Liberals - the only ones who can "SAVE THE EARTH" - in their minds

One thing that astounds me is the level of hubris in the minds of the environmentally elite. (or those who like to think they are "elite")

Creationists, Darwinists, etc - agree that the earth is old. Over the life of the earth; species have come and species have gone. Extinction of one group has led to an opportunity for another to arise or thrive.

Those who are so intent on preventing the extinction of any species need to be aware that we are interfering with the process of the earth. By stepping in and re-creating or infusing new populations; we need to ask "are we stopping a normal event that will prevent another life form from growing; or even being?"

Yes, I know the hue and cry of "man is destroying habitat" will bombard me. I would say that the earth cycles and sun/solar system cycles destroy habitat and have done so for millennia on end.

The natural resources of the earth exist - irrefutable fact. They are being used under a technological evolution and invention by man. Cows, horses, lions, tigers, bears and beavers are not using (to my knowledge) air conditioning. Man is. Is it a "luxury?" Perhaps. I would say both A/C and heat have prevented human death and extended human life.

Is it "bad" or "evil" to use heat? No. Cavemen used wood fires. Due to smaller populations, this was not an issue. Today's population would not be able to subsist on wood energy without exhausting "wood reserves". Thus, oil and petroleum products are more sustainable than the technology of the Neolithic period. That is an improvement and advancement that protects the resources of the earth. Though some people still use some wood energy, it is by far replaced by oil. Follow me here before jumping my ass.

In tomorrow's technology, oil will become obsolete. Though some applications may continue to exist. However, we are not at the point of 'getting off oil'. Does this mean we will 'kill the planet'? No. (Though the case is certainly out there that technology advances in energy have been ignored due to the abundance and cheap availability of oil. ) If the perfect "renewable, clean, powerful energy solution was unveiled today, it would still be DECADES before delivery systems were in place in every nook and cranny of the US; vehicles able to use that energy are built; vehicles are replaced and are on the road that use the new fuel and not one "oil" car is left running; homes are powered by the magic new fuel; ALL 170 by-products of oil are recreated in some other form.

This process of replacing all oil touch points is not some unimportant piece of a new fuel program - it is integral to converting the country - and the world to new systems. You cannot by-pass his process by shutting off the spigot today and letting people suffer until new technology is in place. The world has to continue to run for those decades without much interruption or (nature of man) there will be massive wars, deaths, pestilence. I would think the environmentalist elites would be against these disasters. (maybe not)

Those who belittle the pragmatic and call them "planet haters"; "knuckle draggers"; deniers or whatever; I find interesting. They are bullies. These bullies assume if they ridicule those of disparate view points - or who bring up points that the enviro-bullies have no answer to - the pragmatists will curl up and blow away. You are all in for a sorry day coming quickly upon you. Those who are realistic enough to understand that oil will play a part in our near (and medium term) futures are gaining clout and voices. Those who call themselves "earth aware" will know that no longer will we run away and hide from sarcasm.

Those who are enviro-bullies are infantile political sycophants with little or no natural intelligence. Let's hope the one with the big ears doesn't get to move this January….

Tina Davila - Victim of U.S. Governmental Ineptitude

The following news story is heartbreaking, frustrating and just plain maddeningly unnecessary. I am posting it here today for a very clear purpose.

The scum killer in the story is - you guessed it - an Illegal Alien. Yep, that is correct. If the do nothing bozo's in Washington D.C. had simply DONE THEIR JOBS, the probability is that this loser wouldn't have been in the US in the first place.

This murder of a Mom, a wife, an American is the responsibility of our leaders. This is the result of - and therefore the fault of President Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, the Mayor of San Francisco, and every other politician or law maker who has not stepped up and put an end to the open borders of the United States. If I had my way, this family would take this to the people named above (and all the others I did not have room to name). I think this family should sue every political 'leader' who has failed the citizens of the US - and this Mom in particular.

Let me ask you this; how many more Americans have to die and families have to be left bereft before we demand action? I am SO past the point of 'enough'. Write, call, meet with, demand that your elected officials CLOSE the borders NOW.

