming its nuclear weapons at Europe.

"If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists, will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response. What kind of steps? We will have to have new targets in Europe," Putin said, according to a transcript released by the Kremlin. These could be targeted with "ballistic or cruise missiles or maybe a completely new system" he said.

 

---

Wow, Putin is a freaken maniac! I have never, never liked Putin. Putin is just another communist dictator that wants to bring Russia back to the Soviet Union! Putin has got to go! If Russia is going to have any kind of a future ahead of them they need to do away with Vladimir. I have always said that Putin just took charge made plans to make it back into the Soviet Union and put frosting on the top to make it look good to the Western world. Putin has said over and over again that he is sick of Russia being a second world power and is sick of the US being the only real world power and said if he has to use Nuclear Weapons to go somewhere than he will!  People the signs are bright orange and they have been for a while!

We may not know it but I believe Russia is in utter turmoil. I believe Russia is making enemies to hide their own problems. I believe Putin has successfully reinstated the KGB and they are going around assassinating anyone that goes against them. Look at how many reporters have died in Russia and Europe in the last couple months. They all had one tie to each other, they publically spoke out against Putin!

To all you democrats, according to Putin he's just like you:

"I am an absolute and pure democrat," Putin said.

And on that note I'll end this post.

 If we don't do something we may enter another cold war and this time it may get hot, nuclear hot.

Russia needs to be saved, Putins Got To Go

Big Jimmy 

 

 

Are we still blind to Iran? Honest question. Are we still going to live in ignorance to a major threat to civilization. That seems to be the case. Iran has got to go. If it was up to me Iran would not have had the opportunity to commit the hiddeous act of kidnapping 15 British navymen. But my fear is we are still blind to the threat Ahmadinejad poses. He is not an honest or sincere man, he is not someone to mess around with! He just needs to be simply, taken out. All Ahmadinejad is a ruthless dictator that wants to destroy anything non-muslim. Well why shouldn't he that is what the Koran teaches. It is a faith built upon blood, not peace. If it was about peace then we would not be having the problems we have with them. He is a man of faith, just its, the wrong faith. My fear is we will wait too long to do something. How much does it take. Iran has done more atrosities against us than Iraq has done towards us and we were certainly justified in going into Iraq, so in my eyes were doubly justified in going into Iran!

We have conclusive evidence that Iran 

1. gave weopons and bombs to Hezbollah

2. that Iran is sending in terrorists into Iraq

3. that many roadside bombs in Iraq are from Iran make

4. that Iran illegally kidnapped British navy men in Iraqi waters.

 When the final straw be too late for America to do anything?

 Iran is an evil regime, the question is: Who's man enough to stop them? 

Big Jimmy 

 

They obviously want peace

 

Testimony: Science and Global Warming: What Do We Know?

Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: News Releases
Publication Date: March 8, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Presentation Delivered
to the
Minnesota Climate Science Symposium

March 8, 2007

Thank you for the kind introduction, Senator Jungbauer. It truly is an honor and a privilege to speak with you here today. Dr. Patrick Michaels, who is unquestionably one of the world’s foremost climate scientists, has just provided us with the most up-to-date global warming science. That being the case, I would like to spend my time sharing with you what is not the current state of global warming science.

What I mean by this is that wholly implausible scare scenarios are routinely disseminated to and through the media, even though they are contradicted by real-world scientific evidence. Some of these scientifically unsubstantiated assertions appear in former vice president Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Sadly, although Mr. Gore’s film presents slick images and catchy computer graphics, science and truth have been sacrificed to make a case for immediate action. Gore’s cinematic assertions are repeated as “truth” by a largely sympathetic media that seldom bothers to do their own research or mention contradictory scientific facts. I would like to spend my time today presenting a less biased and more scientifically cautious review of the scientific evidence.

