Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion

Did you notice how the girl asking the question, said Crichton was 'prejudice' against Environmentalists? In other words, because he has a different opinion than she does, he is prejudice/ blasphemous, and she fails to see her own intolerance of opposing views.

Cheney For Pres in 2012

An "inconceivable" Cheney bid in 2012

Why would Christopher Barron use up political chits to promote for president in 2012 one of the most despised American politicians in recent history? That's the first question that crossed our minds while skimming a press release sent into Illinois Review Friday night from Mr. Barron, entitled "Draft Cheney 2012." Barron's press release was featured in a brief Chicago Tribune story Saturday.

Barron's name has appeared on Illinois Review before. In March 2008, we wrote about his involvement in Illinois Republican U.S. Senate candidate Steve Sauerberg's campaign. We suggested that it was ill-advised to incorporate public relations' advice from Barron, whose claim to fame was heading up the nation's Log Cabin Republicans for a couple of years and orchestrating a million dollar campaign against President George W. Bush's support of a federal constitution ban on gay marriage.

Needless to say, Mr. Barron had little use for Illinois Review after that post, and well, we all know how Dr. Sauerberg's challenge of Dick Durbin went.

Which raised the question with us about why Barron would head up a group to draft Dick Cheney in 2012.

Illinois Family Institute's Laurie Higgins noted the Chicago Tribune story and commented about Barron's connections via email. Her thought was that the homosexual movement was promoting Cheney because he has a provocatively strong tolerance for homosexuality because one of the Cheney's daughters is in a homosexual relationship, and the lesbian couple recently "mothered" a baby.

That may be Barron's motivation, who knows, but Barron shrewdly included several other Cheney fan comments in Friday's press release, making the war on terrorism the centerpiece. He wrote:

Over the last few months, a number of prominent conservatives have advocated a Cheney run in 2012:

“Of course, everyone’s first choice for president in 2012 is Dick Cheney,” – Bill Kristol, 4/24/09 The Weekly Standard
“As inconceivable as it may seem today, the 2012 election may end up turning on national security. Republicans would be wise to nominate someone with both toughness and experience. Under such circumstances, it's hard to think of a better candidate--assuming, of course, that he could be persuaded to run--than Richard B. Cheney.” – James Taranto, 8/31/2009 The Wall Street Journal
“Well, Neil, I have to tell you, he's my candidate. But I have yet to get him on board with the concept,” – Liz Cheney, 11/17/2009, Fox News
“The Obama administration is playing a dangerous game of Russian-roulette with the safety of Americans at home and abroad,” said Barron. “He has refused to stand up to the tyrannical Iranian regime of Ahmadinejad, refused to listen to our military leaders on the ground in Afghanistan, and is bringing the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to New York for a dangerous show trial.”

A Cheney candidacy in 2012 does seem "inconceivable" today, but when you consider he's strong on defense, the war on terror, prolife and anti-Obama, a lot of things could happen in the next two years that makes him appear an obvious front runner.

If that happens, the debate over abortion among conservative and liberal Republicans will look like child's play. The real culprit that eventually leads to the demise of the GOP could become the definition of marriage.

I know what you're thinking: "inconceivable."

Did I send you PORN on Twitter?

If you're a follower of mine on Twitter, you might have received a direct message from 'me'. If you clicked on the URL, you might have been taken to a porn site.

Now, if you enjoy porn, I hope you had a good time checking out the site.
But if you don't....I apologize for this, but it seems either hackers or some virus got a hold of my account.

I'm changing passwords and running scans, so hopefully this will fix the problem.
If anyone gets anymore of these, PLEASE let me know.

George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamtion

George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

Global Warming Fraud Unmasked

Every so often, the veil is pulled back, and the public has an opportunity to see that which is passed off as ‘science’ for the ideological juggernaut that it really is.

Ideology masked as science (and thus often referred to as ‘scientism’) often goes to great lengths to pass itself off as actual science; indeed, the purveyors of scientism may also be accomplished scientists who are simply going beyond, or outside of, their area of actual knowledge and expertise. Thus Russell Kirk, the preeminent American conservative writer of the twentieth century, observed in 1965:

So far as the physical and natural sciences are concerned with general ideas and the pursuit of truth, men of humane and social studies still can be interested in the sciences and can profit from them. ... But the science must be genuine: not scientism or simple technological aggrandizement. And if “science” is converted into ideology, a substitute for philosophy and religion, then rightly men of humane and social imagination will recoil from the fraud.

