KirtFalcon

Joseph Farah Between The Lines Posted: November 15, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com It's not bad enough that the Israelis evacuated peaceful civilians from the Gaza Strip because the proposed new government there cannot stomach the idea of any Jews living in their country. Now Bill Clinton says Jews should send financial aid and technology to their anti-Semitic terrorist enemies there. That's what the former U.S. president told a group in Jerusalem gathered to mark the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin last weekend. Clinton also referred to the Oslo peace process – by any standard a total and abject failure – "our best chance for a lasting and comprehensive peace." I'm surprised he wasn't booed off the stage. "If you work for peace and fail, fewer people will die than if you do not work at all," he said. Tell it to Neville Chamberlain. Clinton offered up a three-point peace plan: 1. He suggested Palestinians "use their opportunity in Gaza to do a better job of fighting terror." A better job? How about any job? 2. He suggested Israelis must find a way "to organize their politics" so that "their search for peace can continue." Isn't it time for world leaders to acknowledge that Israelis have done all they can – that they have gone above and beyond the call of duty in working for peace? Am I the only one who finds such remarks rather insulting? How do Israelis view it? 3. And he suggested that the "most important" step is that Jews around the world and friends of Israel "have a special responsibility to give financial, moral and technical support to the Palestinian people to help the Gaza gamble succeed and to the Israelis to give them time to sort through their political situation." This is what passes for deep thinking among world leaders. Jews have a special responsibility to come to the aid of their embattled, bleeding, battered brothers and sisters in Israel. Suggesting Jews should divert their support to aiding the budding anti-Semitic, terrorist state of Palestine is immoral and unconscionable. It is like suggesting that the best hedge against the rise of Adolph Hitler in the 1930s would have been diverting financial and technical aid to Germany. Hear me – an Arab-American who has covered this part of the world for many years – on this point: No people have done more for the Arab refugees than the Jews. Nowhere in the Middle East do Arabs live freer, more productive lives than in Israel. Their thanks has been in the form unrelenting, unending terrorism and death. I find these comments by Bill Clinton condescending and dangerous. Why do we keep raising the bar of civil conduct higher and higher for Jews? Why are expectations continually lowered for the Arab world? Why do we believe that we can change the moral character of the Arab people in Gaza by throwing money at them? Why do we think that rewarding terrorism is the right thing to do in the Middle East, even though acknowledging it is the wrong approach elsewhere? Why is it that the Jews are expected to pay for the needs of the people in Gaza – even though the Arab states of the Middle East are wealthy and claim to support their struggle? This is insanity. Why is analysis like this even taken seriously? How many times do we have to witness the same policies of appeasement and one-sided sacrifice fail before we recognize it's time for a re-evaluation of those policies? Bill Clinton did his level best to destroy Israel during his eight years as president. He twisted Ehud Barak's arm to the point that the former prime minister had virtually given his country away to Yasser Arafat. Only a strange twist of fate, in which Arafat rejected the giveaway, halted the process and saved Israel from the unimaginable horror of being sliced and diced. When people like Bill Clinton talk about a "peace plan" for Israel, what they really mean is a "piece plan" – in which Israel would be left with only an indefensible piece of its historic land. That's not peace ... it's ethnic, religious and cultural suicide.

Pujols was far and away the MVP in my opinion. Andruw and the Braves are on the downhill slide! :dancingbanana:

I think they could probably beat about 98% of the 5A teams in the state based on what I saw the other night! :w00t:

That's right . . . How can Hillary attack Richardson's record, he worked for her hubby! Should be fun!!!! :w00t:

NewsMax Wins Silver Magazine Award Monday, Nov. 7, 2005 12:31 a.m. EST NewsMax Magazine has won a Silver Medal in the News/Commentary category of the 2005 Eddies, the prestigious journalism awards presented by Folio magazine. Folio, a bible of the magazine publishing industry, announced the 16th annual Eddie Awards winners on November 1 at The Folio Show New York, the largest and most comprehensive conference and exposition for the magazine industry. Amy Zucchi, Event Director for Folio, said: "It is truly amazing to see such excellence within the magazine industry not only from publications that have been around for many years, but also from the brand new magazines on the block.” NewsMax Magazine now has a monthly paid circulation of 101,000 on average, and a readership of well over 400,000. "This Silver Medal, won against impressive competition, is recognition that NewsMax Magazine has become a major player in the news and commentary field of magazine journalism,” said NewsMax President and CEO Christopher Ruddy. "It is truly an honor.”

