About Me

Name: Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Wanna read something really scary?

Last October, Rounds Out! attempted to bring you a story so terrifying, so utterly frightening, so mind numbingly horrid that it could not even be completed. 
 
This year, the story returns.
 
And your life will never be the same again...
 
 
Beginning October 1st, tune in to Rounds Out! for the newest chapter(s) in blood-curdling Halloween terror.
 
UPDATE 16 Oct:  I must apologize to anyone who may stumble in and read this story or who are regular readers of my blog.  I have been down due to severe illness for over two weeks.
 
I am all (mostly) better now and will plug away with the continuing and finish of this years Halloween story!  I had planned on a thirty-one part story, but will have to compress things a bit to culminate on Halloween.
 
Enjoy!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Al Gore Calls for, Sanctions Eco-Terrorism

Since the Goracle's alarmist rhetoric has fallen on deaf ears of late, he now calls for eco-terrorism to further his aims:
 
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.
 
The former U.S. vice president, whose climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award, told a philanthropic meeting in New York City that "the world has lost ground to the climate crisis."
 
"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.
 
"I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."
 
Some may say that my inference that this is a call for eco-"terrorism", may consider that a bit alarmist itself.  After all, what harm could possibly come from "young people" exercising their Constitutional rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and expression?  These people have altruistic motives after all - they simply are trying to save the planet blah, blah, blah...
 
You need look no further than this for why this type of behavior shouldn't be condoned, let alone advocated by a public figure like Al Gore.  This is simply the height of irresponsibility, not to mention hubris, from someone like Al Gore.  To actively call for "youths" to openly participate in this type of behavior is bordering on the criminal.
 
Al Gore is scared, plain and simple.  The public isn't buying into his fearmongering as he had hoped.  The average "man on the street" has begun to see through the advocacy and rhetoric from fearmongers like Al Gore and his Acolyte James Hansen (who testified on behalf of the criminals in Britain!).
 
This type of behavior has never been prosecuted or attacked by law enforcement or politicians in this country as it should have been.  PETA advocates assaulting people by throwing red paint (or real blood) on people wearing furs; ELF (Earth Liberation Front) or ALF (Animal Liberation Front) burning down ski lifts at resorts, burning down homes under construction are perfect examples.  The latest eco-terrorism in Britain is a foreshadowing of what Al Gore is now actively calling for.
 
This is unconscionable conduct from Al Gore and he should be called to task for it!
 
(H/T: Hot Air)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NASA's Hansen: Advocate of Climate Violence

I’ve been wrestling with this topic for hours now as to how to best present it in this forum.  I finally decided to simply just write it as I see it. It has been an ugly day for law and common sense in the world. Vandalism in the name of ecological causes is now “ok” thanks in part to Dr. James Hansen, of NASA GISS coming to the defense of eco-vandals.  See the second story here. Now, encouraged by this “victory” that gives a sanction to eco-vandalism in the UK, how many more shall we see? And if one of these people is injured and kills themselves or others in the process of the next stunt? What then? Who is responsible?

Certainly I want a cleaner world, and better energy resources with focus on the future. But, sanctioning vandalism for these causes is not the way to get there. What do I want from NASA as a taxpayer? Science, solutions, and inspiring ideas turned into reality. I don’t want political activism in the name of science. After thinking awhile about this, I’ve come to the following conclusions:

1- A NASA scientist siding with vandalism as a “lawful excuse” is an inappropriate abuse of the position. It was a question of law, not of science.

2- Dr. Hansen cannot separate himself from the agency as private citizen in this case, because he was brought in as an “expert witness”. Even if he paid his own way and took personal time, his presence was based on taxpayer funded research.

3- It appears Dr. Hansen has violated the code of ethics posted on the NASA Office of General Council webpage. From the Goddard Institute for Space Studies web page:  GISS is a component laboratory of Goddard Space Flight Center’s Earth Sciences Division, which is part of GSFC’s Sciences and Exploration Directorate. Thus Hansen falls under these ethics rules. Specifically, Dr. Hansen’s defense of vandalism in the name of a cause he believes in fails under the NASA Misuse of position rule. If he received compensation of any kind, such as airfare, rooms, board etc. to appear as a NASA expert, he would also be breaking other NASA conduct rules.

4- As keeper of data, specifically the GISTEMP dataset, he has now brought the impartiality of that data into question due to his activism in areas unrelated to scientific research. Certainly Dr. Hansen has a body of work that is impressive, there is no disputing that. But it is time for Dr. Jim Hansen to go. Thanks to him, GISS as a dataset is no longer impartial. We have potential bias from the gatekeeper of the data that can’t be separated from the data. If he can come to the defense of lawbreakers in the name of his global warming cause, then it is an even easier jump to allow that same bias to creep into scientific data he is responsible for and his conclusions drawn from that data.
For more information and NASA contact information, go here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Value of Service

I learned a big lesson on service Aug. 4, 2008, when Eielson had the rare honor of hosting President Bush on a refueling stop as he traveled to Asia.

It was an event Eielson will never forget -- a hangar full of Airmen and Soldiers getting to see the Commander in Chief up close, and perhaps even shaking his hand. An incredible amount of effort goes into presidential travel because of all of the logistics, security, protocol, etc ... so it was remarkable to see Air Force One land at Eielson on time at precisely 4:30 p.m.--however, when he left less than two hours later, the President was 15 minutes behind schedule.

That's a big slip for something so tightly choreographed, but very few people know why it happened. Here's why.

On Dec. 10, 2006, our son, Shawn, was a paratrooper deployed on the outskirts of Baghdad. He was supposed to spend the night in camp, but when a fellow soldier became ill Shawn volunteered to take his place on a nighttime patrol--in the convoy's most exposed position as turret gunner in the lead Humvee. He was killed instantly with two other soldiers when an IED ripped through their vehicle.

I was thinking about that as my family and I sat in the audience listening to the President's speech, looking at the turret on the up-armored Humvee the explosive ordnance disposal flight had put at the edge of the stage as a static display.

When the speech was over and the President was working the crowd line, I felt a tap on my shoulder and turned to see a White House staff member. She asked me and my wife to come with her, because the President wanted to meet us.

Stunned, we grabbed our two sons that were with us and followed her back into a conference room. It was a shock to go from a crowded, noisy hangar, past all of those security people, to find ourselves suddenly alone in a quiet room.

The only thing we could hear was a cell phone vibrating, and noticed that it was coming from the jacket Senator Stevens left on a chair. We didn't answer.

A short time later, the Secret Service opened the door and President Bush walked in. I thought we might get to shake his hand as he went through. But instead, he walked up to my wife with his arms wide, pulled her in for a hug and a kiss, and said, "I wish I could heal the hole in your heart." He then grabbed me for a hug, as well as each of our sons. Then he turned and said, "Everybody out."

A few seconds later, the four of us were completely alone behind closed doors with the President of the United States and not a Secret Service agent in sight.

He said, "Come on, let's sit down and talk." He pulled up a chair at the side of the room, and we sat down next to him. He looked a little tired from his trip, and he noticed that his shoes were scuffed up from leaning over concrete barriers to shake hands and pose for photos. He slumped down the chair, completely relaxed, smiled, and suddenly was no longer the President - he was just a guy with a job, sitting around talking with us like a family member at a barbeque.

For the next 15 or 20 minutes, he talked with us about our son, Iraq, his family, faith, convictions, and shared his feelings about nearing the end of his presidency. He asked each of our teenaged sons what they wanted to do in life and counseled them to set goals, stick to their convictions, and not worry about being the "cool" guy.

He said that he'd taken a lot of heat during his tenure and was under a lot of pressure to do what's politically expedient, but was proud to say that he never sold his soul. Sometimes he laughed, and at others he teared up. He said that what he'll miss most after leaving office will be his role as Commander in Chief.

One of the somber moments was when he thanked us for the opportunity to meet, because he feels a heavy responsibility knowing that our son died because of a decision he made. He was incredibly humble, full of warmth, and completely without pretense. We were seeing the man his family sees.

We couldn't believe how long he was talking to us, but he seemed to be in no hurry whatsoever. In the end, he thanked us again for the visit and for the opportunity to get off his feet for a few minutes. He then said, "Let's get some pictures." The doors flew open, Secret Service and the White House photographer came in, and suddenly he was the President again. We posed for individual pictures as he gave each of us one of his coins, and then he posed for family pictures. A few more thank yous, a few more hugs, and he was gone.

The remarkable thing about the whole event was that he didn't have to see us at all. If he wanted to do more, he could've just given a quick handshake and said, "Thanks for your sacrifice." But he didn't - he put everything and everyone in his life on hold to meet privately with the family of a Private First Class who gave his life in the service of his country.

What an incredible lesson on service. If the President of the United States is willing to drop everything on his plate to visit with a family, surely the rest of us can do it. No one is above serving another person, and no one is so lofty that he or she can't treat others with dignity and respect.

We often think of service in terms of sacrificing ourselves for someone in a position above us, but how often do we remember that serving someone below us can be much more important? If you're in a leadership capacity, take a good look at how you're treating your people, and remember that your role involves serving the people you rely on every day.
Commentary by Lt. Col. Mark Murphy
354th Maintenance Group deputy commander
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tagged as "Abuse of Power", "Crime"

A lefty troll who's suddenly concerned about ethics?  The deuce you say!
 
Listen troll, you tagged your post as an "abuse of power" and "crime".  It isn't.  If it's your assertion it is, please offer substantiation.  Of course you can't since your own cited article makes the point that there is nothing wrong and indeed makes the point that she spends less than her predecessor and that any and all "charges" from her and her family are perfectly fine, legal, etc.
 
You also added nothing about "ethics" in your post on this subject and I find it amazing that you find this "behavior" from Palin "un-ethical", yet have no problem with Obambi's dealings with Tony Rezcko.  Or the terrorist William Ayers.  So again I wonder as to the point of your post?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Expenses Legal, Frugal (Troll Can't Read)

"The governor is entitled to a per diem, and she claims it."  Read that first sentence again, Townhall Troll.  
 
What's funny is that the WaPo debunks it own attempt at a smear througout it's own article - as the following shows:
 
Leighow noted that under state policy, all of the governor's children are entitled to per diem expenses, even her infant son. "The first family declined the per diem [for] the children," Leighow said. "The amount that they had declined was $4,461, as of August 5."
 
Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski. He traveled often in an executive jet that Palin called an extravagance during her campaign. She sold it after she was sworn into office.
 
There is more if you choose to go read it.  Basically, the Governor is entitled to re-embursement for all the expenses described in this article and she takes them.  Her family members are also entitled to said expenses.  Additionally, she spends less money on travel, by about 75%, than her predecessor.
 
Huh.  Taking money one is entitled to; spending less money; eliminating extravagance and waste.  Yeah, I guess liberals/leftists/Democrats WOULD think this type of behavior IS scandolous - they're own behavior being so far in opposition...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin Expenses Legal, Frugal

"The governor is entitled to a per diem, and she claims it."  Sooo easy refuting the Townhall Troll.
 
What's funny is that the WaPo debunks it own attempt at a smear througout it's own article - as the following shows:
 
Leighow noted that under state policy, all of the governor's children are entitled to per diem expenses, even her infant son. "The first family declined the per diem [for] the children," Leighow said. "The amount that they had declined was $4,461, as of August 5."
 
Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski. He traveled often in an executive jet that Palin called an extravagance during her campaign. She sold it after she was sworn into office.
 
There is more if you choose to go read it.  Basically, the Governor is entitled to re-embursement for all the expenses described in this article and she takes them.  Her family members are also entitled to said expenses.  Additionally, she spends less money on travel, by about 75%, than her predecessor.
 
Huh.  Taking money one is entitled to; spending less money; eliminating extravagance and waste.  Yeah, I guess liberals/leftists/Democrats WOULD think this type of behavior IS scandolous - they're own behavior being so far in opposition...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Beats Obama in TV Ratings

Presidential candidate John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention drew more television viewers than his rival Barack Obama attracted at the Democratic party's event last week, according to preliminary ratings from Nielsen Media Research.

Across all broadcast networks Thursday, Sen. McCain’s speech ended the night with a 4.8 rating/7 share, compared to Sen. Obama’s 4.3/7 average, according to overnight numbers from metered households in 55 U.S. markets measured by Nielsen. These ratings are preliminary, however, and are subject to change.

NBC’s coverage of Sen. McCain’s speech started directly at the tail end of the opening game of NFL season, with the speech pulling in a 6.3 rating/10 share, topping Sen. Obama’s speech last week by 26%.
 
Of course these aren't straight viewer numbers.  With the MSM and such batting for "The One" though does anyone believe they will publish that McCain had more viewers?
 
Yeah, me either.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The "Tools of Civil Disobedience"

A laundry list of simple, non-threatening equipment?  Not so much.  Those "peaceful" protesters raided in St. Paul were busted with a myriad of "tools" for their "civil" disobedience:
 
On Saturday afternoon, he displayed a number of the confiscated items: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine.
 
"We know these things were going to be used as weapons," Fletcher said, a charge protesters and their advocates vigorously disputed.
 
Of course the chrages were disputed because what else would you use throwing knives or guns for?  Duh!  It's not like the buckets of urine were going to be thrown at anyone, least of all the pigs, er, police.  Hello? 
 
Just another example of the Man oppressing the truth in America! 
 
Facists.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »