Friday, July 18, 2008

More Insanity From the Left on GW

It seems that more and more people are discovering the truth about the "global warming" scam. The leftist of course continue to come up with more ridiculous ideas on how to "cure" the situation as if it were something like the common cold. In my reading I ran across the following tibits:

In a bid to reduce so-called “greenhouse gases,” Columbia University researchers have proposed injecting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants into formations of volcanic rock beneath 8,000 feet of ocean and 1,000 feet of sediment in the Pacific Northwest. They claim that the porous basalt can hold up to 120 years’ worth of U.S. emissions. This instead of offshore drilling? That sounds like a lot of hot air to us.

Speaking of rocks, researchers at the University of Texas claimed in a recent paper that global warming will cause a massive rise in the number of Americans who suffer from kidney stones. In keeping with today’s scientific drumbeat of doom and gloom, the disastrous effects this will have on the economy are already spelled out in dollar signs.

Meanwhile, Lawrence Solomon, author of the anti-climate change alarmism book The Deniers, has discovered liberal bias on Wikipedia. Solomon claims that editors have conspired to forge a false doomsday consensus regarding global warming on the popular online “people’s encyclopedia.” More specifically, he cites Wikipedia administrator and so-called “expert” William Connolley, a one-time climatologist who made a number of unsuccessful bids for office with England’s Green Party, claiming that Connolley uses his editorial power to enforce his doomsday beliefs and smear reputable scientists. Beyond climate change alarmism, Solomon says, Wikipedia is skewed toward Leftist views on almost everything. Imagine that.

The one that I found that was really hilarious and so typical of leftist thinking was the one about the cows. I must admit that someone from the more sane side must have written the article because they mentioned beer and potato chips. Only a true southern born writer would have thrown that in.

Climate alarmists have a twisted fascination with cow flatulence. The latest experiment on the frontiers of junk science comes from researchers at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology in Argentina, who had the brilliant idea of strapping giant plastic tanks onto the backs of cows to catch their wind. Really, who wants that job? One researcher estimates that Argentina’s 55 million cows create more than 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. The next step is to figure out which diet reduces methane emissions. Apparently, clover and alfalfa instead of grain will do the trick. Less beer and potato chips, too. Another alternative benefit of this study might be to popularize a whole new kind of whoopee cushion.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

No smoking hot spot

I thought I would change gears a bit from Obama's flip and flops to the topic of the weather. The weather is always a good topic when you really don't want to talk about anything else. However in this case I want to talk about the weather because it is important. This topic is about Global Warming or perhaps should I say the lack of but one would never know it to hear the Left Rev.Al Gore outline his demands and goals for the next president to take on.
I have stated for years that the Global Warming, carbon credit thing was nothing but a scam created by a few to get rich and continued by a few to insure that they had a job or what they call a job which is actually nothing more than scamming the taxpayer into paying for more grants and studies to determine something that doesn't exist except in the minds of a few.

It seems that one of the blokes from down under who has spent years studying Global Warming and carbon effects has decided to blow the whistle on the entire scam. Dr. Evans is not a novice nor is he a disgruntled fired employee with a bone to pick. He's just one smart cookie who can add 2 plus 2 and get 4 instead of some far out number.

Read and enjoy and then pass this along to all your alarmist friends who still believe the sky is falling.

No smoking hot spot

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Rejoicing or Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth

Things aren’t looking so rosy for the Obamazombies! Looks like their empty suit Barry has sold out, after all his earlier speeches were “just words”. At least that is the way he seems to describe his opponents and those with whom HE disagrees with. Looks like “just words” is coming back to bite him in the butt. For the Obamazombies who think this is no real deal, check out this site:

another link from there is: .

I counted over 150 such sites linked to and there are more sites on other links ,which given the fact or supposed fact that Obama's run was fueled by the web, does not bode well for one whose support supposedly came from the internet.

Read it and rejoice if you feel Obama , the empty suit, is wrong for this country. Read it and weep if you are an Obamazombie.

I wonder how many of the Obamazombies, who believe that the WH is Obama’s, remember the 68 and 72 conventions and one Sen. George McGovern? I suggest they read some history. In 68,McGovern had the nomination pretty much sewed up after Robert Kennedy’s death and lost big time at the convention. He then lost the presidential bid in 72. The worst defeat experienced by the Democrats in recent history.

I also found this tibit while checking facts on McGovern and his losses:

In 1969, McGovern was named chairman of the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection; due to the influence of former McCarthy and Kennedy supporters on the staff, the commission significantly reduced the role of party officials and insiders in the nomination process, increased the role of caucuses and primaries, and mandated quotas for proportional black, women, and youth delegate representation.