I would like to make one note before I begin. My references to Al Gore’s movie are in no way intended to be partisan or personal. California Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Arizona Republican Senator John McCain are also been prominent global warming alarmists. Conversely, many Democrats are quite skeptical of global warming alarmism. Indeed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to make an end run around Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, in the U.S. House speaks to the bipartisanship on both sides of the issue. I will be repeatedly referencing Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” today solely because it is the source that most of today’s audience will be familiar with because it has received the most accolades from global warming alarmists.

Scientific ‘Consensus’

Let us begin by examining the alleged “scientific consensus” regarding global warming. Al Gore and global warming alarmists frequently cite what is known as the Oreskes study to assert there is absolutely no legitimate scientific dissent to alarmist global warming theory. This “study” is, to use an unscientific term, a joke.

Unlike Dr. Michaels, Naomi Oreskes is not a climatologist. She is a professor specializing in “gender studies” at the University of California at San Diego. She performed the functional equivalent of a Google search in which she searched a database of scientific journals for the keywords “climate change” and came up with 928 results. She then scanned the abstracts of the articles and checked to see if any of them explicitly refuted the assertion that humans are likely to be responsible for most of the observed warming of the last 50 years. She said that none of the abstracts explicitly refuted the assertion. This, she asserted, proved there is no real scientific disagreement with alarmist global warming theory.

Oreskes’ assertion is severely flawed for several reasons:

First, most of the abstracts neither endorsed nor rejected a particular theory regarding global warming. Indeed, most did not even mention the extent of potential human influence on the Earth’s climate. Some of the abstracts mentioned climate change only in passing and were focused on other topics. Others took no position on the causes of our recent moderate warming and, assuming for the sake of argument that global warming may continue to occur, merely discussed tangential issues. What remained was only a small minority of abstracts endorsing the alarmist position.

Second, even if we discuss only the very small number of abstracts that endorsed the alarmist view, this is hardly a trustworthy indicator of current scientific thought. Journal editors are naturally biased toward publishing studies that suggest the existence of a major problem or new discovery. Articles saying “no correlation was found” imply, in effect, “no news here,” and sell few copies and attract little attention, whereas articles saying, “here is a new and scary way we are all going to die” sell more copies.

Third, the Oreskes “Google search” was very imprecise. We all know that a primary source of information is better than a secondary source. A secondary source is better than a tertiary source. Oreskes merely performed a self-selected Google search of articles written primarily by non-climatologists, that were already subjectively filtered by editors and publishers.

If we had no primary or secondary sources regarding the current scientific thought on global warming, then perhaps the Oreskes study would hold a small amount of merit. However, far better sources of scientific opinion are available.

One, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, maintains a Web site summarizing the evidence contradicting alarmist global warming theory. Attached to the summary is a petition in which more than 17,000 scientists have expressed their strong disagreement with alarmist global warming theory. Let me repeat, more than 17,000 scientists not only disagree with alarmist global warming theory, but feel so strongly about it that they made the effort to find the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition and take the affirmative step of signing the petition.

Two, in 1996 and 2003, scientists at Germany’s Institute of Coastal Research sent out a questionnaire to more than 1,000 climate scientists around the world seeking their views on global warming. More than 500 climate scientists returned the questionnaire each time. The survey found that more climate scientists “strongly disagree” than “strongly agree” that climate change is mostly the result of human influence. Regarding this and all other global warming issues addressed in the questionnaire, scientists were sharply split on the causes and likely effects of recent warming temperatures. [For more about these surveys, see “What Climate Scientists Really Say about Global Warming,” Heartland Policy Study No. 111, February 2007, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20732.]

Three, the National Registry of Environmental Professionals in November 2006 released results from a survey of nearly 800 environmental scientists and environmental professionals in the U.S. regarding global warming. Forty-one percent of the respondents disagreed that the planet’s recent warmth “can be, in large part, attributed to human activity.” Forty-seven percent disagreed that international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol provide a solid framework for combating global climate change. Seventy-one percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.

These surveys directly contradict the assertion--which appears in “An Inconvenient Truth” and is repeated by many other alarmists--that there is no real scientific debate about global warming.

With that misperception cleared up, I would now like to discuss some of the specific assertions made by global warming alarmists.

Glaciers in the Himalayas

Al Gore gives very prominent attention in his movie to an alleged shrinkage of glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains. Gore says the glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Worse, Gore says, the shrinking of glaciers threatens the water supply for literally billions of people.

Al Gore is not alone among global warming alarmists in making such a claim. On March 14, 2005, just a few months before Gore filmed “An Inconvenient Truth,” the World Wildlife Fund made similar assertions. Let me quote from their March 14, 2005 press release: “Himalayan glaciers are among the fastest retreating glaciers globally due to the effects of global warming, and this will eventually result in water shortages for hundreds of millions of people who rely on glacier-dependent rivers in China, India, and Nepal.”

The World Wildlife Fund press release continues, “water level in rivers will decline, meaning massive economic and environmental problems for people in western China, Nepal, and northern India.”

But consider this: Insurance Digest reported on March 13, 2005--exactly one day before the World Wildlife Fund assertions, and just a few short months before Gore made his assertions--that “There’s good news for the geologists and the environmental scientists who have been craving to assuage their anxieties over shrinking of glaciers and drying up of snow-fed rivers. Heavy snows in the higher regions of Himachal Pradesh this year have rejuvenated them all.

“The snowfall has given a fresh lease of life to both perennial and seasonal glaciers in the region. The region has received its heaviest snowfall in over two decades this year.”

The article continues, “The heavy snowfall is also fortuitous for the rivers, especially snow-fed ones which will have abundant water during summers when the snow melts, which in turn shall boost [hydro]-power generation.”

Need more evidence? The September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate reported:

“Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who have recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.

“A new study of the Karakoram, Hindu Kush, and Western Himalaya mountain ranges by researchers at England’s Newcastle University shows consistent recent growth among the region’s glaciers.

“Researchers found cooler summers are failing to melt winter snows, which are themselves becoming more frequent, resulting in advancing ice sheets.”

One would think such news would generate a mea culpa from Al Gore and global warming alarmists. One would think the news media would report the good news as quickly and as vociferously as they reported the scare scenarios.

But actually, the good news about glaciers has merely led to a ludicrous flip-flop. The September 11, 2006 issue of National Geographic reported, apparently without irony, “Some glaciers in Pakistan’s Upper Indus River Basin appear to be growing, and a new study suggests that global warming is the cause.”

And just as the media had previously reported shrinking glaciers would threaten the water supplies of tens of millions of people, they now claim the water supplies of millions of people are threatened by growing glaciers.

In an August 24, 2006 article titled “Global warming boost to glaciers,” BBC News warned, “the findings are significant, because temperature and rain and snow trends in the area impact on water availability for more than 50 million Pakistanis.”

Kilimanjaro

Some of the most striking scenes in Al Gore’s movie are the before and after photographs of Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro. Gore shows a photograph of the Kilimanjaro alpine glacier in 1970, and then shows a photograph of the same alpine glacier in 2005. The more recent photo shows a smaller snow cap than was previously the case. This, Gore tells us, is proof of global warming. However, the science tells us something different.

From 1953 through 1976, the globe was cooling, and yet Kilimanjaro lost 21 percent of its original snow cover. Moreover, from 1979 to 2000, satellite data measured additional cooling in the Kilimanjaro region, and yet Kilimanjaro’s glacier continued to shrink.

So how can Kilimanjaro’s snow cap be shrinking during cooling temperatures?

As far back as 2003, science had the answer. The following is a quote from the November 23, 2003 issue of Nature magazine:

“Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.”

Nature magazine’s analysis has been confirmed by such publications as the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Geophysical Research, and the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Scientists have known for many years now that Kilimanjaro’s snow cap is retreating due to drier air linked to local land use rather than to global warming. But that does not stop Al Gore and other global warming alarmists from pointing the finger at global warming.