Richardson has a ton of baggage from his Clinton administration days. He was roundly discredited just before leaving Clinton for the disappearance of nuclear secrets from a vault at the Energy Department's Los Alamos weapons lab in New Mexico. He was also a failure as Clinton's energy secretary. Talk about weak on national defense! :thumbdown:

You young libs need to check out Aruba! :w00t:

Cozumel or Cancun? . . . neither Grand Caymen Islands :thumbsup:

Whatever global warmning is going on is purely nature taking it's own course over time. Man doesn't have the ability to cause global warming, never has, never will. God is in control of nature and the climate. . . not the evil republicans in their SUVs and big factories!!! :w00t:

Haaard Dean and the left wing wacko moveon.org crowd have hijacked the dimocrat party. As long as they are calling the shots for the dims, the republicans will rule!!! :w00t:

Drudgereport.com Sun Nov 13 2005 09:17:22 ET Dem Chair Dean Ducks Last Second Joint MEET THE PRESS Appearance With GOP Chair Mehlman The DRUDGE REPORT has learned from exclusive sources that Democrat Party Chair Howard Dean turned down Republican Party Chair Ken Mehlman’s last minute offer to appear together on NBC’s MEET THE PRESS this morning. Moments before taping was to begin with host Tim Russert, Mehlman asked Dean outside the NBC studio’s green room: “There’s still time for us to go on together Governor.” Dean declined with a shrug of his shoulders and an uncomfortable cackle and then proceeded to walk away into the green room. DRUDGE has learned MEET THE PRESS producers have been working to get a head to head Dean/Mehlman appearance on the program since Dean was named chair back in February. Dean and his handlers have repeatedly turned down the request. The former Vermont governor only agreed to do this week’s program if they appeared in back-to-back interviews. Mehlman brought up Dean’s unwillingness to appear alongside him during the show: “I was hoping that Chairman Dean would be on sitting next to me this morning. Maybe we can do that on a future program. Look, he's somebody I've enjoyed getting to know. We meet in a lot of green rooms….” Tim Russert: “We invited him -- do you have a question for him?” Former Dem Party Chair Terry McAuliffe participated in regular head-to-head appearances with his Republican counterparts during his tenure from ‘01 to ‘05. McAuliffe went head-to-head with Republican chairmen at least five times on MEET THE PRESS alone, going up against past GOP chairs Ed Gillespie (twice), Marc Racicot (twice) and Jim Gilmore (once). This weekend on ABC’s THIS WEEK the Democrat heads of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Sen. Chuck Schumer, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Rep. Rahm Emanuel, both appeared head-to-head with their Republican committee counterparts Sen. Elizabeth Dole and Rep. Tom Reynolds. Developing... :w00t::w00t::w00t:

For all you libs who love polls - KF President Bush Job Approval RasmussenReports.com Sunday November 13, 2005--Forty-six percent (46%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-three percent (53%) of Americans Disapprove of the President's performance.

This should refresh the memory of the liberal media and some of our liberal members on this board . . . they seem to all be suffering from amnesia lately! - KF :w00t: Newsmax.com Sunday, Nov. 13, 2005 1:13 p.m. EST One of the centerpieces of President Bush's counter-offensive against his Iraq war critics will be a Republican National Committee commercial focusing on a speech given by former President Bill Clinton. U.S. News & World Report says the RNC ad will spotlight Clinton's Feb. 17, 1998 speech on Iraq, where the former prez "guaranteed" that Saddam Hussein would use his weapons of mass destruction. "Let's imagine the future," Clinton said seven years ago. "What if [saddam] fails to comply [with U.N. sanctions], and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?" Clinton warned: "He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. "And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." Other soundbytes from Democratic flip-floppers will feature WMD warnings from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Smells like moveon.org materiel :whistle:

