Monthly Archives: April 2007

Nicaragua: Baby Friendly, Feminist Kryptonite

In keeping with today’s accidental theme of having the word “Nicaragua” in the title, I wanted to point out that Nicaragua has found a way to prevent an influx of feminists: President Enrique Bolanos has signed into law a ban on all abortions. It seems they take that “shall not be deprived of life” part of their Constitution a little more seriously than a lot of Americans do.

Meanwhile, an abortion debate rages on in Mexico, where the question is being argued, “does life begin at conception, or when you cross the Rio Grande into Texas?”

In Mexico, it is now completely legal to have an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

I ran across this story and wanted to give my “Isn’t there a better way to word this?” award to the final sentence here:

There are only 46 of them, but the lawmakers of Mexico City who voted to change the capital’s abortion laws may well have changed the course of the debate in Latin America and beyond. The debate brought supporters of both sides onto the streets.

In the end they comfortably beat off their 19 opponents.

Well, that’s one way to prevent a pregnancy from ever occurring. They might be on to something.

Carbon Credits: The Nicaraguan Email Scam Disguised as Mother Nature

No wonder they call much of the modern environmental movement it “going green” — there’s a ton of cash in it.

This “carbon credits” business will turn out to be one of the biggest scams since the “help me get my money out of Nicaragua” email that still goes around, and people still fall for.

If you’re not familiar with the concept, a “carbon credit” is when you pay somebody else, in some form or another, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as yours stay the same or rise. This is a practice called a “carbon offset” and it’s the favored denial system of wealthy blithering hypocrites.

An example of a ”carbon offset” would be this: When Al Gore burns X amount of natural gas to heat his swimming pool, he offsets this energy usage by investing in solar panels for another family, or in companies that will plant trees, etc. On the surface, and everywhere else for that matter, this might seem like a ridiculous concept. After all, what if we were to propose a ”murder offset” (i.e. a homicide is justified as long as the killer offsets the death by impregnating another person)? If that makes sense to you, then good, you’re ready to start “investing” in carbon credits.

There are now companies that specialize in carbon credits. Not so oddly enough, Al Gore owns one of these companies.

You’ll notice, however, that staunch environmentalists such as Sheryl Here’s part of what was unearthed, if you’ll pardon the expression:

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.

The FT investigation found:

— Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

— Industrial companies profiting from doing very little — or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

— Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

— A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

In other words, a scam. Nobody on the left would ever use that word, but that’s what it is.

Now if you don’t mind, I have to go ship some cash to a guy in Managua so he can afford to send me a bunch of money. It’s okay though, because I’m paying him to ship it via hybrid car and offsetting that by sending a check to Al Gore to not break wind for a day.

null

“Step right up and look what I’ve got here — that’s right, carbon credits…”

A Democrat Who Wants to Mind His Own Business?

Something looms under the surface here:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank on Wednesday said he will introduce a bill this week to lift a ban on online gambling.

“Why anyone thinks it is any of my business why some adult wants to gamble is absolutely beyond me,” Frank told a community bankers group conference.

Frank’s sudden an unexpected interest in minding his own business, a tenet so foreign to Democrats that it’s issued a Green Card on those rare occasions it rears its head, has me wondering what’s up with this. Feel free to speculate.

Hillary Clinton, Faux Shizzle

nullIs the Democrat nomination is more up in the air than ever, thanks to Hillary Clinton’s insistance on channeling Al Jolson whenever black people are in a room in which she’s speaking?

Michelle Malkin thinks Hillary has jumped the shark — finally — and she has some historical highlights of Hillary Clinton’s evolution from pasty white politician to embarrassingly clownish black impressionist, culminating in last week’s assumption that all African-Americans are maids for white people — performed in an accent that sounded like Rich Little trying to do Wanda Sykes:

“We have ta reform our government. The abuses that have gone on in the last six years — I don’ think we know the half of it yet. You know, when I walk into the Oval Office in January of 2009, I’m afraid I’m gonna lift up the rug and I’m goin’ to see so much stuff uh-nder thar … You know, what is it about us always havin’ to clean up after people? … But this is not just going to be pickin’ up socks off the floor. This is going to be cleanin’ up the government.”

Somebody please tell Hillary that this country has already had its first black president, so she’s not trying to break any new ground here. Hillary should know who that is, too, because it’s the man she hasn’t been sleeping with for the last couple of decades.

Where’s the outrage from the perpetually offended likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who witness Hillary’s insults first hand and just nod in agreement? If John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, etc., morphed into what can only be described as a political Amos & Andy routine, they’d be run out of politics, and probably the country. The media would be playing the video as the lead story on the network news, and formal apologies would be in order — starting with Jackson and Sharpton and ending with the Rutgers women’s basketball team.

But no, the Clintons are charmed and suffer little or no consequence for their ridiculous actions — If anything, they’re used to being rewarded for them. Did Hillary go to far this time? Nah, she’ll be fine. It’s “business as usual.” Hillary’s pulled off lots of fakery over the years: A southern accent, a New York accent, she’s a Yankee fan, she’s a Jew, she’s black, she’s a maid, she’s an ace investor, she bakes cookies, she loves her husband.

Who is Hillary Clinton really? I don’t think even she knows anymore, but if I had to guess, tomorrow she’ll be Mexican.

The Liberal Globe Not Warming Up To Senator Inhofe

Occasionally there’s a politician that I really like. Yes, they come around on rare occasions — political solstices if you will — and James Inhofe is one of those politicians. Inhofe bugs the hell out of many of those on the left side of the aisle, and it’s grand fun to watch. The annoyance du jour is Inhofe’s skepticism about the theory of man-made global warming.

Inhofe is simply calling the bluff of self proclaimed global warming “climatologist” blowhards — many of them celebrity twits who can afford everything but common sense and a big mirror so they can see their mansions, private jets, buses, tractor trailers, and limos behind them — and wondering aloud why so many global warming alarmists don’t seem to believe their own tales of looming doom:

A leading skeptic of global-warming science is challenging celebrity activists such as Al Gore and Sheryl Crow to lower their “carbon footprint” to the same level as the average American by Earth Day in April 2008.

“I simply believe that former Vice President Al Gore and his Hollywood friends who demand we change the way we live to avert this over-hyped ‘crisis’ not only talk the talk, but walk the walk,” said Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican.

“How hard is it for these elitists to become as frugal in their energy consumption as the average American? I think the American public has a right to know they are being had.”

Al Gore has refused to sign a “personal energy ethics pledge,” and so will the rest of them.

The reason is simple. As I’ve written before, the definition of “we” in the liberal dictionary is as follows:

We: (pronounced ”wee”). Plural pronoun meaning ”everybody except me.”

And the swipes at Inhofe’s skepticism continue. How come the left always considers skepticism healthy — be it skepticism of the president, the government in general, religion, business, etc., but if you’re skeptical of them, they get jumpier than Alec Baldwin’s kid on take-your-daughter-to-work day? Don’t struggle with an answer — it’s a redundant question.

Appeasing Sheryl Crow

In order to save the planet, singer Sheryl Crow has an idea:

“I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting.

“Now, I don’t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.”

Naturally, I want to help, so I’m pledging to Sheryl that I promise to use only one square of paper per bathroom visit.

Here’s my environmentally friendly bathroom redesign:

null

Update: Sheryl Crow got into it with Karl Rove at a DC Press dinner, yelling at him for not believing in man-made global warming. Rove drives a car like this, but read Crow’s tour demands: Parking space for three tractor trailers, four buses and six cars.

I hope Rove prints that and sends it to Sheryl, along with a note: “I believe now.”

Former LA Times Editor: Get Rid of 2nd Amendment — Ted Nugent: Bite Me

The blog Little Green Footballs, which is on my daily perusal list, points us to a couple of opposing views on gun control.

First up is Tom Plate, former editor of the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times, who thinks that more guns means more murderers, and fewer guns mean fewer murders.

Plate’s column starts out as many liberal diatribes do, by expressing his love for America:

Most days, it is not at all hard to feel proud to be an American.

…and then goes on to say how the Constitution should be torn to shreds:

The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolution. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines — along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly — the right to own guns. That’s an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

The Founders, of course, knew that the freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly wouldn’t be possible for any extended period of time without the “guns” part, but to a liberal, this is “apples and oranges.” The whole notion is fruit salad.

Plate concludes with “we need to get rid of our guns,” but not before describing how he was robbed last week at gunpoint and surrendered his belongings quickly. He wonders why his life was spared. Probably because criminals love easy, repeatable targets.

Ted Nugent takes a different approach, of course, in “Gun free zones are a recipe for disaster” The column concludes:

Who doesn’t get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I’ll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that’s who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to “feel good” is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children’s school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

In the meantime, here’s a sign that Tom Plate can hang in his window to announce how he’s proposing to save the country:

null

Former LA Times Editor: Get Rid of 2nd Amendment — Ted Nugent: Bite Me

The blog Little Green Footballs, which is on my daily perusal list, points us to a couple of opposing views on gun control.

First up is Tom Plate, former editor of the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times, who thinks that more guns means more murderers, and fewer guns mean fewer murders.

Plate’s column starts out as many liberal diatribes do, by expressing his love for America:

Most days, it is not at all hard to feel proud to be an American.

…and then goes on to say how the Constitution should be torn to shreds:

The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolution. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines — along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly — the right to own guns. That’s an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

The Founders, of course, knew that the freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly wouldn’t be possible for any extended period of time without the “guns” part, but to a liberal, this is “apples and oranges.” The whole notion is fruit salad.

Plate concludes with “we need to get rid of our guns,” but not before describing how he was robbed last week at gunpoint and surrendered his belongings quickly. He wonders why his life was spared. Probably because criminals love easy, repeatable targets.

Ted Nugent takes a different approach, of course, in “Gun free zones are a recipe for disaster” The column concludes:

Who doesn’t get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I’ll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that’s who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to “feel good” is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children’s school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

In the meantime, here’s a sign that Tom Plate can hang in his window to announce how he’s proposing to save the country:

null

Monday's Column: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld, Planned Parenthood Unhinged

Today’s column at WorldNetDaily revolves around last week’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on partial birth abortion.

I basically wanted to thank those who made it happen — some members of Congress, the Court, and President Bush. Without Bush’s appointees to the Supreme Court, this wouldn’t have been possible. I spend a good deal of time criticizing all of the above, but they deserve praise for standing up for this one. I also discuss a bit of the reaction from the other side of the aisle, and guffaw at the outrage.

Read a bit about it in “Unborn babies thank you, Mr. President.”