Does an of this sound familiar to the Obamazombies??? It should since the LSM and a few far left wingers in the Democrat Party have virtually done a repeat of McGovern . Anyone want to wager that the results will be the same? Taking a look at things right now with Obama’s ratings slipping almost daily and the opposition to him by Hillary backers and actual “thinking” old time Democrats, Obama’s chances are looming dimmer by the day.

Will the pacifist who suddenly switched from Hillary to Obama,due to her stance on Iraq, remain blinded by an empty suit who is long on words and short on substance remain in the Obamazombie camp or will they awaken from the “walking dead” slumber and see Obama for what he really is.



On July 3, Barack Obama revealed once and for all that he has run a fraudulent campaign in his attempt to secure the Democratic nomination for President. The foundation of Obama’s campaign had been his claim that he was the anti-war alternative in his opposition to Bush’s war in Iraq.

Now, in a North Dakota campaign event, Obama has declared that he will consult with the generals and “refine his position” on the Iraq war. The Washington Post headlined: “Obama May Consider Slowing Iraq Withdrawal.” But the real message is clear: Obama is moving rapidly away from his earlier 11-month or 16-month timetables for withdrawal and towards full support for endless war, conflict, violence, and bankruptcy in Iraq.

Samantha Power had confessed Obama’s doubletalk on Iraq months ago. The handwriting is now on the wall: Obama will soon go to Iraq, meet with General Petraeus, and then announce his Baghdad road conversion to a policy of open-ended military occupation, oblivious to the immense human costs.

Soon there will be no difference at all between Obama and McCain on the Iraq war, and the Democratic Party will have missed yet another historic opportunity to help the American people end Bush’s and Cheney’s failed Neo-Conservative policies. McCain is exploiting Obama’s radical shifts in position as examples that Obama has no principles, but only opportunism and expediency, and that his much-touted soaring words mean absolutely nothing.

We Democrats now have our last chance to reflect: do we really want to give our nomination to this little-known newcomer who solicited support as a peace advocate, but has now unmasked himself as being a candidate with positions closer to McCain on Iraq?


From the instant that he felt that the Democratic nomination was in his hands, Obama has moved relentlessly to the right in a breathtaking, stunning exhibition of cynicism, duplicity, and fraudulent campaigning. Everything he stood for has been thrown overboard, and Obama has broken his word — the commitment he made to his own core voters and donors.

Obama promised to stop Bush’s assault on the Constitution and civil liberties, and end illegal wiretapping. Now, Obama will vote for the Republican leaning compromise on the FISA bill, including immunity for the telecoms – something only yesterday he promised the Democrats who supported him he would filibuster.

Obama raised money from grassroots Democrats on the premise that their small donations would allow him to be free of the corrupting influence of big money, big business, and special interests, but he has now broken his promise by opting out of public financing for his fall campaign, junking the cause of political reform he claimed to champion.

In Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama posed as a critic of free trade sellouts like NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO, specifically telling voters that voting for Hillary Clinton would be voting to support NAFTA. Now Obama has told Fortune magazine that he is a great friend of free trade and the “market.”

Obama now openly supports the death penalty, more of Bush’s faith-based theocratic subsidies, and the “merit pay” assault on teachers. He wants to cut the corporate income tax, and he now opposes attempts to curb hand gun violence.

In a most glaring betrayal to his contract with the Democratic base, Obama’s current team of economic advisers suggests that he will soon come out for the partial privatization of Social Security, camouflaged as “entitlement reform.”

In short, Obama intends to betray not just his own basic commitments, but the historical foundations of the Democratic Party going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. The modern Democratic Party was built on the New Deal Democrats, a party of shared responsibility, and a contract to be the voice and champion of working class Americans.

Obama’s “new coalition” dismantles the REAL Democratic Party and replaces it with an elite party of Neo-Liberals, stealing the mantle of FDR.

The next 100 or so days will tell the tale but my take on this is that Obama and the Obamazombies are in for a rude awakening in November.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

More Bad NewsFor The Left

How many read about this in the LSM? I believe there might have been a hint a couple of weeks ago that such an event was to take place. I wonder now what those on the far left will have to say about WMD’s. Will the silence be deafening or will they just once again go on the attack and deny the facts that have , just as I predicted at the onset of the Iraq War, come to the forefront. Once again also it comes to light, as I predicted, that Valerie Plame lied, not only about this situation but the rest as well. Nothing like news coming to the front to make the far left rant, rave and cry.

Warfront with Jihadistan: Saddam’s yellowcake

The latest chapter of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program came to a close on Saturday when 550 metric tons of Iraqi “yellowcake” uranium arrived in Canada on a U.S.-flagged ship. In a secret operation that lasted several weeks, U.S. and Iraqi authorities removed the uranium from the Tuwaitha nuclear complex 12 miles south of Baghdad. A Canadian uranium producer purchased the yellowcake from the Iraqi government for “tens of millions of dollars.” Once enriched to a sufficient level, the uranium will be used to generate electricity, which is not exactly what Saddam Hussein had in mind for it. The uranium removed from Tuwaitha was enough to build approximately 142 nuclear weapons.

Critics of the Iraq War have been quick to point out that the UN already knew about Saddam’s yellowcake, and that it was purchased before the 1991 Gulf War, but such arguments are meaningless in view of the Duelfer Report’s conclusion that Saddam was trying to get sanctions lifted in order to resume his WMD program. In addition, there was Saddam’s penchant for throwing out UN weapon inspectors. Had sanctions been lifted with Hussein still in power, no honest person can dismiss the likelihood of a nuclear arms race between Iraq and its primary enemy, Iran. Moreover, British and U.S. intelligence agencies still maintain that Iraq was interested in buying more yellowcake from Niger in 1999, despite the denials of Leftist celebrity Joseph Wilson.

Speaking of Wilson, his lies were further exposed this week with the release of a formerly classified CIA document. According to the document, “super secret agent” Valerie Plame did in fact suggest that the CIA send her husband to Niger to sort out what she called “this crazy report” about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium. Under oath, Plame told Congress that she made no such recommendation, and Wilson himself has insisted that Valerie had nothing to do with his little excursion. Somehow we doubt that the Democrat-controlled Congress will call Plame back in to explain herself. But no matter: The world is safer without Saddam Hussein and his nuclear ambitions, and America is no doubt safer without Valerie Plame at the CIA or Joseph Wilson at the State Department.


A popular Leftist bumper sticker during the Vietnam War read: “What if they had a war, and no one came?” An appropriate sticker for today might ask: “What if the U.S. won a war, but the media didn’t report it?” Despite a plethora of good news about the Iraq war, news outlets are reporting everything except the coalition’s great success. The Iraq War no longer follows the narrative that Leftists and defeatists (but we repeat ourselves) believe it should, and so they have decided that our heroic efforts there are no longer newsworthy.

A case in point is the 18 benchmarks that Congress set last year for Iraqi progress. As of last week, Iraq had met 15 of those benchmarks, but only Fox News Channel saw fit to report it. Fox anchor Brit Hume even predicted as much, saying he doubted that “word of this progress is going to get through. I suspect that this broadcast tonight—and maybe some others on this channel—are the only ones who are going to make a headline out of this.” He was right. While Fox cited the progress in Iraq, most of the Leftmedia outlets were reporting that U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan had risen.

Also ignored is the fact that al-Qa’ida in Iraq has been driven from its last stronghold in Mosul and that attacks by insurgents and militias are down 90 percent from one year ago. Conditions on the ground have improved to the point that the last of the “surge brigades” will leave Iraq by the end of this month, and more than 300 soldiers who were supposed to deploy last month were turned around. But it’s not likely that we will hear any of this on the nightly news. According to American Journalism Review, 23 percent of last year’s news coverage was about Iraq. This year, it has fallen to three percent. One could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that, so far as the Leftmedia is concerned, winning isn’t news.

In the Senate, at least, winning means something. Gen. David Petraeus was confirmed almost unanimously Thursday as the new commander of U.S. Central Command, and Gen. Ray Odierno was confirmed as the new top U.S. commander in Iraq.

And to close on this note with more bad news for those on the left:

This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award

“Coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining the world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.” —Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Searchlight) Please note Harry offers no alternative other than biofuels which by now all of us know has increased the cost of the worlds food supply. According to a report by the World Bank which estimates that biofuels have driven up food costs by 75 percent over the last six years, contrary to the U.S. government’s assertion that biofuels have caused only a three-percent increase in prices.

Obama, the national security neophyte

I pass this along from my friend Mark Alexander, Publisher of Patriot Post USA. There is little that I can add to what he has to say. I only advise that you read it carefully and take heed to what is being said.

This week, Iranian Islamist Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad tested his new ballistic missile, the Shahab-3—range 1,250 miles. Next door in Iraq, 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” uranium ore, which Saddam intended to weaponize for use in his non-existent WMD program, were removed from Tuwaitha. (That’s enough for more than 100 medium-sized nuclear boomers.) And while al-Qa’ida has been routed in Iraq, there was plenty of evidence this week that jihadis are putting up fierce resistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Seems like this is as good a week as any to pause and ponder, “Who should be our next commander in chief?”

The most important constitutional role of our president is that of commander in chief—which is why every Patriot, every American, every human on the planet, should be deeply concerned about the prospect of a “President Obama.”

If Barack Hussein Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, persuades voters that he is a “centrist candidate” and parlays that deception into defeating John McCain, there will be plenty of “change” in the coming years—unpleasant at best and catastrophic at worst.

Arguably, since our nation’s founding, no candidate has been less qualified than Obama to be his political party’s nominee for president of the United States. And nowhere is Obama more ill prepared than in matters of national security.

Obama responded to Iran’s missile tests this week, saying, “Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It’s time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.”

“Incentives”? Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad has vowed to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust. How about this incentive—a paraphrase from JFK during the Cuban missile debacle: “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any missile launched from Iran against any ally of the United States as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.”

Further, Obama insists, “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

Come again? A quick fact check and one finds that Franklin Roosevelt did not hold direct talks with Adolf Hitler or Hideki Tojo. Harry Truman’s “pre-conditions” for peace negotiations with Japan were two atomic bombs, and Truman didn’t talk with North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung after his invasion of South Korea in 1950. Instead, he sent troops, and we are still there, as we are in Japan and Germany. As for John Kennedy, he did meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1961. But Khrushchev knew, after Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs fiasco, that he could outflank Kennedy.

Elie Abel, who authored The Missile Crisis, the definitive text on Russia’s placement of long-range nukes in Cuba, said, “How close we came to Armageddon I did not fully realize until I started researching this book.” In it, he wrote, “There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy’s measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions. There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America’s power. He questioned only the president’s readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are ‘too liberal to fight’.”

When Obama was asked if he would meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong-il, without preconditions, he responded, “I think it’s a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.”

Well heck, Ted Turner went to North Korea and did some negotiating. Perhaps Obama plans to appoint Turner’s ex, “Hanoi” Jane Fonda, his ambassador there.

Talk aside, we have boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Obama’s abject nescience is readily apparent.

“Let me be as clear as I can be,” says Obama. “I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war—responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.”

The only way to end a war “responsibly, deliberately and decisively” is victory.

On retreat from Iraq, Obama says, “What’s important is to understand the difference between strategy and tactics... I am not somebody—unlike George Bush—who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions.”

I have been through 16 national-security programs for senior tacticians and strategists, and I do not recall ever coming across any alumni reference to “Barack Obama.” I would suggest that Obama take a short course on The Long War.

Of course, Obama announced this week that he plans to visit Iraq for a “fact-finding mission,” in order to make “a thorough assessment” [Read: “Change my policy”]. Here is a fact he might consider: Attacks in Iraq are down more than 90 percent over the previous year.

Regarding al-Qa’ida strongholds in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Obama says, “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance.” Rule number one—NEVER take any option off the table, EVER.

Most stupefyingly, Obama has pledged to revitalize the Clinton Doctrine for dealing with terrorists—treat terrorism as a criminal matter.

In regard to Obama’s plan for overall military preparedness, it just gets worse.

“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.” This year, both our sea-based SM-3 and ground-based midcourse defense system missiles proved to be successful. The U.S. Bureau of Arms Control concluded in May, “The ballistic missile danger to the US, its forces deployed abroad, and allies and friends is real and growing.” (See Obama’s pledge to abolish missile defense).

“I will not weaponize space.” Memo to Senator Obama: Our current policy is not to weaponize space.

“I will slow our development of future combat systems...” The average service age of our frontline fighter aircraft is 23 years. The Army’s Future Combat Systems is the first full-spectrum modernization effort since the 1960s. Of course, the Marines, who are still using some hardware from long-ago wars, have always improvised, adapted and overcome.

“I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons... I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

Well, I’m all for no nuclear weapons. However, until the other guys are willing to give up their 4,162 nukes, we had best maintain a deterrence strategy, and since most nuclear weapon components have a shelf life, we must continue to update our weapons for them to be functional. And what’s this nonsense about U.S. nuclear forces being on “hair-trigger alert”? Apparently, Candidate Obama has been watching reruns of “Dr. Strangelove.”

In his first annual address, President George Washington declared, “To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” Apparently, Obama, and the rest of his far-Left cadre, missed that memo.

In 1994, Ronald Reagan observed, “The Democrats may remember their lines, but how quickly they forget the lessons of the past. I have witnessed five major wars in my lifetime, and I know how swiftly storm clouds can gather on a peaceful horizon... In the end, it all comes down to leadership, and that is what this country is looking for now.”

Indeed, it is.