Global Warming Predictions Wrong Again

Hurricane Humberto hit the Gulf Coast today, and our prayers go out to anyone affected. But the fact that Humberto is hitting on September 13 brings up the fact that global warming alarmists have screwed up again.

According to the alarmists, this was going to a very active hurricane season. Each year since 2005, the summer of Katrina, the predictions have been that it would be worse than 2005. We haven't come close.

By September 13, 2005 hurricane Ophelia had hit and Phillipe and Rita both were less than a week away. That's 8 more hurricanes in 2005 than we have had to date. 2006 was supposed to be a very active year also, and we only reached 9 hurricanes for the whole season. Why are the predictions wrong? Because the alarmists prefer to use they're flawed theories instead of observable facts.

In a study published in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters on Aug. 9, the UAH researchers provide real evidence of the atmosphere's self-regulating nature. This study is just the latest to punch holes in the alarmist theories. Recent studies have also shown that the hottest years on record occurred prior to World War II, when greenhouse gases were much less than they are now.

It's time the alarmists realize that even if the planet warms up, their doomsday predictions are not going to occur.

Anti-War Activists Resort To Name Calling

Things are getting out of hand when people can't tell fact from opinion. When General Petraeus testified in front of Congress, he gave the facts about what has been happening in Iraq. Moveon.org accused him of lying because his facts didn't support their opinions. It couldn't that their opinion is incorrect, Petraeus must have lied. An editorial in the New York Times did the same thing. Facts are facts.

With no evidence to back up their claims, and no way to support their own argument, anti-war activists have resorted to name calling to try to discredit General Petraeus. If you don't agree with the war, that's fine. One of the great things about this country is we're allowed to disagree with our leaders. But if you have to resort to name calling instead of intelligent debate, you've already lost.

On The Anniversary Of 9/11

September 11, 2001 was the New York primary elections, or it would have been had events not unfolded as they did. As a political consultant, I was working with several political campaigns in Brooklyn, NY that day. As with most election days, my day had started at 3:30 a.m. with a last minute push to make sure our signs had not been vandalized, and an inspection of the voting sites. I was shepherding a young candidate on his first campaign for City Council.

He watched as I worked on another campaign in addition to his. A smaller, yet much nastier campaign for State Committee. The incumbent, who I was working against, had been arrested for beating his wife. Political organizations not affiliated with the campaign had posted his mug shot all over the district. We were accused of mudslinging, despite having nothing to do with the postings. All in all, it was the ugliest campaign I had been involved in.

When this young candidate saw this campaign, and heard the things being said against us, he asked why we keep putting ourselves through this. I told him two quotes that I have always remembered. The first was from Thomas Jefferson, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance." The second was "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." This conversation was around 8:30 a.m.

Having been working for 5 hours already, we decided it would be a good time to grab something to eat. We piled into a car and headed for a local McDonald's when the candidate asked if he could stop at his home for a minute. He was having a problem with his contact lenses and wanted to replace them. He ran in while we waited in the car. He came out in a panic. The television had been on in his house and they were announcing the first plane hitting the World Trade Center.

By the time we reached McDonald's, the second tower and the Pentagon had been hit. We tried to call for information but it was impossible to get through to anyone. We sat over breakfast, debating whether we should concede the election and send everyone home. The primaries had not been officially canceled at that point, but we decided that too many of our workers had friends and family in the towers. We pulled everyone out and got them home.

By the time I returned home the second tower had fallen. My wife, who was unable to get a hold of me was in a panic. We desperately manned the phones until every friend and family member was accounted for.

Now, six years later I am appalled at what I see. Conspiracy theorists with no knowledge spout that we blew up the towers ourselves. As the bells tolled at the moment the second tower was hit, The Today Show couldn't be bothered to break away from their story on how women can find husbands to show the ceremony. The Clinton administration made mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen. They can't admit it. The Bush administration made mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen. They can't admit it.

For too brief a moment after the attacks, this country was united. We need to unite again.

Iraq Misses Benchmarks. How Did Democrats Do?

With the testimony of General Petraeus making it clear that troops are still needed in Iraq, Democrats are expected to press that the Iraqi government has not met the benchmarks that were set for it. How is that different from our government?

Iraq had benchmarks set by the U.S. government. The Democratic Congress set its own benchmarks. Iraq is a completely new government, with no member being in power prior to the U.S. military effort. Many Democratic members of Congress have been in office for years, and in some cases decades. So why does the Democrat-controlled Congress expect this new government to meet benchmarks it didn't set, when they can't meet the promises they made in their own campaigns?

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has asked for the troops to stay. Can we really be an occupying force or invaders, as some would portray us, if a democratically-elected government is asking us not to go?

It is true that we cannot keep an expanded force in Iraq forever. The strain is wearing on our armed forces. But do people really believe that Al-Queda has an unlimited number of terrorists and an unlimited budget. They will fight us where we are. If fighting in Iraq keeps them of American soil, why should be bring the troops home and fight them here?