Too bad Houston citizen - and fighter of crime - Joe Horne - was not at this location - maybe he would have had his shotgun with him. I know that I for one will be supporting the 'open carry' bill in Texas.

Slain mom's kids plead for help finding her killer.

Tina Davila died defending baby from carjacker: 'She was the coolest mom'

By Mike Celizic

TODAYShow.com contributor

They wanted her car. She wanted her baby. And because of that, Tina Davila, mother of five and beloved by all, is dead. Her family wants her killer brought to justice.

"She was a good person and she was good to be around," Davila's 17-year-old daughter, Patricia Matt, told TODAY's Meredith Vieira Wednesday in New York. "Everybody wanted to be around her. All the kids liked her. They thought she was the coolest mom."

It was April 17 when Davila was killed in Texas because she refused to give an assailant the keys to her car, in which she had left her infant daughter. But the pain of the loss, painted in tears that flowed down Patricia's cheeks, is still fresh for those she left behind.

The 39-year-old Davila had pulled into a parking lot of a Harris County, Texas, cell phone store to pay her bill. She left her daughter, 4-month-old Kaylynn, in the back seat and started to go inside when she was accosted by a man who grabbed for the keys to her SUV.

The confrontation was captured on grainy surveillance video from inside the store. It shows a man, identified by police as 23-year-old Timoteo Rios, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, grabbing for the keys. Davila pulls back, and the man stabs her in the chest several times before turning and fleeing. Davila, mortally wounded, runs after him before turning and staggering into the store for help. EMTs rushed her to a hospital, but she died there of her wounds.

Still at large!

Rios remains at large, and police suspect he's fled to Mexico. A man identified as his accomplice and the driver of the car in which they arrived at the store and fled the scene, is in custody. Police said he is Kennedy Escoto, 17. He has been charged with aggravated robbery for his involvement with the theft of beer from a convenience store immediately before the attempted carjacking that left Davila dead.

Eric Matt, Davila's first husband and the father of three of her children, got a call saying his ex-wife and high school sweetheart had been injured. Though the two had divorced in 1996 after eight years of marriage and three children, they remained friends. Matt said his ex-wife continued to help him out in tough times many times over the years.

"They told us that Tina was involved in an accident," Matt told Vieira. "My oldest son, we both went to the hospital, thinking she was in a car accident or something. When we arrived, we asked about Tina Davila that was in an accident, and the people said, 'You mean the woman who got stabbed?' Right then and there is when it kind of shocked and hit us."

Matt never got to see Davila. But he did learn that she had died protecting Kaylynn. "The officers said she wasn't willing to give the keys," he told Vieira. "Her last words were, 'My baby. My baby's in the back of the truck.' "

That Davila gave her life to protect her child didn't surprise Matt. "She would do that for every one of her kids," he said.

'Sticker mom'

Indeed, in her community, Davila was known as the "sticker mom," a title that reflected her penchant for covering the back of her car with decals representing the sports teams her children belonged to. She never missed any of their games and always led the cheers.

Her 15-year-old son with Matt, Payton, tried to describe his mother to Vieira. He got out the word "just," hesitated, swallowed hard, chewed his lip, took a deep breath, fought back tears and finally gave up, overcome by grief.

And that, said Payton's father, is why the three came to New York to appear on TODAY. "The reason we're here is the fact that there's one more person out there that maybe somebody will know. Tina was very important in our lives. She was a mother that was a good mother. She cared for every one of her children. Just to see the sadness in my kids — it's a lot of adjusting going on through this period of time. I feel there would be some closure in our family if this other man would be caught."

A $10,000 reward has been offered for information leading to the capture of Rios, whose police record includes brief jail terms last year for marijuana possession and for criminal mischief and failure to identify himself to police. Authorities say he may still be driving the gold Ford Taurus with Texas plates P42 CYY and a broken left-side mirror held on by duct tape that he was in at the time of the murder.

Fairness Doctrine - NOT Fair to America

"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

--Bill Ruder, Democratic campaign consultant and Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Kennedy Administration [1]

Today, there have been a number of reports that the liberal Democrat lead Congress is making yet another attempt to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.

• For those who do not know what the Fairness Doctrine was;
  The rule was first articulated in 1949, when television was in its infancy and radio meant a handful of AM stations in each market. In its final form, the rule required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public importance." Until it was abolished in 1987, this Federal Communications Commission rule required broadcasters to air all sides of controversial issues.
  

At first glance, something called the 'Fairness Doctrine' may sound innocuous. Fairness is, after all, a basic American value. But as a matter of principle, any such government controls on media content is anathema to constitutional guarantees of free speech. And in practice, the so-called fairness doctrine was deeply unfair.

Liberals are so intimidated by conservative talk radio that they are attempting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The Democrats state that the Fairness Doctrine will guarantee that more opinions will be heard. Of all arguments for the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, the most inaccurate and insidious is that it will permit a greater diversity of opinion to be heard.

By requiring, under threat of monetary penalties, that broadcasters "fairly" represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine say they believe that more views will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered. But with the threat of potential FCC retaliation for perceived lack of compliance, most broadcasters would be more reluctant to air their own opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience does not want to hear.

Thus, the result of the fairness doctrine in many cases would be to stifle the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, make free speech less free. This is exactly what led the FCC to repeal the rule in 1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. [2]

Additionally, I believe that Nancy Pelosi and her crew know EXACTLY what the re-enactment of the Fairness Doctrine would do - that it would decimate conservative talk radio and TV. These are broadcasts where not only are opinions given; news stories are reported that are not heard at all on mainstream media channels and information is given to Americans who are too busy with work and families to chase the truth of news themselves.

If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.

[1]Quoted in Jesse Walker, "Tuning Out Free Speech," The American Conservative, April 23, 2007

[2] Excerpts from the Heritage Foundation - 1993

Build YOUR American Dream - on your own merit

To all those that get the fact that hope and advancement come from within:

This is exactly the point of the father/daughter story: You have to decide to succeed and keep on trying – there will be obstacles at times – that is what faith is for – faith in God, tomorrow, good people, your efforts.

I have heard stories about those who have been discriminated against and they have been hurt and discouraged. What it demonstrates is that you came in contact with an organization full of absolute total jerks. (Good that they are all concentrated in one place) But, for every company like that there are 10-fold companies who are not like that.

I bet everyone in the working world was discriminated against at some time – black, white, woman, too educated (intimidated the hiring manager), too fat, dressed in a different manner, too many earrings…it goes on and on. Do you think as a woman in the technology field – especially in the early and mid-90's that I was not discriminated against? I was.

I have had 40+ year old mainframe developer's walk out of advanced programming classes – before the class started - when they realized I was not the secretary setting up the class but the instructor. I have had these men write notes to leave with our admin – before they ever heard me say one word that I could not teach them a thing because I was a "girl". They said that I should teach graphics and word processing classes because I was a girl and only good for being a secretary. Think that didn't hurt? Wasn't a crushing blow to the ego? I was a huge blow. But, keeping your head high and ignoring the idiots are a better way to succeed. I just went forward and put the turkeys out of my mind – could be worse - at least I wasn't married to them!

You are the master of your soul and the captain of your destiny – I know trite right? It actually is not. You are the only one who can change your situation. Fail at something? Learn the lesson and try again. Not getting anywhere? Change your approach. The answer is not to give up and wait for someone to fix the mess – if you quit, you have no chance. Obama's message is "poor you, you have been hurt, held back, given a short stick" his platform answer is "the government will help you out, bail you out, fix the wrong". In short grow government and taxes to hand out money to those who perceive their deserved success has not been met.

You know, punish the successful as they must have cheated in some way to achieve success. THAT path my friends will lead the people of this nation to a multi-generational society of governmentally dependent people who are not abject to failure and being told what to do.

That my friends leads to the common man thinking that the socialist "re-distribution of wealth is a good thing - giving the corrupt in government an open door.

A Conservative Father's Discussion with his Liberal Daughter

Father and Daughter Discussion

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil and selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her father asked her, 'Then why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend Audrey, who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPAs.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea. How would that be fair? I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work. Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'