Glacier National Park

Al Gore similarly claims that temperatures are warming so fast at Glacier National Park that “within 15 years, this will be The Park Formerly Known as Glacier.” While we can all come up with a cute little sound byte to say anything we want, even something that is not true, temperature records for the Glacier National Park region do not lie.

While Gore shows successive photos of shrinking glaciers in Glacier National Park from 1988 to 1998, temperature readings in the nearby community of Telluride show temperatures declined 3 degrees during that time span. Temperature readings in the nearby community of Boulder show a 2 degree decline during that time span, and a decline of 6 degrees from 1953 to 1998.

Just as science does not support the Himalayan or Mt. Kilimanjaro false alarms, neither does science support the Glacier National Park false alarm. Perhaps the glaciers are receding, but if this is so, human-induced global warming is not to blame.

Tornadoes

How about tornadoes? Al Gore shows very scary pictures of tornadoes bearing down on farms and townships, and then asserts that global warming is causing a surge in tornado activity. Once again, Al Gore and global warming alarmists are playing fast and loose with the science. How do we know this is true? Just last month [February 2007] the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported, “There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes.”

Indeed, just last week an unusually strong and deadly outbreak of tornadoes across the Southeastern U.S. was linked by scientists not to global warming, but to abnormally cold winter conditions.

Hurricanes

Next, let’s look at hurricanes. Al Gore says global warming is causing more and stronger hurricanes, and implies that Hurricane Katrina would never have happened if not for human activity.

Scientists, however, disagree. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on November 29, 2005 released a study in response to claims such as those made by Gore. According to NOAA, “NOAA attributes this increased activity to natural occurring cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator. These cycles, called ‘the tropical multi-decadal signal,’ typically last several decades (20 to 30 years or even longer). As a result, the North Atlantic experiences alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above normal or below normal hurricane seasons. NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming.”

Indeed, this is supported by the fact that the number of tropical storms in the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean have not increased at all. If global warming were causing a surge in hurricanes, this should be evident around the globe, not just in one small portion of it.

Sahara Desert

How about expanding deserts? Al Gore shows a nifty map in his presentation with catchy graphics indicating the Sahara Desert is expanding, especially in its southern regions. This, we are told, is due to global warming. But is this really true? Once again, the science says “no.”

According to the September 16, 2002 issue of New Scientist magazine, “Africa’s deserts are in ‘spectacular’ retreat.” The article documents how vegetation is reclaiming large expanses of barren land across the entire southern edge of the Sahara desert.

The article continues, “The southern Sahara desert is in retreat, making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa. ... Burkina Faso, one of the West African countries devastated by drought and advancing deserts 20 years ago, is growing so much greener that families who fled to wetter coastal regions are starting to go home.” Moreover, this phenomenon of a greening planet is not limited to the southern Sahara desert. A study on variations in northern hemisphere vegetation taken from satellite data from 1981-1999, reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research, found an 8 to 12 percent increase in vegetation across North America and Eurasia. A subsequent comment in the same journal concluded that a concurrent rise in atmospheric CO2 was primarily responsible for the increased vegetation.

Greenland

Let’s next look at Greenland. Al Gore asserts that the Greenland ice sheet is melting, due to global warming, and this is threatening us with a planet-wide flooding catastrophe. According to Gore, “Because of what’s happening in Greenland right now, the maps of the world will have to be redrawn.”

So exactly what does science say is “happening in Greenland right now?”

In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UK) correlated Greenland’s surface temperature readings and ice core data dating back to 1784.

They made a remarkable discovery. The past two decades were the coldest decades for Greenland since the 1910s. Average annual temperatures during the past two decades were colder than in any of the previous six decades. Greenland’s temperatures during the 1980s and 1990s averaged a full 1.5 degrees Celsius lower than average annual temperatures during the 1930s and 1940s.

Moreover, according to a 2005 study in Journal of Glaciology, seven scientists who had analyzed 10 years’ worth of data reported, “the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain.” I repeat, “a small overall mass gain.”

So how is it that Al Gore and global warming alarmists show striking photos of glacier retreat as “evidence” of global warming? Because they only mention the thinning at the edges and conveniently forget to mention the more extensive thickening of the glacier inland.

For the sake of intellectual honesty, I will note that shortly after Gore made his spurious claims, scientific measurements found that Greenland did, for a period of less than a year, have a slightly elevated rate of glacier shrinkage at its edges. Greenland actually began discharging slightly more of its snowcap than it was building. However, just last month scientists reported that the brief hiccup was nothing more than that, a short-term variable that has now ended.

Gulf Stream

Al Gore asserts in his movie that melting snow and ice from Greenland could shut down the oceanic conveyor belt, including the North Atlantic Gulf Stream, and thus trigger a new ice age. This claim merely repeats a long-standing scare scenario presented by global warming alarmists. With alarmists now claiming that global warming will imminently induce the next ice age, it makes one wonder whether global warming alarmists should debate themselves over whether global warming will warm the planet or cool the planet. They certainly should be able to settle on one or the other of the self-contradictory scare scenarios if they wish to have any credibility regarding their assertions.

Nevertheless, let’s look at the Gulf Stream shut-down theory. Even the most cursory look at the evidence shows the shut-down theory has no basis in scientific fact.

Scientists very recently studied the Gulf Stream and discovered no such chance of an imminent shutdown. Reporting on an October 2006 conference of scientists who had studied the Gulf Stream, the November 17, 2006 issue of Science magazine reports, “more than 95 percent of the scientists at the workshop concluded that we have not seen any significant change of the Atlantic circulation to date.”

Similarly, Johan Jungclaus, a German scientist who models ice sheets, reported in the November 7 New Scientist, “Abrupt climate change initiated by the ice sheet melting is not a realistic scenario for the 21st century.”

So here we have yet another global warming scare thoroughly debunked.

Antarctica

Let’s next look at Antarctica. In “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore claims that Antarctica is “a canary in the coal mine” that proves the imminence of a global warming catastrophe. Gore and other global warming alarmists frequently point to dramatic melting of the West Antarctica ice sheet as irrefutable proof of catastrophic global warming. The imminent melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, they claim, will flood the world’s coastlines, leading to unprecedented human misery.

Does the science back up such claims? Once again, the answer is “no.”

In focusing solely on a small portion of West Antarctica, Gore and his fellow global warming alarmists are guilty of cherry-picking a small subset of data that they know is not representative of Antarctica as a whole. While it is true that temperatures are warming and ice is melting in the 10 percent of Antarctica that is the West Antarctic Peninsula, the remaining 90 percent of Antarctica is dramatically cooling and gaining significant ice mass.

On January 14, 2002, Nature magazine reported that Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. Nature reported that temperatures across the continent have dropped an average of 0.125 degrees Fahrenheit per year, or 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, since 1978.

“The decline is alarming,” Nature quoted Diana Wall of Colorado State University who compiled the Antarctic data. “These cooling repercussions may have a long-term effect,” said Wall.

More recently, scientists reported in a September 2006 article published in the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003.

According to the most recent scientific measurements, as reported by Royal Society scientists, “Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic loss from West Antarctica.”

Also, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which itself has a record of making overly alarmists predictions, nevertheless just last month stated that for at least the next full century, “the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass.”

I repeat, Antarctica, for at least the next full century, “is expected to gain in mass.”

Canary in the coal mine, indeed.

Polar Bears

How about polar bears? In “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore shows images of polar bears apparently stranded at sea on an iceberg. Gore claims polar bears are drowning and global warming is to blame. Indeed, since the release of “An Inconvenient Truth,” environmental activists have persuaded the U.S. government to look into listing polar bears as an endangered species due to feared global warming.

Well, what are the facts? First of all, images of polar bears on icebergs are not pictures of polar bears in distress. Polar bears are capable of swimming 60 to 100 miles without interruption.

Icebergs have been breaking off from the polar ice cap since long before any alleged human influence on our global climate, as the passengers of the Titanic could have attested.

Even so, polar bears are not stranded and fated to death by drowning, regardless of what Al Gore and global warming alarmists would like us to believe. Polar bears can take refuge on such a breakaway iceberg for days and even weeks while still retaining an easy ability to swim back to the ice cap. In fact, scientists tell us that polar bears frequently take refuge on floating icebergs as a means of soaking up some sun and warming their bodies from the ocean’s cold water.

Regardless of what Al Gore and global warming alarmists claim, we know there are more than 20,000 wild polar bears in the world and that their numbers are not in decline. Indeed, polar bears quite easily survived higher temperatures 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Climate Optimum and 2,000 years ago during the Roman Climate Optimum.

Moreover, for the sake of argument, if we were to be concerned about polar bear populations even though they are not in decline, a much more simple solution is readily apparent. In Greenland alone hunters have long been allowed to kill roughly 250 polar bears per year--more than 1 of every 100 wild polar bears alive on the planet.

Unremarkable Warming

Next, let’s look at the nature of our recent warming. Al Gore claims in his movie that recent temperature rise “in recent years is uninterrupted, and it is intensifying.” The real-world data, however, contradict this assertion, as well.

Gore claims 2005 was the hottest year on record, but this is not true. Climate records show 1998 was. The fact is that temperatures have declined since 1998 and we are currently in a decade-long cooling spell. But even so, short-term temperature trends are not as telling as the broader temperature record.

Periods of advancing ice sheets--known as glaciations--each lasting approximately 100,000 years, have dominated the planet’s climate history. Shorter periods of receding ice sheets--known as interglacials--each lasting about 10,000 years, have interrupted the glaciations. For the past 10,000 years we have been in an interglacial period. Historically speaking, our greatest concern right now should be about imminent cooling in the overdue next glaciation, rather than our recent moderate warming.

Regardless, Al Gore in his movie unwittingly illustrates a fly in the ointment of alarmist global warming theory. As a temperature graph presented by Gore shows, during at least the past four interglacials, temperatures were higher than they are today. Let me repeat, during at least the past four interglacials, temperatures were higher than they are today. Ice core measurements from Greenland show temperatures in the past four interglacials ranged from 3 to 6 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today.

To put that in perspective, our recent warming would have to continue for two to four more centuries, without interruption and without mitigation, before we attain the temperatures that one would normally expect in an interglacial warming. As we approach a time when history says we are due for a return of advancing ice sheets, the real question is not “why is the Earth so warm today,” but rather, “why is the Earth so cool today.”

Assertions by Al Gore and others that today’s temperatures are unprecedented are, once again, scientifically wrong.

Carthage, Tennessee

Let me touch on one final assertion made by Al Gore in his movie. Gore shows film footage of a lazy, winding river near his Carthage, Tennessee tobacco farm. He says, “Here on this farm, the patterns are changing --it’s happening very, very quickly.”

Well, maybe things are changing quickly on the Gore tobacco farm, but certainly not in the way Al Gore would lead us to believe. Temperature stations in the nearby communities of Clarksburg, Murfreesboro, and McMinnville, Tennessee all show regional temperatures have actually cooled 3 degrees since 1920. Gore’s assertion that his farm is experiencing the effects of rapidly warming temperatures is as fully contradicted by the science as is virtually every other one of his claims in the movie.