There are some excellent "clickable" links imbedded in this article on the FoxNews website with a lot of interesting supporting data on this article - check 'em out - KF FoxNews Thursday, November 10, 2005 By Steven Milloy You may remember the 1970s song “On the Cover of Rolling Stone” by Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show, especially the catchy lyrics, “Wanna see my picture on the cover, Wanna buy five copies for my mother…” Well I didn’t make the cover of the Nov. 17 Rolling Stone (Billie Joe Armstrong of the rock group Green Day did) but I did get my picture in a pretty exclusive gallery that also featured President Bush; ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond; author Michael Crichton; Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.); and the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s global warming point man Myron Ebell. Rolling Stone knocked the six of us as the “leading debunkers” of global warming, while heaping praise on its “Warriors & Heroes: Twenty-five Leaders Who Are Fighting to Stave Off Planetwide Catastrophe.” Just who are some of these “warriors” and “heroes”? While you’ll find quick takes on all of them at JunkScience.com, we’ll focus here on those “heroes” who have scientific credentials. Rolling Stone calls NASA scientist James Hansen the “Paul Revere” of global warming as it was Hansen who famously sounded the alarm about global warming in his 1988 testimony before Congress. But Dr. Hansen’s predictions of global temperature increases have also been famously wrong. While Dr. Hansen predicted a 0.34 degrees Centigrade rise in average global temperatures during the 1990s, actual surface temperatures rose by only one-third as much (0.11 degrees Centigrade) and lower atmosphere temperatures actually declined. At least the real Paul Revere was right -- the British did come. Dr. Robert Watson is extolled as “The Messenger” by Rolling Stone. Watson is lauded for leading the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in concluding that humans have already warmed the planet and that the Earth’s temperature will rise by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. But as pointed out in this column previously, the sort of crystal ball climate modeling that the IPCC report relies on has never been validated against historical temperatures, so it’s difficult to take its predictions of future temperatures too seriously. Moreover, global warming theory and its climate models say that atmospheric temperature increases should be 30 percent greater than surface temperature increases, but they’re not -- they’re actually less. As chairman of the IPCC, Watson was responsible for propagating the myth that only 1 or 2 percent of scientists did not believe humans were responsible for global warming. Watson, of course, overlooked at least 17,000 scientists who signed a petition cautioning against global warming alarmism – a petition compiled with the assistance of former National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Dr. Frederick Seitz. The global warming “Hardballer” is the current NAS president Dr. Ralph Cicerone who earned Rolling Stone’s admiration for supposedly “facing down” global warming skeptics in a NAS report on the subject. Perhaps political hardball is Dr. Cicerone’s strength – but it’s not clear that climate science is. Dr. Fred Singer describes Dr. Cicerone as an atmospheric chemist who should have won the Nobel Prize 30 years ago for his work on the possible destruction of stratospheric ozone by chlorine. But Cicerone is no climate scientist, according to Dr. Singer, and his July 2005 testimony before Congress proves it. “While paying lip service to uncertainties, [Dr. Cicerone] managed leave the impression of a substantial 20th-century human-caused warming [while] ignoring the cooling between 1940 and 1975 that has always created problems for advocates of anthropogenic global warming. Virginia State climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels also had much say about Cicerone’s congressional testimony – or rather much to say about what Cicerone omitted to say. Then there’s the “Tide Turner,” Dr. Robert Corell who Rolling Stone cites for chairing the alarmist report known as the “Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.” But Corell’s “polar bear scare” was on thin ice when I wrote about it in this column ] and remains so one year later – all you need do is to look at the data. Rolling Stone’s “Visionary” is Amory Lovins, a proponent of hydrogen fuel cells. But at least some in the alternative energy crowd have a different take on Lovins. In an article for the Alternative Energy Action Network entitled, “Amory Lovins Misleads with Numbers,” Arthur Miller criticized a recent Lovins article in Scientific American on energy efficiency and hydrogen fuel cells for “[throwing] a lot of numbers around, but far too many of the ones he provides are irrelevant, meaningless, or misleading.” As you may guess, I’m very pleased that Rolling Stone chose to pit the six “leading debunkers” (there are actually many more prominent debunkers that Rolling Stone overlooked) against its 25 “warriors and heroes” -- a group that, ironically, makes the case against global warming hysteria quite well. That’s ample compensation for not making the cover of Rolling Stone. Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com, is adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and is the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

The left wing liberal wackos and their willing accomplices in the media only listen to their politically correct so-called scientists. The most qualified and credible climatologist say their data is not valid and suspect at best! :coolball:

Global warming is the biggest farce of the past 20 years! :w00t:

You left out liberals . . . oh never mind, you covered it with crooked politicians! :w00t:

AOL = Time Warner . . . one of the most liberally slanted organizations on earth. They rank right up there with the New York Times, Dan Rather and CBS :nuke::whistle::w00t::thumbdown: You can just look at the poll questions and easily see the whole thing is set up to achieve the outcome they are looking for! :w00t: The whole thing "suggests" the Bush administration and republicans are evil and EVERYONE knows it! :w00t: What a crock! :whistle:

AOL = Liberal slanted poll! The liberal media is doing it's best to "manufacture" dissatisfaction with EVERYTHING to set up dimocrats for the next election cycle . . . hoping, praying to regain the White House and congress! Smart Americans, like last time, aren't buying it! :w00t:

You're right Colmes. The truth doesn't fit their "get Bush and Cheney" agenda! Notice how they never comment on anything that doesn't fit their programmed pea brains! It would force them to consider all the facts and think for themselves! :w00t:

What about it liberals . . . how about cutting some of the excessive taxes instead of messing with supply and demand? I'm guessing liberals think we should regulate the price. :w00t:

I heard a discussion on TV the other day about Big Oil profits and Big Taxes. Although, I can't totally defend the oil companies because their profits have somewhat risen lately but in comparison to state, local and federal taxes all levels of government have tacked on throughout the years their profits are chicken feed. If I remember correctly, the oil companies profit amounts to somewhere between 10-13 cents per gallon compared to a national average of 46 cents in taxes! Don't you think the oil executives should be able to turn around and question the congress about their BIG TAX need of 46 cents per gallon of "push water"??? :w00t: Oil Company Executives Defend Profits Nov 9, 10:44 AM (ET) By H. JOSEF HEBERT WASHINGTON (AP) - The chiefs of five major oil companies defended the industry's huge profits Wednesday at a Senate hearing where lawmakers said they should explain prices and assure people they're not being gouged. There is a "growing suspicion that oil companies are taking unfair advantage," Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said as the hearing opened in a packed Senate committee room. "The oil companies owe the country an explanation," he said. Lee Raymond, chairman of Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), said he recognizes that high gasoline prices "have put a strain on Americans' household budgets" but he defended his companies huge profits, saying petroleum earnings "go up and down" from year to year. ExxonMobil, the worlds' largest privately owned oil company, earned nearly $10 billion in the third quarter. Raymond was joined at the witness table by the chief executives of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BPAmerica and Shell Oil USA. Together the companies earned more than $25 billion in profits in the July-September quarter as the price of crude oil hit $70 a barrel and gasoline surged to record levels after the disruptions of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Raymond said the profits are in line with other industries when profits are compared to the industry's enormous revenues. Democrats had wanted the executives to testify under oath, but Republicans rejected the idea. "If I were a witness I would demand to be put under oath," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii. The soaring prices have sent shivers through a Congress worried about political fallout. The White House said President Bush was concerned about energy prices. "Energy prices have been too high and energy companies have realized significant increases in profits," said spokesman Scott McClellan. "It's important that the private sector be good corporate citizens and invest in the energy infrastructure and support those who are in need." A number of Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, have called for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Domenici said he opposed such a move saying "it didn't work before and probably won't work again." The government imposed taxes on oil company windfall profits in the 1970s, resulting in a drop in investment in oil development. The executives hoped to dampen any further momentum for calls for taxing windfall oil company profits, something still viewed as a longshot but also no longer out of the question. Such a tax could inhibit investment in refineries or oil exploration and production, the industry argues. James Mulla, chairman of ConocoPhillips, said "we are ready open our records" to dispute allegations of price gouging. ConocoPhillips earned $3.8 billion in the third quarter, an 89 percent increase over a year earlier. But he said that represents only a 7.7 percent profit margin for every dollar of sales. "We do not consider that a windfall," said Mulva. David O'Reilly, chairman of Chevron, attributed the high energy prices to tight supplies even before the Gulf hurricanes hit and said his company is "investing aggressively in the development of new energy supplies." The oil executives said their companies spend tens of billions of dollars in investments. Shell earned $9 billion in the third quarter, said John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., but he said over the last five years the company's investment in U.S. operations was equal to its income from U.S. sales. The oil industry's record third-quarter profits - at a time when motorists were reeling from unprecedentedly high gasoline costs and warned of huge heating bills this winter - have caught the attention of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Some analysts predict the 29 largest oil companies will earn $96 billion this year. "Consumers need relief from high energy prices," Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said, reiterating his call for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. "Talk is cheap. The price of energy is not. Congress needs to act." By most accounts, the hearing Wednesday was to have much rhetoric and result in little action. Lawmakers, especially on the Republican side, "need some cover in the face of record-breaking profits," said Christine Tezak, an energy analyst for Stanford Washington Research Group. "Expect a lot of criticism ... but there is far more rhetoric than votes in support of windfall profits taxes." The industry argues that the run-up of gasoline prices, which began earlier in the year, stems from high global crude oil costs and growing demand for gasoline this past summer, followed by a disruption of gasoline supplies when the hurricanes shut down more than a dozen refineries on the Gulf Coast. Prices since have retreated from more than $3 a gallon to an average nationwide last week of $2.37, according to the Energy Department. While the loudest calls for action against oil companies have come from Democrats, some Republicans have expressed similar frustrations. "They are unhappy with the behavior of the oil companies," said Republican pollster David Winston, who advises GOP congressional leaders. "These are free market guys. They believe the market works. But in this case they are concerned that the consumer was clearly taken advantage of ... and they're pretty angry about it."