It has rarely taken a great deal of digging to discover that environmental extremism is the haunt of practitioners of scientism, but this fact has done little to impede the seductive character of this ideology. Ideological environmentalism is a particularly dangerous form of scientism because the techniques and terminology which its acolytes exploit are often related to those employed by the sciences. Thus a deceptive blurring (unintentional or otherwise) of categories easily takes place as one slides from the realm of the knowable into a realm of near total conjecture.

There is an inherent, even instinctive, familiarity to the natural order: casual observation yields a great deal of knowledge, and the immediate importance of environmental concerns for human life is readily grasped. Thus, when prominent politicians or scientists with seemingly impressive credentials shout that the sky is falling, citizens of good will are inclined to at least hear them out, regardless of the implausibility of the theories which they advance.

For roughly twenty years, a warning has rung out against the supposed dangers of what was once called “global warming” but which now wears the more ambiguous designation of “climate change.” Its ideological precursors were found in the “new ice age” scare of the 1970s and the “nuclear winter” scare of the 1980s. Both those ‘end of the world’ scenarios ran their course. Now anthropogenic ‘climate change’ — like 2012 mumbo-jumbo — might make for a great movie, but the ‘science’ has always been joined to an extremely aggressive and extensive political agenda, and that ought to sound an immediate warning.

The mind-blowing revelations contained in communications among scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia — and now leaked by hackers — are being widely interpreted as pulling away the scientific mask from the agenda and methods of proponents of anthropogenic ‘climate change’ and the media spin-cycle is having a hard time doing damage control on this one.

A Washington Post article on the scandal (“In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes”) maintained:

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world's climate -- nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal -- public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

But this is spin. The IPCC is actively engaged in the process of pressing for a fundamental reordering of the international economy, with massive transfers of wealth from the First to the Third World in the name of converting the latter to a ‘global green economy.’

The Internationalists understand that radical environmentalism offers them their best opportunity at this juncture to seize a great deal of power. Thus, there is a great deal of panic on the part of the leadership at the UN and IPCC that Mr. Obama may not be able to deliver the support of the U.S. in time for the Copenhagen Conference in December; without passage of “cap-and-trade” to help fund at least $100 billion to perhaps as much as $400 billion a year in wealth flowing from industrialized nations to the Third World, the efforts of the Internationalists could suffer a severe setback.

Whether the actions planned for Copenhagen would do a whit of good for the environment is quite questionable; it will certainly cripple an industrialized world which is already in a very sorry state of affairs. But the IPCC cannot be viewed as some sort of objective arbiter of the facts — the actions of the IPCC can only be seen as advocacy of a radical agenda.

Now, the truth about “climate change” is starting to get out. The outrage caused by the scandalous e-mails are part of a pattern. Again, in the words of the Washington Post:

The story of the hacking has ranked among the most popular on Web sites ranging from The Washington Post's to that of London's Daily Telegraph. And it has spurred a flood of e-mails from climate skeptics to U.S. news organizations, some likening the disclosure to the release of the Pentagon Papers during Vietnam.

Despite the alleged efforts to suppress the views of those who dissent from the “climate change” agenda, the distortions of scientism are being revealed. Thus, for example, Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth is being subjected to a much deserved debunking by a documentary, Not Evil Just Wrong. According to an article on the documentary at FoxNews.com:

Al Gore's award-winning global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth," socked two years ago by a British court ruling that found several errors, is facing additional scrutiny with the release of a new documentary that seeks to rebut many of Gore's claims.

Buoyed by the ruling, two Irish journalists -- Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney -- released a documentary in which they gather evidence outlining the damage of global warming hysteria. In "Not Evil Just Wrong," they challenge the claims made in Gore's film and conclude that the film is not worth screening in schools because it is shown there as "an article of science, not faith."

"I wouldn't like our documentary to have nine significant errors and if it did, I certainly wouldn't be showing it to school children across America, and that's the important thing," McAleer told Fox News' Sean Hannity on Friday.

The fight against environmental fanaticism is taking place on several levels: first, more Americans are waking up to the imminent danger which “cap-and-trade” and the Copenhagen Conference pose to their freedom and economic well-being; second, the long-term need for education is being addressed by systematic efforts to answer the ideology of the environmental extremists with scientific fact.



The struggle for a sane approach to environmental concerns will be a long one — the appeal of any ideology is the promise of sudden progress by extreme action. But with rationality, education and the resolve to resist the agenda of the extremists, the struggle can be won.

Rt. Rev. James Heiser has served as Pastor of Salem Lutheran Church in Malone, Texas, while maintaining his responsibilities as publisher of Repristination Press, which he established in 1993 to publish academic and popular theological books to serve the Lutheran Church. Heiser has also served since 2005 as the Dean of Missions for The Augustana Ministerium and in 2006 was called to serve as Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). An advocate of manned space exploration, Heiser serves on the Steering Committee of the Mars Society. His publications include two books; The Office of the Ministry in N. Hunnius' Epitome Credendorum (1996) and A Shining City on a Higher Hill: Christianity and the Next New World (2006), as well as dozens of journal articles and book reviews.

30,000 Meterologists Are Due To Sue Al Gore For Climate Hoax

Weather Channel Founder to Sue Al Gore for fraud

30,000 meteorologists are banding together to sue former Vice President Al Gore for fraud in perpetuating the global warming fraud. More on this Red Eye interview:

VIDEO: "HOPE" An Obama Muscial...Seriously

Start lining up at TicketMaster Outlets NOW: Obama The Musical...Yes Really

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

VIDEO: Krauthammer Slams Obama's Narcissism

Krauthammer: "Everything In Obama's Life Makes Him World Historical"

Classic Krauthammer for ya. Charles also provides perspective and truth regarding "baby jesus' Obama's" bow and his dripping "narcissism."

Congressman Urges Hillary To Press U.K. To Remove SAVAGE From Ban List

House leader battles Britain's Savage ban

A House Republican leader is battling Britain's ban of Michael Savage, urging Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a letter today to use her position to press the U.K. to grant the top-rated radio host a travel visa immediately.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, the assistant Republican whip, says Savage wants to visit the U.K. for scientific research, noting his rare medicinal plant specimens from Fiji and Tonga are housed in a world-class collection at Kew Gardens in London.

Savage, who has a doctoral degree from the University of California at Berkeley in nutritional ethnomedicine, spent several years researching botany in the South Pacific.

Culberson told Clinton he plans to work with colleagues in Congress in the coming weeks to help protect Savage's First Amendment rights. He points out in his letter that the British government "has classified a well-known and popular member of the American media alongside criminals, murderers and terrorists, which is defamatory and disturbing."

"Michael Savage is a loyal American, and he is passionate about protecting America, which is why I enjoy listening to him," Culberson writes.

As WND reported, then–British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced May 5 that Savage was on a list of 16 people, along with terrorists and neo-Nazis, banned from entry because the government believed their views might provoke violence. Smith said it was "important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country."

Culberson says Savage "speaks for most Americans when he criticizes people who apologize for our success and who will not protect our borders, our common language, and our American culture."

"If he were at the fringe of society like other people on the U.K. list, he would not have a nationally syndicated radio show, and he would not be the third most popular talk show host in America," the Texas lawmaker argues.

Culberson says he listens regularly to Savage's show and has never heard him encourage hatred or incite anyone to engage in violence.

The U.K. list includes Hamas leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black, neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe and radical American pastor Fred Phelps, known for his virulent anti-gay protests at funerals.

Savage has documented his ordeal with the U.K. in his book "Banned in Britain," which includes official correspondence, released under the U.K.'s freedom of information law, that reveals a decision was made at the highest level of government to use his name to provide "balance" to a "least wanted" list dominated by Muslim extremists.

"We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists," reads a draft recommendation, marked "Restricted," that was obtained as part of Savage's libel lawsuit against the government and Smith, who resigned from her home secretary post in June in the wake of scandal over personal use of taxpayer funds and her controversial ban of Savage.

An e-mail message dated Nov. 27, 2008, from an unnamed Home Office official, says, with regard to Savage, "I can understand that disclosure of the decision would help provide a balance of types of exclusion cases."

Another e-mail points to complicity by other agencies and even Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
"HO (Home Office) intend to include [Savage] in their quarterly stats ... Both the FS (foreign secretary) and PM (prime minister) are firmly behind listing and naming such people," it reads.
The e-mails include a message from an unnamed civil servant whose cautions were ignored.
"I think we could be accused of duplicity in naming him," he wrote without explaining the reason.

Smith's successor, Alan Johnson, called the ban a terrible blunder and told the London Daily Mail he would scrap the policy of maintaining an enemies list. But Savage told WND two days later that according to his attorney, Johnson's announcement did not mean his name had been removed from the list.

Savage still demands an apology from Smith, who has admitted she was not up to being home secretary, explaining she should have been given some training for the job before being named.
Savage's legal complaint against Smith notes the home secretary's office said in a press release that the "controversial daily radio host" is "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence."

The allegations are "entirely false," the complaint asserts.
"At no time has our client provoked or sought to provoke others to commit crimes or serious criminal acts."

Savage hosts the nation's third most popular radio talk show, with an estimated 8 million listeners a week on about 400 stations, according to his syndicator, the Talk Radio Network.
On his website, Savage appealed to his listeners to contribute to his legal fund, which he has used for various efforts, including a lawsuit last year against the Council on American-Islamic Relations for waging a boycott using excerpts of his copyrighted remarks. In the case of Savage's U.K. ban, however, CAIR has sided with Savage, arguing "freedom of speech is a two-way street."

'Oba Mao' Communist T-shirt Causes Controversy In Beijing

Obama communist T-Shirt Tussle

Beijing, China - It's just a T-shirt. Or so we thought.

Our search for the "communist Obama" T-shirt began with a capable intern scouring markets in Beijing. It depicts President Obama wearing a Red Army uniform, the "Chinese communist-style" outfit made famous by Chairman Mao. On the front it says "Serve the People" in Chinese. On the back, "Oba-Mao" in English.

Our first scan of Beijing turned up nothing. But a tip led us to the basement of Shin Kong Place. In an unassuming souvenir shop, we found a T-shirt in extra-large. During our flight from Beijing to Shanghai to cover the President's arrival, a news blitz indicated the shirts had been "banned" by the Chinese government amid worries that they may offend the American president.

Thank goodness we'd gotten ours in time! But there was no way to confirm the government had indeed taken the shirts off the shelves, so we decided to check for ourselves. We headed to Yatai Xinyang market at a Shanghai metro stop in search of Obama-branded merchandise.

The Chinese also make wallets and trading cards featuring the "Communist Obama" image.

We found nothing, but could not be sure they hadn't sold them there before. So, I chose that opportune moment to do a piece to camera with the shirt in hand. Bad move? Maybe. But it ended up being great television.

Two security guards happened to pass by at the moment I announced to the camera: "This is the T-shirt everybody is talking about." And that was it. They scrambled towards us and tried to pry the shirt out of my hands. I didn't give in.

There was a bit of yelling and quite a scuffle. My producer Jo Kent emphatically stated our case. Photographer Miguel Castro kept his cool. By this point, we had everything on tape.

We ended up being detained for two hours in the cold, maze of a market. A crowd gathered round. More security and then police showed up. They wanted our press cards, our passports, but most of all, they wanted the shirt.

Ultimately, they confirmed that we were indeed "real" journalists (that is legally reporting in China.) But that didn't stop them from scolding us and making it very difficult to leave. After asking repeatedly and then one last time for the shirt, I refused.

Finally, they let us go. Phew!

It was worth it. The shirt got attention on the air and sparked buzz online. In fact, some members of the White House pool and a few colleagues in Atlanta actually tried to bribe me for it.

Nothing like juxtaposing communism and democracy in more ways than one. Just another day on the job.

Having Kids Drives Liberal Feminists Crazy, And Moms End Up Happier

Don't Forget to Have Kids- Part 2

by:
Mika Brzezinski
Co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe

Last week I let you know my thoughts on how children could fit into the lives of the professional woman.

Some were not amused.

"Not only is your post embarrassingly stupid," began one tweet, "it's offensive to anyone who believes in reproductive choice"

Thank God the many on twitter only have 140 characters to tell me what they really thought.
But many were grateful that I shared my own personal thoughts in my last blog "Don't Forget to have Kids".

What surprises me is the sheer volume of reaction I've gotten from women, young and old, about a topic we just don't talk about enough.

For years, feminists have been insisting that we women could have it all. But since diapers, bras and babies have been seen as symbols of oppression from the Old World run by the likes of Don Draper, there hasn't been enough written about women like me who want to work like hell, rise to the top of my profession, and then rush home to be with the kids and also work to make my husband happy and build his life.

For me, having it all doesn't mean having the corner office at work and a penthouse at home if there aren't kids running around as I'm trying to cook my husband something special.
For those who still want to take off their bras and burn them, so be it. But I'd rather find one to wear that is pretty. And when it comes off, its not because it's being thrown into the fireplace.
So with apologies to those who think we women should put off love and babies in our younger years (which I passed too long ago), I am going to risk going there again.

My 22-year-old assistant says the blog spurred a big conversation amongst her peers who have rarely even considered the concept of embracing the possibility of children and a career earlier on in life.

They were shocked at my advice to consider finding a man (or partner) as seriously as pursuing a career.

Sarah, a graduate of Fairfield University, tells me that her friends were stunned to hear that advice from me, of all people.

She says talk of babies and business sparked a debate of young women around a kitchen table on a Friday night, just before they were going out to a bar in the Village. Among her peer group, it is simply assumed that "kids and marriage must be saved for your thirties". And any poor fool who is "looking for a husband" is "embarrassing herself."

That's too bad.

Women face enough pressures and challenges in a workplace that is still depressingly biased against a female's success. Add to that, the fact that the very thing many women I know find most rewarding (having kids) is now frowned upon.

Some of Sarah's friends say they felt relieved to read my blog--that they weren't sure what to do with their desire to get married and have children. That it was great to hear someone they watch come out and say it.

Others, reflected the views of my critics in twitter streams.
The "twenties" are for "me".. while family and kids can definitely wait for the thirty-something years.

My worry is that these new age rules that urge you to wait on family-- whittle away at your possibility to have it at all--- IF that is what you want out of life.

(click on cartoon to read easier)



Another huffpo blogger wrote this: "We don't all lose sleep over finding the perfect partner, whether that partner is male or female. The dreams and aspirations of women cannot be summarized so neatly. It is disheartening to see a successful woman like Mika Brzezinski operate on such a blind assumption regarding those aspirations."

You go girl. That's your opinion and I respect it. But I am speaking to the women who DO want to have a family and consider a lifelong relationship valuable, rather than a badge of weakness or a sign that she missed the boat on the women's rights movement.

I am not afraid to say my relationship with my man is important, even vital, to who I am as a person.

A woman shouldn't feel the need to shy away from wanting to build a world around a man she loves and do whatever she can to make him happy and whole --as he should for her.
One can love her husband and be a strong career woman. They aren't mutually exclusive. Any life partnership is a challenge that is filled with love, consternation, joy, and a thousand other emotions.But ultimately, it is an extremely fulfilling part of my life.

I consider my girls the greatest gift from God in life. And I also love the career that I have built, lost and rebuilt. But the highs and lows of my career would not have been as exciting or manageable to me if I didn't have children and a partner for life with whom to share it all.

The ups and downs.

Getting to this point wasn't easy and it didn't happen by chance. I was open as a young woman, and make it clear that I wanted to try and have a career, a marriage and mommyhood. And I looked for it all.

I considered the possibility of being a wife to be the most exciting and fulfilling proposition. I love the chance to share in the challenge with a soul mate and make his life better. Again, this does not preclude my being a strong focused career woman. It just means that when I go to work, I go there fulfilled. And, dare I say it, being a woman with her own goals and interests at work makes me a better, more interesting partner at home and a happier person. (My apologies to those women who don't want children but if you could, keep your invective-laden, F-Bomb laced tweets to yourself.)

I'm not naïve. The path I travel is not a simple one to navigate. I'll be the first to admit that my path has not been without great challenge and trouble and failure.

Trying to cope with the constant needs of caring for a husband, two children, and an intense job is often an impossible juggling act. At times I feel helpless at playing any one of those roles well. In fact, I usually feel like I'm failing miserably at one of my many roles and overcompensate ridiculously at times.

But in the early morning hours when my husband and kids are asleep, I go off to work knowing that I am doing my best as a wife and mother and that Jim and I are doing pretty darn well raising extraordinary girls.

I intend to share some of my personal stories in blogs to come and tell a great deal more in my upcoming book, "All things at Once". But again, for young women considering so many choices and options in life, I stand by my advice.

Go for it all at once, if all of it is what you want. Don't be afraid of telling the world that marriage is important to you. Sarah says that her peers feel that wanting a husband and babies is "backward" and looked down upon. She said it shows that you lack ambition.

I say wanting love and children and career is about as ambitious as it gets. And a young woman should be proud of that desire to be fulfilled on every level.

Don't miss out because it is not in fashion this year to want a man in your life and to build a family with him. Women should be upfront with their friends, their dates, and more importantly, with themselves.

Today's woman doesn't have to put her dreams on hold be "modern". She just has to be true to herself and all of her desires. THAT is what is truly modern.

So if you want it all, go for it all. This 42 year old will tell you that life is too short.

Get to work chasing all of your dreams.

More BOWING From Our Dear President

First this...

Now this...

Even the LA Times is asking, "How low will the new American president go for the world's royalty?"

President Obama first denied he had bowed to the Saudi royalty, but his actions were crystal clear during his visit to Japan this week. In Japanese culture a deep bow like this is a sign of respect and "deference to a superior." Sweet--just the message I want my president sending!

This kind of "deference" is pretty unprecedented. I guess this is just some more of that "change" Obama promised us all--indeed another teachable moment. Go ahead and do a Google search to try and find other instances of American presidents bowing to the Emperor of Japan. And while you're at it, see if you can find any other world leader bowing. Go ahead... I'll wait.

Gee, I miss the good old days of respectful diplomacy coupled with an unabashed pride in America:

CARTOON: Who's Napolitano's real extremist?

The best comedy always has a little bit of truth in it.

Liberals Worst NIGHTMARE - Friday the 13th - BLACK CONSERVATIVES On Beck

From the Conservative Black Woman:
Glenn Beck has invited Black Conservatives to a taping of his show on tomorrow November 12th which will air on Friday the 13th. The title of the show is "Time To Be Heard"...well, I'll say! I'm very excited to meet all of the bloggers that I so admire. Gary at A Time For Choosing posted this picture on his blog (but he didn't include me, so I included myself...lol) titled "Glen Beck's Friday 13th Nightmare For Liberals Across America: Beck Hosts Prominent Black Conservatives"

Good looking out Gary! Thanks for spreading the word.

Perhaps I can replace Prof. Mark Lamont Hill. At least I'm a REAL conservative. Maybe I'll be able to convince Glenn with put in a word for me with his bosses at Fox...lol.
..................................................
She has a great blog, wonderful writer, and she gives hope to Conservatives everywhere. I'm very much looking foward to the show.

DEVELOPING: Lou Dobbs' Upbrupt Exit From CNN - Announces Last Show

Longtime CNN host Lou Dobbs shocked his viewers Wednesday by announcing that he would be leaving the network effective immediately.The daily host of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” addressed his viewers after giving the day’s headlines and told them Wednesday’s show would be his final time in the anchor chair.

“This will be my last broadcast,” he said.

He said CNN had allowed him to be released from his contract early and that he was considering a number of options for the next stage in his career.

“I will let you know when I set my course,” he said. He said he wanted to “contribute positively to a better understanding of the great issues of our day.”


Read the whole story here.

It seems to us there is much more to this story. According to the story, Dobbs announced he was leaving to his staff just this afternoon. And coming so soon after that weird story about gunshots at Dobbs’ house raising at least the shadow of a red flag. Whatever one thinks of Lou Dobbs, he did have a pretty big audience. CNN can’t really do much worse than its last place ranking among news channels.

Stay tuned for updates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How much you wanna bet he's making the move over to FOX. C'mon over Lou...people who care about the truth are making the move, too.