More From Al Bore

Al Gore visits Berkeley, charges up Prop. 87 rally

SAYS MEASURE TO FUND GREEN ENERGY HELPS TACKLE CLIMATE CRISIS

By Rick Jurgens
MediaNews

Former Vice President Al Gore appeared in Berkeley on Monday to lend his celebrity and reputation as a crusader against global warming to a measure on California's Nov. 7 ballot that would tax oil companies to raise $4 billion for green energy projects.

``I'm here to change peoples' minds on the climate crisis and to support Prop 87,'' Gore called to a group of reporters after he emerged from the ``100 miles per gallon'' Toyota Prius that brought him to a noontime rally in a sun-drenched park behind Berkeley's City Hall.

His motorcade also included three motorcycles, two limousines and a Dodge Ram 1500 light duty truck.

Gore, flanked by signs proclaiming Yes on 87 and promoting the Web site of a Berkeley company that installs solar energy systems, spoke to hundreds of supporters who had passed between metal barriers and gathered in front of speakers pulsating rock and reggae music.

Organizers estimated the crowd at 3,000. Police at the scene had no estimate.

Like a candidate delivering a stump speech, Gore ranged over a wide political terrain in his 24-minute speech. He compared those who have denied the threat posed by greenhouse gas emissions and climate change to those who ignored warnings before Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.

Gore likened the global-warming crisis to having a sick child: No responsible parent would delay treatment once a diagnosis is rendered, he said.

Proposition 87 would tax oil companies for oil they take from California, raising about $4 billion for use in developing alternative energy sources with a goal of reducing the state's dependence on gas and diesel by 25 percent within 10 years.

It's backed by environmental, health and other groups who say it will reduce foreign-oil dependence while nurturing cleaner energy and mitigating global warming. California is the only oil-producing state without such a drilling tax, they note, but the measure's foes -- funded mostly by San Ramon-based Chevron and other oil companies -- say the state already puts property, sales and other taxes on oil.

No on 87 campaign spokesman Nick DeLuca attended Gore's speech and later Monday said it underscored the ``split between the big picture and the actual initiative.'' Oil companies, business groups and other opponents of the measure agree on reducing foreign-oil dependence and stopping global warming, he said, but the measure poses problems: a tax that would decrease domestic production and increase foreign-oil imports, and a new bureaucracy exempt from competitive bidding and some conflict-of-interest rules.

Oil companies, which face the loss of profits from hundreds of California oil wells, had ponied up $73 million through last Friday to attack Proposition 87 with an advertising barrage that argues that the tax would increase fuel prices.

Chevron, the state's largest oil producer, had kicked in $30 million. Supporters of Proposition 87 said Chevron wrote an additional $5 million check on Monday. The company did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

Proposition 87's supporters have stayed in the fight, largely on the strength of an unprecedented $40 million contribution from a Hollywood producer and real estate heir Stephen Bing. Gore acknowledged Bing's presence at Monday's rally, but he did not speak.

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

I generally refrain from speaking about Al Bore since he's not worth my time or effort and is probably the most ridiculous living politician, but I'll make an exception today. (My apologies to Jimmy Carter, your theories are ever bit as outrageous and you're still an embarrassment to this country, but Al has you on overall buffoonery).

Where to start, where to start....

First of all, Al, if Kirsty Alley and Anna Nicole Smith can do it, so can you. You look terrible! You're looking more and more like Actor/Sexual predator Jeffrey Jones (right). Get some exercise; watch what you eat! You might consider a GI Bypass or something. Also, get out in the sun occasionally.

Next, it's interesting how most of the stories I've read about his appearance at this event highlights that he arrived in a Toyota Prius. No mention that "His motorcade also included three motorcycles, two limousines and a Dodge Ram 1500 light duty truck." Typical liberal hypocrite.

Last but not least, why do those from the left have very little understanding of simple economics? Don't they understand that a tax on the oil companies is just a tax on themselves?!! The additional costs will just filter through to the consumer. It's not rocket science.

Silly liberals.

On a side note, Al was recently in Dallas to present his "epic", An Inconvenient Truth, at a local venue. I did not see one story about his visit on any of the local news broadcasts, nor did I see it covered before or after in the Dallas Morning News. The day before the presentation I checked ticketmaster to see if I could get tickets. I wanted to get an idea of how well this thing was selling. Less that 24 hours before the event I could still get 8 seats together approximately 15 rows back in the center. I guess his rhetoric doesn't play too well here. He needs to stick to moonbat havens like California.

Islam For Losers

Islam: A religion for Losers

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1723503/posts

Posted on 10/21/2006 8:07:20 AM PDT by tcostell

You would think that a belief system where the most lauded members are those who blow themselves up would have some serious marketing problems. I mean how exactly do you get rational post-secular westerners to buy into an idea like that? But Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion none the less. And much of it's growth is owed to its rapid conversion of certain segments of western society.