Newsmax Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2005 11:50 a.m. EST Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's Leakgate investigation is coming unraveled, as witness after witness steps forward to challenge a key premise of his controversial probe. Was the identity of Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame really a deep dark secret before she was "outed" by columnist Robert Novak in July 2003? The number of witnesses now saying "No" has climbed to four - and none of them have apparently been interviewed by Fitzgerald's investigators. On Wednesday, Wayne Simmons, a 27-year veteran at the CIA, told Fox News Radio: "As most people now know, [Plame] was traipsed all over Washington many years ago by Joe Wilson and introduced at embassies and other parties as 'my CIA wife.'" Last week, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WABC Radio's John Batchelor that during a 2002 conversation with Wilson while the two waited to appear on a TV show, Wilson casually mentioned that his wife worked at "the Agency." In Oct. 2003, NBC's diplomatic correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, told CNBC that Plame's occupation "was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger." Mitchell added: "So a number of us began to pick up on that." And in Sept. 2003, NationalReviewOnline's Cliff May wrote that when Plame's CIA connection was mentioned in Novak's column - "That wasn't news to me." "I had been told that [Plame was CIA] - but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of." The day his report appeared, May told the Fox News Channel's John Gibson: "I knew this, and a lot of other people knew it." In fact, rumors now swirl around Washington that Plame used to take her friends to lunch at the CIA's cafeteria. So what has Mr.Fitzgerald - who was hailed as a "prosecutor's prosecutor" only weeks ago - done with the avalanche of testimony that contradicts his stated claim that Plame's job "was not widely known"? Apparently nothing. In the six days since he's gone public, Gen. Vallely says prosecutors have yet to contact him. Ms. Mitchell has been mum since her "widely known" comment resurfaced last week, offering no indication whether Fitzgerald has bothered to check her story out. If Mr. May has been interrogated, he's also keeping it to himself. And Mr. Simmons has made no mention of any contact with Fitzgerald's team. On the other hand, the prosecutor's prosecutor made a big show of interviewing two of the Wilsons neighbors just four days before he announced his indictment of Lewis Libby - in a bid to establish whether Ms. Plame's occupation was indeed secret. It was, as far as her neighbors were concerned. But the revelation that Fitzgerald had waited till the last minute to confirm such a key aspect of his case raised more than a few eyebrows. Now, with four witnesses on the record saying they knew what the Wilsons' neighbors didn't - and two of those witnesses coming forward even before the Leakgate investigation began - it's beginning to look like Mr. Fitzgerald deliberately ignored critical testimony that would have compelled him to close up shop well before he ever got to Mr. Libby.

Where are the Michael Moore, Cincy Sheehan, Haaard Dean, Hanoi Jane Fonda, John Kerry loving liberals telling us that this nut is telling the truth? I heard he was going to star in Michael Moore's next movie! :w00t: