Kids can't vote

I've never been a fan of kids being used for political purposes, especially since the ankle-biters can't vote.

I'm going to agree with the way Jonah Goldberg put it over at The Corner:

All I need to know about your politics...

is whether you find this creepy or not.

There really just isn't much more to say about this, except, Kim Jong-il would be proud.

And I weep for the future.

UPDATE: Apparently the youtube link is dead. Someone removed the video (likely out of embarrassment).

Crisis is the friend of The State

No doubt you've heard by now that Big Government is swooping in to 'save the day' and hand over $700 billion of your money to help the Wall Street / Bad Loans / Worthless Mortgage mess. But the very latest is that the deal seems far from done. Here are current details from the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush and the two men fighting to succeed him joined forces Thursday at a historic White House meeting on a multibillion-dollar Wall Street bailout plan, aiming to stave off a national economic disaster. Key members of Congress said they had struck a deal earlier in the day, but its future was unclear.

The tentative accord would give the Bush administration just a fraction of the $700 billion it had requested up front, with half that total subject to a congressional veto, Capitol Hill aides said. But nothing appeared final. Amid several signs that conservatives were balking, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, emerged from the White House and said the announced agreement "is, obviously, no agreement."

Both of Congress' Republican leaders, Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell, issued statements saying there was not yet an agreement.

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, who have both sought to distance themselves from the unpopular Bush, sat down with the president at the White House for an hourlong afternoon session that was striking in this brutally partisan season and apparently without precedent. By also including Congress' Democratic and Republican leaders, the meeting gathered nearly all Washington's political power structure at one long table in a small West Wing room.

Am I supposed to be comforted?

We are merely armchair political observers here at CF, certainly not economic experts, but we are skeptical that Big Gov and massive amounts of taxpayer money are the cure.

In fact, maybe we don't need a cure?

Oh boy, I've gone and said it now.

The perfect beauty of Capitalism is that it is far from perfect. There is risk, there is danger, there is prosperity, there is crushing loss. That's the price we pay. When things turn south we don't abandon free markets and turn to Socialism overnight. We take small, measured steps to restore order and let those who made poor decisions live with the consequences.

Cruel, I know. But that's Capitalism, more to the point, that's Conservatism: Not everyone's going to make it. We don't like that, we wish it were different, but it's reality. Not everyone is going to succeed. We do what we can to help those we can, but those who make bad choices again and again cannot be saved. There is no such thing as Utopia - not on Main Street and not on Wall Street. Prosperity for as many as possible is worth the risk that a few will fail, including financial titans like AIG.

Socialism, on the other hand, removes that risk so everyone is equal -- and equally miserable. Nationalizing major financial institutions in not the answer.

If you want to punish 'greedy' CEO's then by all means, get out the tar and feathers and send them up the river; certainly if illegalities are found. But remember that 'greed' is a powerful motivator, and risk is one ingredient in the fuel of freedom. Without it, where would this country be today? There are no guarantees.

So consider these things as you hear the Prophets of Doom on television telling you that Big Gov's bailout is the only way to prevent another Depression. Free markets will work these things out without the need for expanded government, more oversight and unnecessary regulations that do more harm than good in the long term.

Oh, and to the European press, the rumors of Capitalism's death are greatly exaggerated.

The sun will come up tomorrow people, and we're a long way from bread lines. No matter what NBC News tells you, remember that.

Patriotic student told to leave California public school

This story seems to be typical these days:

DOS PALOS -- Students at Dos Palos High School protested Thursday -- by wearing patriotic regalia to school -- after a sophomore student was forced to remove a T-shirt depicting the American flag.

Officials at the Merced County school confirmed Thursday that Jake Shelly was forced to take off a red, white and blue tie-dyed American flag T-shirt on Tuesday. The shirt said nothing offensive, just: "United States of America, Washington, D.C."

The school's assistant principal issued Shelly a bright yellow T-shirt that read "DCV: Dress Code Violator" to wear for the rest of the day. He was given his shirt back after classes ended.

"It was really embarrassing and humiliating to have to wear that all day -- and just for supporting your country," his sister Kaycee Shelly said.

Kaycee Shelly told members of the media at lunchtime that her brother was overwhelmed and did not want to do any more interviews.

Earlier in the day, he was speaking with a local news station when an unidentified teacher walked up to him, ripped off the microphone clipped to his shirt and told him he was not allowed to talk to the media.

District officials said they apologized to the student, his family and the local American Legion on Wednesday -- Constitution Day.

"In reviewing the dress code at the time, an administrator felt the shirt was in violation of that section of the dress code," said Superintendent Brian Walker. "She asked him to remove it and he did."

This is classic moonbat Liberalism at work. A kid wears an American flag shirt to school and some wacky administrator overreacts and sends them home -- no doubt sensing this bold display of patriotism could, will, must offend someone.

California, you just have to love it. It's amazing how such a beautiful state could become so pinko over the years. But hey, at least they don't try to close down Marine recruiting offices out there. Oh....wait.

Islamic thugs attack U.S. embassy in Yemen, kill 16

While the headlines are dominated by a (supposedly) shaky economy, it's important to note that Islamic terrorists do not care what's happening on Wall Street.

I've never been an 'issues' voter, and certainly not a 'one issue' voter. But if I was, it damn sure wouldn't be the economy...stupid.

From the AP:

SAN'A, Yemen (AP) — Attackers armed with automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and at least one suicide car bomb assaulted the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital on Wednesday. Sixteen people were killed, including six assailants, officials said. No Americans were hurt in the deadly attempt to breach the compound walls, which the U.S. said bore "all the hallmarks of an al-Qaida attack."

Multiple explosions rang out outside the heavily guarded facility, and gunfire raged for at least 10 minutes at the concrete checkpoints that ring the compound. The dead included six attackers, six Yemeni guards and four civilians, the state news agency SABA reported. Security officials said people lined up for visas were among those killed or wounded.

It was the deadliest attack on a compound that has been targeted four times in recent years by bombings, mortars and shootings. Yemen, the ancestral homeland of Osama bin Laden, has struggled to put down al-Qaida-linked Islamic militants, often to the frustration of U.S. counterterrorism officials.

Yemeni security officials said a little-known group called Islamic Jihad, unrelated to the Palestinian group of the same name, claimed responsiblity for the attack. But Yemeni authorities have blamed the group in past attacks that have later been claimed by al-Qaida in postings on the Internet.

Read the entire story here.

NY Times' scorched Earth policy on Palin

I've been way too busy the last few days and haven't had as much time to rant as much as I'd like to. Hopefully this week things will slow down and I can get back into a groove with this blog.

I did want to say a few words about that old liberal fishwrap The New York Times and their 'objective' coverage of Sarah Palin. If you haven't heard, the Times published no less than four hit pieces on Governor Palin this past Sunday. Between the supposedly 'hard' news stories and the Op Ed columns, their concern over what was once a sure win for Barry is obvious. And since the Times (unfortunately) drives much of what is reprinted in papers around the country and broadcast on the networks, the Palin-bashing has plenty of outlets to bleed from.

It is clear that the Times is in absolute panic mode - as is most of the Left - due to Palin's growing popularity.

And speaking of Op Ed columns, I couldn't leave you tonight without mentioning Bob Herbert's laughably paranoid diatribe from a couple of days ago which you can read here.

Mr. Herbert writes:

John McCain, who is shameless about promoting himself as America’s ultimate patriot, put the best interests of the nation aside in making his incredibly reckless choice of a running mate. But there is a profound double standard in this country. The likes of John McCain and George W. Bush can do the craziest, most irresponsible things imaginable, and it only seems to help them politically.

Bob, I am in the uncomfortable position of telling you that you and your Democratic party are the 'incredibly reckless' ones. Once again, your party has shown its complete and utter ineptitude at choosing presidential candidates. (See Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry). Obama is probably the least qualified and least experienced presidential candidate in history; and he's at the top of your ticket. He's also probably the most liberal high office candidate in history as well, despite the centrist rhetoric he's tried to adopt in the general election.

Now, can't you just go back to writing about how we're greedily abusing the planet's resources while exploiting the third world? Oh wait, that's Thomas Friedman's job. What do you normally write about again?

You don't have to take your subconscious buyer's remorse out on us. Tell it to a bottle of scotch.

India bombings carried out by Muslim terrorists

From the AP:

NEW DELHI (AP) — Police commandos carried out raids across New Delhi, detaining several people believed to be connected to a series of blasts that ripped through the Indian capital, killing at least 21 people and wounding about 100 others, police said Sunday.

A series of at least five explosions struck a park and crowded shopping areas in New Delhi just after sundown Saturday, a prime time for weekend shoppers in the crowded, chaotic city.

An Islamic militant group claimed responsibility for the bombings in an e-mail sent to several Indian news organizations.

By Sunday the death toll had risen to 21, said city police spokesman Rajan Bhagat. At least 97 others were wounded, he said.

Read the entire story here.

Some more 9/11 notes from around the web

I didn't get a chance to post a roundup of 9/11 related stories and notes the other day. Here are a few I thought were worth pointing out:

From Mark Steyn:

With allies like these...

23% of Germans, 30% of Mexicans and 36% of Turks believe the United States government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Click here to read an excellent column from Victor Davis Hanson over at National Review:

A highlight [emphasis added]:

While many rightly point to lapses in the conduct of the Iraq war, faulty intelligence, and wrongheaded emphasis on supposed arsenals of WMDs rather than the casus belli outlined in the 23 writs authorized by the Congress, few can answer a more existential question: Had we not met, defeated, and humiliated tens of thousands of jihadists on the battlefields of Iraq, where else might we have inflicted such a terrible defeat on our enemies — given the nuclear sanctuary of Pakistan, the bellicose governments of Iran and Syria, and the duplicity of the Gulf monarchies? And if we had not killed, captured, scattered, and turned our enemies abroad, how then might we have prevented them from coming back here to attack us at home? And are the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, as in the past, aiding anti-American terrorists, or helping to hunt them down?

RedState.com has a fine take on the kooky Left's attitude towards 9/11 called "September 11th for Demmies":

Highlights:

This attitude shouldn't be a surprise to us. Perhaps the particular viciousness of the mocking graphic will catch you off-guard, but the "sick of 9-11" routine is hardly new. "Progressive" folks have been telling America to get over 9-11-01 since 9-12-01. (Well, 9/13, 9/12 was reserved for mealy-mouthed columnists to bleat about the "danger" of reprisals against Muslims in America which the New York Times kind of American was all too certain would be swift, abundant, and heinous from the bitter, gun-toting, religious nuts in flyover country.)

Take, for example, this article by Chris Thompson, currently of the Village Voice, published at East Bay Express on the first anniversary of 9/11. The essential point of his article was that it was all too dramatic and, really, oughtn't we just treat it like a fluke and never the more fret? "What really happened one year ago? Some bad men got lucky and hurt us, so we bombed the s**t out of some caves they were hiding in. Now what's on TV?" That wasn't snark. It was his point.

Joan Smith at The Independent/UK said it in February of 2003. She wonders when we'll get over it, and summarizes her position by saying, "If the world has become a more dangerous place since 11 September 2001, it is not solely because of the activities of a bunch of Islamic terrorists." It's America, you see. Sort of like, when a person is being mugged, and they punch the mugger in the face; well the mugger isn't really the only one bringing violence to the street is he?

Another great Mark Steyn piece called "Being Sad isn't Enough":

Highlights [emphasis added]:

Seven years is a long time in a present-tense culture, and attitudes to the war - if, indeed, it is still a war to most people - evolved pretty quickly. Here's what I wrote on the third anniversary, marked by the Beslan massacre, in The Spectator, September 11th 2004:

On the eve of this week’s anniversary, hundreds of children were murdered in their schoolhouse by terrorists. Terrible. But even more terrible was the reaction of what passes for the civilized world, the reluctance to confront the truth of what had occurred. The perpetrators were “separatists”, according to The Christian Science Monitor – what, you mean like my fellow Quebecers? They were “commandoes”, according to Agence France-Presse – you mean like the SAS?

“We have been confronted with a deep human tragedy,” said Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot, speaking for the European Union. “I am appalled that a school and its pupils are being used for political ends,” said UNESCO’s Director-General Koichiro Matsuura. A “tragedy”? “Political ends”?

Five days after the slaughter, The New York Times finally got around to using the I-word, and then only in paragraph 24:

While the extent of international support may be debated, the attacks bear some trappings of Islamic militancy. Officials here in Beslan said they had found notebooks with Arabic writing, and witnesses reported hearing Arabic exhortations, though the attackers mostly spoke Russian.

Any Arabic exhortation in particular? Only the slogan of the age, “Allahu Akbar.” Nothing to worry about, folks. They may kill kids, but they’re just “separatists”, “radicals”, “activists”. No connection with any events you may have heard about in Madrid, Istanbul, Bali, Tel Aviv or New York. The approved tone in polite society is that of my Telegraph colleague Adam Nicolson: keep it tasteful, keep it elegant, lots of exquisitely honed over-written allusions - each dead child was “a Pietà, the archetype of pity. Each is a Cordelia carried on at the end of Act V…” Lovely stuff, may even be an award in it. But not a word about the killers or a hint of their identity. Only a limpid, passive sadness. Nicolson is sedated but, unlike Clinton, not arousable.

Three years after September 11th, the Islamist death cult is the love whose name no-one dare speak. And, if you can’t even bring yourself to identify your enemy, are you likely to defeat him? Can you even know him? He seems to know us pretty well. He understands the pressures he can bring to bear on Spain, and the Phillipines, and France, too. He’s come to appreciate the self-imposed constraints under which his enemy fights – the legalisms, the political correctness, the deference to ineffectual multilateralism. He’s revolted by the infidels’ decadence but he has to admit it’s enormously helpful: the useful idiots of the pro-gay, pro-feminist left are far more idiotic and far more useful to him than they ever were to Stalin.

Monica Crowley talks about the anniversary in this column over on her blog:

In the seven years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been a movement to call the enemy by an euphemism, to strip away any label describing them as they really are: radical Islamic terrorists.

These Islamists believe they are engaged in a holy war against us. Listen to them. They have declared war on us. Listen to them. They routinely tell us what they believe, what their intentions are, and how they plan to carry them out. Listen to them. They tell us they are coming back for us. Listen to them.

Finally, check out this post from Crush Liberalism which I found particularly good:

Highlights [emphasis added]:

To those of you on the left: Feel free to Google that date if it doesn’t ring a bell for you.

It’s hard to believe that it’s been seven years since that fateful day. All of us remember what we were doing when we heard about the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, as well as United Flight 93 going down in Shanksville, PA. The face of this country changed forever.

See, gone were the days of Clintonian capitulation. Gone were the days of Reagan’s scamper out of Beirut. Gone were the days of bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan, or trying to serve an warrant to Osama bin Laden or reading him his rights. That fateful day marked the turning point in this country when we looked at the backwards savages who slaughtered in the name of their god and said “We will hunt you down like the couscous-sucking dogs that you are and snuff you out, for however long it takes!” We meant it, too.

At least, we meant it back then.

There's much more out there obviously. But the anniversary has come and gone now. You can go back to watching 90210 and burying your head in the sand.

Seven years later

The gray skies today were fitting. It's a somber anniversary. Always will be, and should. No domestic politics today, I just thought I'd share a picture I took at Ground Zero last month when I visited New York. It was my first time at the site, and it really brought the memories of that day back. I know that life goes on, but I guess part of me has never fully been able to move on. Truthfully, I don't think I want to. Some would call that angry, or sad.

But I don't ever want to forget the heroism that we witnessed that day and still witness from our troops across the globe today. I don't want to forget the national unity that we all felt, either. But most importantly - and to some maybe most unfortunately - I don't ever want to forget the horror of a perverted enemy that stands for nothing but bloodlust.

Whatever we do as a nation from this point forward, however you feel about how we should or should not respond to Islamic terrorism, my greatest hope is that my young nephews won't have to grow up in a world riddled with the debris caused by Radical Islam. One way or another, we're going to have to figure this problem out. We're going to have to erase it.

May we proceed to that end with undying love for America and her ideals, with wisdom, and most of all, with strength.

Lipstick on a pig part 2

It's been a really long day and since I get paid elsewhere, posting on this blog is low on the priority list. So, I don't even have the energy to get into Matt Damon tonight. But don't worry, I'll get to him.

After absorbing this 'lipstick on a pig' story all day I'm convinced it's another one of these fake controversies that get blown out of proportion. It's pretty much a non-story. But isn't that what political campaigns are now? 24-hour 'gotcha' games fueled by nothing-better-to-do media?

Look, Obama wasn't insulting Palin - at least not directly - and the McCain camp should've just let it go. In fact, they would have looked a lot better (and won even more favor than they're already getting lately) if Sarah Palin had come out today and said, "Look folks, he wasn't talking about me...let it go."

Nevertheless, Obama screwed up by using a word from one of the best lines in Palin's convention speech. (And if you watch the video clip, it's almost as if he knew it was a poor choice as it was coming out...kind of funny.) That was the mistake: Not that it was a sexist insult, but that he should've known it would remind people of the pit bull line.

Now, I will admit to being slightly amused at seeing a Democrat become the victim of the same 'gotcha' tactics that the press has used on the Right for years. I mean, how many times have they twisted something Rush Limbaugh (like him or not) has said in an effort to mute his credibility? (Intellectually honest people only need answer that question.)

Advice to both campaigns: When you're stumping at these rallies, you're already playing to a friendly crowd. Why waste time bashing the other candidate? You're preaching to the choir aren't you? Why not spend that time talking about your ideas and what you want to do? I mean, both camps have said they want to move past these 'negative partisan politics'.

Right?

Lipstick on a pig

As I wake up this morning, the Barry 'lipstick on a pig' controversy seems to be taking on a life of its own. It's no surprise, so much of this is a circus and these things tend to explode and then fade in a matter of days. I have no idea if Barry was taking a shot at Palin personally or just referring to the 'dressing up' of bad policies. From what I understand, both he and McCain both have used this phrase or similar phrases in the past.

But, after Palin's speech, a seasoned politician wouldn't have touched that word (lipstick) with a 10-foot pole. Way to go, Barry.

Sarah Palin: Checking the facts

FactCheck.org has a lengthy piece up today debunking some of Sarah Palin's so called 'extreme' positions. You'll find after reading it that most of what's circulating out in the blogosphere and mass emails is just not true. It's also interesting that some of those false claims end up in legitimate news stories and broadcasts without being verified.

Here is their summary: [emphasis added]

We've been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain's running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn't cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She's been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Now, I've already heard Joe Biden call Sarah Palin 'extreme' on a couple of occasions. First, he needs to make sure what he's backing that up with. Second, if being a gun-toting, moose-hunting, God-fearing, America-loving hockey mom makes you 'extreme', then what the hell does that make Jeremiah Wright? Mainstream?

I haven't had a chance to work on a complete write-up about Palin and my thoughts on her being chosen by McCain, but hopefully I will soon. Stay tuned peeps!

Daily Kooks: Feeling the heat

A random comment from Daily Kook that serves as a sample of the overall nervousness on the hard Left: [original spelling and grammar included]

Palin's phenomenon is similar (though less in its reach) to Obama's 8-9 months ago. The plus: she is an empty suit indeed. The minus: we have little time to expose that.

McCain is a funny guy: he decided to turn this election on Palin. We shall not avoid the challenge.

If succeed in exposing Palin's epty suit & McCain's judgement (or lack thereof), the election will be over. But the this task is very tough. With little time left.

So, attack Palin and hope this then reflects on the American Hero John McCain's judgement. A tough task for Barry indeed.

European media, kind of like American media

Another interesting tidbit from Mark Steyn over at The Corner, discussing an email he received from a reader across the pond. [emphasis added]

I'm a political consultant based here in Ireland, and I can tell you that this country is absolutely brainwashed. I don't think Americans have any idea how much the European media is in the tank for Obama, and nor do I think they realise how much this has to do with a rancid anti-Americanism that pervades all Mainstream coverage of international affairs in Europe.

I had high hopes at one stage that John McCain might get a fair shake here in Ireland - he's visited a few times, and been well received - but once he got the nomination, and once he nominated Palin, our media started to paint him as satan. When Obama says he'll "restore America's reputation" what it really means is that people who hate America will be delighted by his election. Why so many Americans don't see it that way astounds me.

This kind of dovetails with my earlier post about the MTV host pleading with America to elect Barry. I honestly think this is the first U.S. election in history where Euros definitely wish they could (and in some cases may actually think they can) cast a vote. Luckily, that's not allowed.

Can I watch 'Halloween' in the same way again?

Jamie Jamie Jamie...I loved you in 'Halloween' and 'Trading Places', even more so in 'True Lies' (I think you know why.) How am I ever supposed to view these masterpieces in the same way again when you drop wisdom like this on us? [emphasis added]

I couldn't hold my own for one minute in a debate on any issue with someone like a Barack Obama or Joseph Biden and neither can Sarah Palin. When the call comes at 3AM I want a mind who was at the top of their class, who has gravitas and a real intellect. I want a leader who is a scholar who can hold the history of civilization in his head and will read and learn from the past as he charts the future.
— Jamie Lee Curtis, The Huffington Post, 9/3/08

Huh?

I know I shouldn't be surprised, I mean, it's Hollywood after all and you have to swear your undying hatred for evil Republicans when you join that club. But let me inform Ms. Curtis of something: The worry that you just described about "wanting a mind" who is at the "top of their class" and is ready to take that 3AM call? That concern? That worry? That horror? Well, that's exactly how many of us feel about your boy Barry.

But hey, it's a free country sister.

MTV: Employer of limey moonbats

I don't know who this guy is - and not that MTV has been relevant for about 10 years or so - but did you happen to see any of this? In a strange way, you kind of have to respect the balls of this bloke. I guess it's true, Barry really is running for President of The World.

Speaking of 'retards'...I wonder if there will be any protests of MTV by the same groups that protested 'Tropic Thunder'.

Quote of the Day

Came across this on Mark Steyn's site. As a sort of tribute to William F. Buckley Jr. who famously said: "I would rather be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston phone book than the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."

I would rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Wasilla, AK phone book than by the editors of The Harvard Law Review.

For what it's worth.

UN: Eat less meat to fight Global Warming

Here we go. This story from The Observer in the UK reports that the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is recommending we all eat less meat in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.

His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warning.

I don't even have the time and energy to get into what a sham the UN IPCC was. The fact that they shared a Nobel Peace Prize with L. Ron Gore should be sufficient explanation at this point.

So much of Global Warming hype is propaganda designed to create the notion that evil Big Business (like the Meat Industry) is the root cause of this alleged world problem. It's subtle, and effective. But it goes beyond that. It's not just the creeping anti-capitalism that Climate Change hysteria most certainly is, but it's the arrogance of supposed intellectuals who know the best way in which you should live your life. We all need to eat tofu and be skinny and happy and wear our bike helmets; instead of being the fat, lazy resource-suckers that we are now.

And by God you will adhere or be sent to the back of the bus with Michael Crichton.

UK Minister calls global warming 'hysterical pseudo-religion'

From BBC News in Great Britain: UK Environment Minister Sammy Wilson boldly claims what most of us rational folks have suspected all along: that Global Warming is more about politics than confirmed science.

The Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has angered green campaigners by describing their view on climate change as a "hysterical pseudo-religion".

In an article in the News Letter, Mr Wilson said he believed it occurred naturally and was not man-made.

"Resources should be used to adapt to the consequences of climate change, rather than King Canute-style vainly trying to stop it," said the minister.

We hope Mr. Wilson has a good career backup plan because with the way UK and European politics are going these days, he's probably going to be looking for a new job soon. If you question the 'green movement', they equate you with a Holocaust denier and send you on your merry ol' way.