At a glance it defies all logic, but it's true. It's a commonly held view that when a person stops believing in organized religion they don't then believe in nothing, but begin to believe in anything. This describes the state of many in the post-secular west. And for people in that mental and emotional state, divorced from their society without any common emotional ground to bind them to their family and community, Islam apparently has some intrinsic appeal. But this then begs the question "Who are these people?” Who would be willing to give up so much of the promise of the 21st century west for the cold restricted structure of 15th century Islam? Who would be prepared to trade the "We hope you believe but it's really up to you" optimism of western theology for the choice between unyielding submission to the political hierarchy of the faith, or the business end of the faithful's sword?

Well in a word... its losers. Islam is growing in the western world by picking the low hanging fruit of society. Those most lacking in the skills it takes to succeed in the west, are irresistibly drawn to Islam. In a single stroke, Islam provides not only the craved for structure of a rigid life and a ready political apparatus which blames others for their hardships, but provides the promise of eternal reward in heaven for the very characteristics which have brought them only failure in the west. In short, it's a religion which rewards the loser for the very things which make them a loser, and encourages them to use violence to bring the rest of society down to their level. This is why it's becomes such a popular faith in the US prison systems, and why it's growing so rapidly among the discontented portions of western society. Whatever your personal failure, Islam has an explanation that makes it clear that someone else is responsible.

In the history of man, no society has so successfully provided each individual with opportunity like the United States. In the US, the circumstances of your birth don't matter, nor does your race, nor your gender, or anything else other than your own personal initiative. In America, both men and women from every religious, racial, ethnic, and economic subgroup have continually reached the pinnacle of success in their chosen fields. And the world over it's widely regarded as fact that if you are truly extraordinary at something, then America is where you will receive the greatest reward for it. America loves a winner, and our society rewards them well. We recruit them in every slice of life, from athletes, to engineers, to writers to educators, and everything else. If there is a greatest ditch digger on the planet, then the odds would be that he's digging a ditch somewhere in the US. And it's the very idea “that success can come to anyone" which makes the US what it is.

But that isn't to say that it’s a perfect meritocracy where only those who deserve it are rewarded. It's still a society of men, and many of those men, for whatever reason, will do what they must to stand in the way of others as well. So while the opportunity is clearly there, that alone is not a guarantee of success. Some people, for whatever reason, lack the initiative, or the determination, or sometimes even the intelligence to achieve the same level of success as others in their chosen field. But the question of success is not what you start out with in life, but what you do with it. The people who achieve success are usually those who when faced with an obstacle will work harder, jump higher, run faster, and do whatever is necessary to get around it. Success isn't defined by talent as much as it is by determination. But some people don't react that way. Some people, when faced with an obstacle, will be quick to abandon their effort, and begin blaming others for their troubles. They fail to take responsibility, and instead look to find a scapegoat. And along comes Islam.

The very core concept of Islam is the unconditional surrender to the will of Allah. At its very heart, Islam encourages its faithful to not take responsibility for the circumstances of their life. And from that basis all other Islamic law follows. Have you had trouble with women? No problem... under Islam a woman is more a piece of property than a person, so you will be able to command, and they must obey, if not... it's the sword or stoning. Have you had trouble in business? No problem... under Islam, most worldly matters of commerce are left to the Dhimmi, those members of the unfaithful tolerated under Islam like slaves thanks to the high taxes paid by them for the right to survive. But if the taxes should stop flowing, or the Dhimmi become defiant, then Islam provides a solution that even a loser can understand, again, it's the sword. On and on, Islamic law makes it clear that if you are among the faithful, then anytime the world fails to meet your expectations, the perfectly acceptable and moral solution is violence.

In short, Islam is a belief system which codifies a theological structure where those people least capable of achieving success on their own gain the political means of either taking or restricting the success of others by force. It’s a triumph of violence as the means to realize the will of god, over the "reason" of the western world. And in the west, people who choose violence over reason are losers. And so it grows in the prisons of the US, and the suburban slums of Paris. It gathers strength from the bottom, speaking a language that the losers of the west can understand. "Obey" they say, "Obey, and we will give the means to take your revenge on a society that has left you behind. Obey, and we will make you mighty, obey and your violence will be the last expression of the will of god."

What those losers who convert fail to realize however, is that the price for their vengeance, and the cost of their scapegoat, is that they too become a slave. If they aren’t responsible for the bad things that happen to them, then they aren't responsible for the good that comes to them either. There may be no failure for them under Islam, but then there will be no triumph for them as well. And should they achieve some moment of greatness, then they will quickly find that they too may be guilty of some obscure violation of sharia, and that the sword of Islam cuts both ways.

For myself, I may not be the most successful man I know, or for that matter the most faithful, but my success and my failures all belong to me. And for that alone, I'll stick to the reason of the west over the violence of Islam, anyday.

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

tcostell makes some excellent points!

In many ways, Islam reminds me of communism and the democratic party. They attract the LCDs of society, they don't allow contrasting views within their ranks, and they all promise Utopia but only deliver death and misery.

Traitor, Murderer, Alcoholic, Fool, Etc.........

KGB Letter Outlines Sen. Kennedy's Overtures to Soviets, Prof Says

By Kevin Mooney

October 20, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.

"We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger," said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party.

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy's offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.

"There's a lot more to be found here," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "This was a shocking revelation."

It is not evident with whom Tunney actually met in Moscow. But the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed Tunney to reach out to "confidential contacts" so Andropov could be alerted to the senator's proposals.

Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.

"Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan," Kengor said. "But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders."

In Kennedy's view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan's unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief wrote in his letter.

"Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war," Kengor said. "He hoped to counter Reagan's polices, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects."

As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow -- to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.

In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.

But Kennedy's attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized. Andropov died after a brief time in office and was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.

In his attempt to reach out the Soviets, Kennedy settled on a flawed receptacle for peace, Kengor said. Andropov was a much more belligerent and confrontational leader than the man who followed him, in Kengor's estimation.

"If Andropov had lived and Gorbachev never came to power, I can't imagine the Cold War ending peacefully like it did," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "Things could have gotten ugly."

In the long run of history, Kengor believes it is evident that Reagan's policies were vindicated while Kennedy was proven wrong. In fact, as he points out in his book, Kennedy himself made a "gracious concession" after Reagan died, crediting the 40th president with winning the Cold War.


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


Yet the morons in MA continue to elect this tired, old, windbag.

Democrat Diplomacy

Bobblehead Mohammed

Bobblehead Mohammed?

NY Daily News ^ | 10/2/2006 | Tina Moore

A ceramic bobblehead doll of the Prophet Muhammed - created to resemble the infamous caricature published by a Danish newspaper - is being hawked online for $22.99 a pop by an ex-Marine.

The unapologetic creator, Timothy Ames, 28, said the bobblehead is similar to "dashboard Jesus" figurines that can be stuck with adhesive to flat surfaces. "I thought, 'If they flipped out over some cartoons what will they do with a dashboard Muhammed?'" Ames said from his home in Hawaii.

But Islamic experts are not amused, saying the bobbleheads could anger Muslims, whose religion strictly prohibits depictions of the prophet.

"No depiction of the prophet, even if it is positive, should be made ever - and certainly not one as ridiculous as the bobblehead Muhammed," said Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, an assistant professor at New York University. "I don't think it's about freedom of speech. This is the freedom to insult, which he shouldn't be doing."

Ames said several hundred people have purchased the dolls online, and he has paid a Chinese manufacturer to create 1,000 more. "I just think it's funny," he said.

Violent protests erupted last winter across the Muslim world after a Danish newspaper published cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammed as a suicide bomber. Many European papers reprinted the cartoons.

"People who get p----d off about this, they're going to get p----d off regardless," Ames, a baptized Christian, said.

The sophomoric Web site where Ames, using the pen name "Filthy," sells the bobbleheads also features a collection of scattered rants. In one, he writes: "I'm really not into slamming people just for their religion. Most of the stupid people I've met are stupid despite their religion, not because of it."

Frank Peters, a professor in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at NYU, warned that a bobblehead Muhammed was "a really bad idea."

"Jews and Christians have gotten used to this kind of thing, but Muslims haven't," he said. "This may not be his intention, but these things have consequences."


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


ORDER YOURS TODAY HERE: DASHBOARDMOHAMMED.COM


.

DIMocrats; Tough On Terror, Strong On National Defense??

WSJ: Democrats on al Qaeda
Wall Street Journal ^ | October 2, 2006 | Editorial

Democrats keep insisting that, whatever their opposition to the war in Iraq, they'd be as tough as anyone in fighting al Qaeda. We'd love to believe this for the country's sake, but then what are Americans to make of last week's Congressional vote on detainee interrogation and military tribunals?

The bill was a compromise between the White House and three GOP Senators who Democrats had been hailing as voices of independent courage only days earlier. But rather than endorse this deal that put limits on interrogation methods (see nearby), Democrats in both houses voted overwhelmingly no. In the House, only 34 Democrats supported the bill, most of those from the South or rural areas, while the entire leadership and 160 Democrats voted no.

Over in the Senate, 32 Democrats opposed the bill, including the leadership and everyone who's been mentioned as a potential Presidential candidate in 2008: Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold. The dozen who voted yes are either up for re-election or from swing states. If an election weren't coming, we doubt there'd have even been that many. The Democratic "ayes" included Senate candidates Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, both partisan liberals on all issues except, suddenly, this one.

This amazing vote only reinforces the Republican argument that, given the chance, Democrats would return to the pre-9/11, law-enforcement model of fighting terrorism. In voting "no," they were opposing aggressive interrogation of even the worst al Qaeda captives. If Democrats fall short of regaining Congress this year, votes like this will be the reason.

More HERE.