Jimmy Carter:
"Too many Jews" on Holocaust council
Former president also rejected Christian
historian because name sounded 'too Jewish'

TEL AVIV – Former President Jimmy Carter once complained there were "too many Jews" on the government's Holocaust Memorial Council, Monroe Freedman, the council's former executive director, told WND in an exclusive interview.

Freedman, who served on the council during Carter's term as president, also revealed a noted Holocaust scholar who was a Presbyterian Christian was rejected from the council's board by Carter's office because the scholar's name "sounded too Jewish."



He has gone truly mad.......



The First value is antisemitism?

I was not aware that hating Jews was an American value.

via-worldnetdaily

The state of our union


Some highlights of the speech.

This rite of custom brings us together at a defining hour – when decisions are hard and courage is tested. We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway, and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies – and the wisdom to face them together.

----------------------------------------------------

For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that terrorists can cause. We have had time to take stock of our situation. We have added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us – unless we stop them.

--------------------------------------------------------

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: “We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse.” And Osama bin Laden declared: “Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us.”

---------------------------------------------------------


This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

-----------------------------------------------------------

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq ... and to spare the American people from this danger.

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united – in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq – and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field – and those on their way.

------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Hype Update

A broad spectrum of ideas is the last thing Al Gore wants. He recently canceled an interview with Denmark’s largest newspaper Jyllands-Posten, apparently because the paper would also publish the views of global warming skeptic Bjorn Lomborg.

Avoiding contradictory views is a priority for Gore, who is standing on thinner ice than any polar bear. His grand scheme to remake human civilization would make the average person 30% poorer by 2100, and cost $553 TRILLION over the next century. People might start to wonder if it’s worth it, once they consider that Gore’s threatened 20-foot rise in sea level is exaggerated by a factor of 20, that his tale of global warming causing malaria in Nairobi is simply a lie, that only 2% of Antarctica has actually gotten warmer over the last 35 years, that global warming would save 10 times more lives than it would end in the UK, and that the computer models they use to invent scary scenarios could just as easily prove that the world is turning into a lump of Velveeta.

via- The wide awakes

In the past three-hundred fifty hours of the Democrats first one hundred hours, we have seen them scrap rules designed to prevent entrenched committee chairmen, rules designed to make it more difficult to raise taxes, place back in charge of committees men who caused the public outcries of the early nineties, and generally rub in the noses of the American people all those acts that caused the people to throw them out in 1994. One would not be surprised to soon learn about a check kiting scandal.

So it should come as no surprise that the Democrats are set to redo one of their worst acts -- not because it is bad per se, but because it so manifestly flies in the face of the clear meaning of the Constitution that we must wonder if the Democrats really even care about the Constitution. Under a proposal put forward by Majority Leader Hoyer, the Democrats are set to allow delegates from American territories to vote on legislation on the floor of the House.

To quote Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution,

" The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states "

This is Con Law 101 -- the word "state" has a peculiar and special meaning. Delegates from territories of the United States do not meet the qualifications to be a Representative.

The last time the Democrats tried this same maneuver, in 1993, the New York Times called it a "shameless political tyranny," citing the same section of the Constitution we just cited for why it is a bad idea.

Democrat Contradictions on the War in Iraq

By Congressman Jeb Hensarling


Earlier today, I called on Speaker Pelosi and Democrat leaders in Congress to clarify contradictions in regard to their position on the war in Iraq. Specifically, I was speaking about their resolution that states: “it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq.”

Just last week, Speaker Pelosi told ABC News that Democrats will not cut off funding for America’s troops. Now, her Democrat majority is declaring that President Bush’s plan to move forward in Iraq is "not in the interests of the United States." How can the Democrat majority choose to fund something that they believe is against the interests of the United States? If they do not support America’s mission in Iraq and choose to attack it publicly, they should at least have the conviction to vote that way. Second, as the majority in Congress, they must offer a plan that they feel IS in the interest of the United States.

As the majority party, they control the votes and they must offer something more than just political criticism of the President. That is not to say that the President is above criticism - he is not. People have legitimate questions and concerns about our future in Iraq, and we must address them.

But right now, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority in both chambers of Congress are telling families of American servicemen and women that "we don’t believe this will work, but we will send your children to Iraq anyway." I believe that military families deserve better, our troops deserve better, and frankly you deserve better.

There is no doubt that a lot of good people have different feelings about the proper way forward in Iraq. And there is no doubt that we all have the right to discuss those feelings and ideas. But to move forward, I think that Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority must explain these contradictions that send mixed messages not only to our nation, our military and our allies - but our enemies as well.

Global warming hoax update


Climate scientists feeling the heat
As public debate deals in absolutes, some experts fear predictions 'have created a monster'

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."

via-Houston Chronicle

"I'm in, and I'm in to win,"

Bill sure looks thrilled about it!