Minnesota Temperatures

Similar data are available for many Minnesota communities. According to temperature data from the United States Historical Climatology Network, from 1930 to the end of the twentieth century, temperatures in Albert Lea have dropped 5 degrees. In Eveleth, temperatures have dropped 4 degrees. In Fosston, temperatures have dropped 2 degrees. In Grand Meadow, temperatures have dropped 4 degrees. In Milan, temperatures have dropped 4 degrees. In Minneapolis, temperatures have dropped 4 degrees. In Montevideo, temperatures have dropped 6 degrees. In Mora, temperatures have dropped 4 degrees. In Morris, temperatures have dropped 3 degrees. In New Ulm, temperatures have dropped 5 degrees. In Park Rapids, temperatures have dropped 4 degrees. In Pipestone, temperatures have dropped 6 degrees. In Roseau, temperatures have dropped 2 degrees. In Two Harbors, temperatures have dropped 4 degrees. In Winnebago, temperatures have dropped 4 degrees. In Zumbrota, temperatures have dropped 5 degrees.

Conclusion

Science repudiates the frightening predictions of Al Gore and other global warming alarmists. What are we left with?

We are left with a recent temperature record that is fairly unremarkable. For the past 30 years, temperatures have moderately warmed. For the 30 years before that, temperatures cooled. For 60 years or so before that--before humans could have had any appreciable effect on global temperatures--the planet warmed. For 600 or so years before that the planet cooled. Prior to that, the planet warmed. In short, rising and falling global temperatures are nothing new.

The net warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age just over a century ago has brought with it tremendous benefits to human health and our global environment. Growing seasons have lengthened. Crop yields have risen dramatically. Forests around the globe have expanded rapidly. Deserts have receded, and the planet has grown greener. Each of these benefits is directly traceable in large part to a warmer planet with higher atmospheric carbon dioxide.

By contrast, not one of the frightening scare scenarios proclaimed by global warming alarmists has materialized. And science tells us that none is likely to materialize anytime in the near future.

With these facts in mind, Minnesota legislators would be wise to forego asking the citizens of this state to undergo painful economic sacrifice to fight an alleged problem that is far from alarming.

Thank you very much, Senator Jungbauer, for inviting me to speak here today.

 

 

 

This was an email I had sent to me and I found it very interesting so I decided to post it. Its was written by an Australian Police officer and he addresses the "benefits" Austrailia has gotten in the past year since the civilians gave up their right to bear arms.

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent ;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late!

Not too many "benefits" is there.

Big Jimmy

 

For those of you who read my last post I said that if all goes well from here on out in the Iraq war and were out by next spring then it won't be an issue in the 2008 election. Well I most definitely stand by that statement and I feel I have found some similarities between good 'ol George W. with the Iraq War and Abraham Lincoln with the Civil War.

As we all know that Lincoln was shot five days after the Civil War ended and shortly before that Lincoln was elected to his second term, which he did not get to serve. Well lets just say that Lincoln had his doubts that he would even be reelected. Yes thats right Abe Lincoln, now probably on everyones top 5 president list almost was not reelected to his second term. He wrote letters to generals saying that they needed to wrap this war up because of how unhappy the American people were. Yes, yes I know, The CIVIL WAR and people in the North were leaning against the war and electing George B. McClellan, the former head Union General that decided the war needed to end, or in reality a cut and run strategy (another comparison?). Well we all know what happened next. Sherman marched to Savannah bringing destruction to the South while Sheridon destroyed the farm lands in the Shenendahoah Valley and the North won some major, major victories (and lost tons and tons of men in the process, you can thank Ulysses S. Grant for that) and the honorable General Lee surrendered at the Appomattox Court house in Appomattax, VA and then five days later Lincoln was shot by a crazed actor named John Wilkes Booth.

The comparison that I'm trying to get you to see is that people did not want Lincoln to be their president again. They wanted a totally different war strategy and they were starting to actually dislike Abe Lincoln. The reason why he was reelected was because of the huge turnaround in the war and when everyone saw that the North was starting to make all the right moves and when the people saw potential victory they rallied behind their troops and their president! We need the same thing today! We need to make ALL the right moves in Iraq and we need to win this war and get out and I can guarantee that not only will George W. Bush have a much better legacy, we won't have to deal with a democrat in the presidential office!

 

I wonder what Hillary will do after losing the election, I say she leaves Bill.

Big Jimmy

 

Check This Out: