What's in a name??

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed all of the miscreants and misbehavors who are named Al? There's Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Al Franken, we had a politician in the Dallas area named Al Lipscomb, and then of course there is Al-Qaeda. Just a random thought. What's in a name??

Jim Chitty

Who got to Paul Harvey?

Is old age turning Paul Harvey into a bitter old crank, or did someone get to him? For a while now, he has been spewing some of the same anti-war, anti-America poisonous rhetoric that the troop haters in D.C. spew.

He keeps referring to it as "the un-winnable war" or the "ill-conceived, ill-advised war". He must have a low opinion of our troops if he actually thinks it is "un-winnable". The ill-advised and ill-conceived terms are straight out of the liberal talking points.

He says that we're wasting tax money on the war. Supplying our troops with the materials, weaponry, and other things they need to for their protection is not a waste of money. Maybe ABC Radio is wasting their money paying Mr. Harvey's salary at this point

If the unpatriotic troop-hating Democrats in Washington get their way and the troops are pulled out, then it will be un-winnable. Winners never quit, and quitters never win. Our troops are not quitters, but it appears that our politicians are.

Not quitting and continuing in the war may not ensure victory, but quitting will ensure defeat. I thought all these years that Paul Harvey was smart enough to know this. Someone either got to him, or Alzheimers has set in.

I would have never thought of Paul Harvey as a flaming liberal, supporter of terrorism, and an advocate of defeat. Sadly, it appears that is what he has become.

I had hoped that in his later years he would maintain the greatness and integrity he has displayed for six decades. It looks instead like he is headed for obscurity and irrelevance.

What a waste of such immense talent. And that's the rest of this sad story.

Jim Chitty

Don Imus, or Al Sharpton. Will the REAL racist please stand up?

Let me first say that I can't stress enough how inappropriate, ill-advised, and outright stupid Don Anus', I mean Imus' comments were. That being said we must face the fact that his poor attempt at humor is vastly different from the deep seated bigotry and hatred like the kind that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackass, I mean Jackson, traffic in.

Webster's defines a racism as; 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination. This describes Sharpton and Jackson to a “t”. These two have demonstrated time and time again that they hold white folks in low regard simply because they are white. That is the epitome of racism. But blacks can’t be racists, can they? You bet they can, and Jackson and Sharpton are leaders of that movement.

If you’ll remember back to 1984 during Jackson’s ill-fated run for president, he referred to New York City as “Jaimetown”, an obvious racial slur towards the Jewish. The word “Jaime” carries the same weight of offense to Jewish people as the “n” word does to blacks. Yet Jackson can use this epithet willfully and purposely, insincerely apologize weeks later, and go on with his life and career as if nothing happened, and not be thought of as a racist?

Don Imus makes a poor attempt at humor meaning no hurt by it, apologizes publicly, and somehow that’s not good enough for Jackson and Sharpton. They want Imus fired and his head on a platter. Don’t even get me started on how Sharpton lied about the whole Tawanna Brawley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley) incident which caused countless lives to be ruined because of his false, racist accusations.

I am not defending Imus’ remarks. He doesn’t need or deserve to be defended. He should not have said what he said. End of story as far as Imus is concerned. Jackson and Sharpton do not deserve to be given the mantle of harbingers of all that is good and right and the ones from and through whom Imus must receive his absolution and/or forgiveness either. They are the last people who should carry that mantle. Both of these men carry, and proudly flaunt, the title of Reverend. God help their congregations. Their brand of hate-filled rhetoric and bigotry isn’t anywhere near Christ-like or reverent.

Jackson and Sharpton’s comments on the Imus matter are a clear cut example of the pot calling the kettle black. However, in the world of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, if the pot actually did call the kettle black, the pot would be called an evil racist. Unless of course the pot was also black. Then it would be okay.

Jim Chitty

He may be a Republican, but he’s no Conservative

Rudy Giuliani said in a recent interview that abortion is constitutional right & as such a lack of funds should not prevent a woman for pursuing her right. Therefore, in that case, he thinks government should fund abortions.

The Constitution guarantees my right to own a gun if I so choose. Using Rudy's logic then, if I can’t afford a gun yet have the constitutional right to one, the government should provide one for me, right?

The problem here is that this wanna be president and wanna be Conservative is dead wrong about abortion being constitutionally guaranteed. I guess he's never read the part that guarantees "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Clearly the Constitution guarantees the right to life, not the right to an abortion.

The question is, do true conservatives really want a pretender as our nominee?? For my part, the answer is no! Rudy is not a conservative. He may be running as a Republican, but he's not a conservative. I don't care how much he and others want to call him one. Just like coming home, parking yourself in your garage, and calling yourself a car doesn't make you one.

We don’t need to settle for less than a true Conservative, in all areas. That would not bode well for the future of the Republican party or for Conservatism in general. The candidate who stands the best chance of beating Hitlery, or Obama bin Laden, or whoever the left offers up, is not liberal in conservative clothing. Early polls do seem to show Rudy thoroughly spanking both Clinton and Obama, but I think that’s largely because conservatives don’t think they have a better choice right now.

And, in thinking that, they would be wrong. There are some down ballot candidates that would be far better than Rudy from the standpoint of true conservatism. Duncan Hunter would be a good one I’m sure. The only problem there is, most people respond “Duncan Who?” Then there’s Tom Tancredo. Another name few people have heard of.

Mitt Romney is a recent convert to conservatism on many of his views, and honestly I wonder if it’s sincere, or just a ploy to get elected. He does seem to be strong on family values having been married to the same woman, or since he’s a Mormon should I say women (just kidding), for 37 years. And actually, his Mormonism is an issue for some. Truthfully, I am not sure how comfortable I am with it.

Then there are the ones still toying with the idea of running, Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson. Newt’s credentials don’t need any elaboration or clarification and he would be a fine choice and make a good president. Many think he is too polarizing and divisive. And Hillary isn’t?? Please!

Then there is Fred Thompson. He is my personal favorite. He seems to be a true conservative in every since of the word. Sure, he’s an actor and not a career politician. How exactly is that a bad thing?? Seems to me like the last time we had actor that ran for president, he got elected and America was very well served by it. Maybe it’s time to do it again.

Rudy is not my candidate of choice and will not be getting my vote in the primary. If the so-called leaders of the GOP misguidedly make him the nominee, then I guess I'll just have to write in Fred Thompson. Now there's a candidate worthy of being called a Conservative & worthy of the Reagan mantle. I won’t settle for less than the very best when casting my vote, and neither should anyone else. Doing so will not only hurt our party, but our nation as well in the long run.

Jim Chitty

What is so good about Good Friday?

The Friday before Easter is commonly known as "Good Friday". It is the time when Christians commemorate the death of Jesus on the cross. And of course Easter is the time Christians celebrate Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Did this really happen? And what is so "good" about someone dying anyway? We typically mourn people's deaths. So, what gives here?

I'll tell you what gives here, only the most miraculous, selfless, and loving act anyone could commit. The fact is Jesus did die on a cross. He died in our place as a sacrifice for our sins. Without Jesus' death on the cross there would be no salvation. We have all sinned, and we all need salvation. God loved us enough that He sent Jesus to take our place on the cross, so that by our acceptance of His redemptive act, we could spend eternity in Heaven.

Yes, Jesus really did rise from the dead. God raised Him up and Jesus ascended up to Heaven to prepare a place for those of us who choose to accept Him as our Lord and Savior. Then the Spirit of Christ, a.k.a. the Holy Spirit came so that through Him we might have access to all of the power of God's kingdom. Wow! Pretty amazing. And here in America, supposedly a Christian nation, all this time we thought Easter was about some silly little rabbit with colored eggs. How did we get so far off base? Could it be because of the efforts made to totally remove all mention of God from our schools and society at large? Just a thought.

Regardless of what the politically correct (actually the morally and spiritually bankrupt) say Easter is about Jesus and nothing else. Think about it!!

Have a great Easter!!!

Jim Chitty

Southern Exposure - By Fred Thompson

We are all very well aware of the fact that we have an illegal-immigration problem in this country. As usual, we avoided the problem for as long as we could and when we couldn’t avoid it any longer we were told that, indeed, somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed.

It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It’s become one of those “there are no good choices only less bad choices” that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.

We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we’ve got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it — the president of Mexico Philipe Calderon. President Calderon doesn’t think much of our border policies. He criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He says that bottle necks at U.S. checkpoints hurt Mexican commerce and force his citizens to migrate illegally in order to make a living (and of course send money back to Mexico). He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents. Calderon also accused U.S. officials of failing to do enough to stop the flow of drugs in to the United States. Mexican politicians gave President Bush an earful of all of this during his recent trip to Mexico.

I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like:

Hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created.

My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?

— Fred Thompson is an actor, a possible candidate for President in 2008, and former United States senator from Tennessee.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhkYzZiNTAxZjAyZTNjNzkxNjA2ZTNmNDBhNjhlYWU=

Global Warming Heresy - by Walter E. Williams

Most climatologists agree that the earth's temperature has increased about a degree over the last century. The debate is how much of it is due to mankind's activity. Britain's Channel 4 television has just produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a documentary that devastates most of the claims made by the environmentalist movement. The scientists interviewed include top climatologists from MIT and other prestigious universities around the world. The documentary hasn't aired in the U.S., but it's available on the Internet. Among the many findings that dispute environmentalists' claims are: Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. Contrary to environmentalists' claims, the higher the Earth's temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change. Some of the documentary's scientists argue that the greatest influence on the Earth's temperature is our sun's sunspot activity. The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore testifies before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on global warming, on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 21, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES) Throughout the Earth's billions of years there have been countless periods of global warming and cooling. In fact, in the year 1,000 A.D., a time when there were no SUVs, the Earth's climate was much warmer than it is now. Most of this century's warming occurred before 1940. For several decades after WWII, when there was massive worldwide industrialization, there was cooling. There's a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That's the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view. According to a March 11 article in London's Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges." Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system." Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. Today's version of yesteryear's inquisitors include people like the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen, who advocates that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming. Columnist Dave Roberts, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg." There are literally billions of taxpayer dollars being handed out to global warming alarmists, not to mention their dream of controlling our lives. Their agenda is threatened by dissent. They have the politician's ear; not we, who will suffer if they have their way.

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/03/28/global_warming_heresy