Review of Romney campaign Reveal How Republican Campaign Consultants destroy GOP

Here is why Republican candidates always lose — stupid campaign consultants:

“Romney’s strategists WORRIED that stressing his personal side would backfire, ”

Faced with a winning action plan in front of them, Republican campaign consultants talk themselves out of almost every thing that might actually work.

Campaign consultants are experts at sitting around and fretting, and squirming, and twisting themselves into pretzels and finding some reason not to do what needs to be done.

Republican strategists are experts at shooting themselves and their candidate in the foot.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/2012/12/23/the-story-behind-mitt-romney-loss-the-presidential-campaign-president-obama/2QWkUB9pJgVIi1mAcIhQjL/story-0.html

One of the gravest errors, many say, was the Romney team’s failure, until too late in the campaign, to sell voters on the candidate’s personal qualities and leadership gifts. The effect was to open the way for Obama to define Romney through an early blitz of negative advertising. Election Day polls showed that the vast majority of voters concluded that Romney did not really care about average people.

Republicans, as it happened, had lost track of their own winning formula. Democrats said they followed the trail blazed in 2004 by the Bush campaign which used an array of databases to “microtarget” voters and a sophis­ticated field organization to turn them out. Obama won in part by updating the GOP’s innovation.

Romney’s inner circle of family and friends understood the candidate’s weakness all too well: He was a deeply private person, with an aversion to reveal­ing too much of himself to the public. They worried that unless the candidate opened up, he would too easily be ­reduced to caricature, as a calculating man of astounding wealth, a man unable to relate to average folks, a man whose Mormon faith put him outside the mainstream.

Romney’s eldest son, Tagg, drew up a list of 12 people whose lives had been helped by his father in ways that were publicly unknown but had been deeply personal and significant, such as assisting a dying teenager in writing a will or quietly helping families in financial need. Such compelling ­vignettes would have been welcome material in almost any other campaign. But Romney’s strategists worried that stressing his personal side would backfire, and a rift opened ­between some in Romney’s circle and his strategists that lasted until the convention.

Should the Republican Party Change its Agenda to Fit the Times?

The Republican Party is torn by conflicting theories.  One part of this conflict is a claim that the Republican party should change its agenda, platform and positions simply to offer a new agenda to keep up with the times.  That is some RINO's are actually insisting that the GOP's platform should change simply to offer something new.  Not something specific or something better.  Just anything new simply to be new.

They argue that simply becuase the Republican Party is consistent and doesn't change in its positions, that is bad and makes the GOP unappealing.  To appeal to the next generation of voters, they argue, the Republican party should be offering something new (apparently always offering something new continuously to each new generation).

But we should ask:  Why would an evolving set of values be desirable?

Why would we ever want to show that the Republican Party adapts?

Republican values are either right or wrong.

They are not a question of fashion — this year’s fashion is dark blue sailor style dresses and next year’s is lace.

Truth is truth. Right is right. Wrong is wrong.

And as soon as you suggest that the Republican agenda is one of changing fashions, you have telegraphed to everyone that you actually, in reality, believe in nothing, stand for nothing and (most of all) know nothing.

Why should anyone follow you if you are willng to change your beliefs like the changing of the seasons or the shifting of the winds?

If you believe in nothing, why should anyone agree with you?

If you believe in nothing, why should anyone believe in you?

If you have no answers (no enduring values or principles) why should anyone trust you?

Better Candidates? Or Better Campaigns? The Food Fight within the GOP

There are at least two major competing theories on how the Republican Party can win:

There is the “blame the candidate” theory.

There is the “run better campaigns” theory.

(There are other major debates as well, such as issues, but meaningful discussion requires taking one major chunk at a time.)

The GOP is paralyzed and tearing itself apart because there is no agreement or consensus or even any common understanding of what others are saying. Each side is so indoctrinated in its own assumptions of what is “self evidently” true (they think) that each side doesn’t even recognize or understand what is being said.

Furthermore, interlopers who want to destroy the Republican party keep giving “advice” to the GOP. This has been going on for decades when the mainstream media and Democrats in national discussion purport to tell the Republican Party how to win, when those giving advice are dedicated to making Republicans lose. So here we have “advice” from those who openly admit they are playing for the other team or eventually make it clear throughout the course of their comments.

So, a lot of energy and words are being given aimed at (a) encouraging Republicans to stab each other in the back and inciting Republicans to fight one another and (b) encouraging theories that keep Republicans untrained and uninvolved, and ensure Democrat victories in the future.

So, the “blame the candidate” theory argues that if only we had “quality” candidates they would  auto-magically follow a “ballistic trajectory” from announcement day to election day, and the outcome of the election would be completely predetermined by simply the quality of the candidate.

Republican insiders push a candidate-based political Calvinism. Pick a great candidate and the candidate will inevitably win just for being such a great guy, like night follows day. The outcome is predetermined simply by the selection of the candidate.

This was Mitt Romney.  Many assured us that (1) Mitt Romney would win because he has no baggage (SURPRISE!) and (2) Romney would auto-magically win just because he is such a “quality” candidate.

This debate is still raging in Delaware, where the “blame the candidate” theory is especially doubtful, because the fabled “quality” candidates choose not to run. The “magic Republican” candidates people hope for clearly are not interested in running for office. Why would they want to?

But the “blame the candidate” theory has great appeal.

The “blame the candidate” theory justifies people sitting at home on their sofas and simply throwing bricks and rotten tomatoes during the commercials in reruns of “Family Guy” and not actually doing anything. If the only problem is the candidate, you can always find something to criticize other than in yourself and your own behavior.

The other theory (“run better campaigns”) requires people to take responsibility, take “OWNERSHIP” of the outcome of election, and to actually make things happen for yourself.

Under the “run better campaigns” theory, you have control of your own participation (at least in part). YOU CAN BE EMPOWERED. You can gain knowledge, power, strength, and influence by your own initiative, not dependent upon anyone else. You don’t need to wait for anyone else. You don’t need anyone’s permission. You are not under anyone’s control. The power is in your hands.

So you can go out and learn more and more and be an expert in how to win elections. You can be the resource in campaigns, election after election, so that candidates need you.

Under the “blame the candidate” theory, there is nothing you can do until the fabled “quality” candidate comes forward (which will never actually happen, because no matter how good the candidate, you can always find something wrong).

And until a “quality” candidate sees that Republicans know how to win campaigns — not just beat each other over the head with campaign signs — what “quality” candidate in his or her right mind would ever enter the race?

But there’s a problem: If you think you know it all already, then you cannot learn more.

Until you realize that there is more to know, you won’t go out looking to learn it.

If you think you have “arrived,” then you cannot rise any higher.

 However, none of this is meant to suggest that anyone should repeat what happened in past elections. However, a person who does not study past experiences to learn from them is impoverished by a failure to learn. What makes civilization a success is when we stand on the shoulders of past generations. We look at past elections *NOT* to hold them up as examples to be repeated, but to gain as much understanding as possible, to do better in the future.

Also, no one is suggesting that better candidates are not better than worse candidates. But if you think that the quality of the candidate is the ONLY component of a winning campaign, you are going to get slaughtered. It is always better to have a better candidate. But candidate selection is only the very early beginning, not the end of the story.

Beware people who want to elect Democrats telling Republicans “Don’t bother getting more training and knowledge on how to win elections.”

If Good Men Do Nothing

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”
– Edmund Burke

“If good men do nothing in the face of evil, are they really all that good to begin with?”
– Jonathon Moseley

GOP Campaign Consultants Badly Hurt Mitt Romney's Campaign

Mitt Romney failed to convince the voters that he would be better than Barack Obama -- because he never tried.  Simply saying that Obama didn't improve the economy is not a logical argument.  Voters are smart enough to ask the other side of the question:  Would you, Mitt Romney, be any better?  Yes, Obama has been a disappointment.  But does it logically follow that Mitt Romney is necessarily a better choice?

Unfortunately, Romney’s Presidential campaign (meaning the campaign consultants who usually ruin the Republican Party) ran a campaign on the strategy of saying nothing more than

• “Him bad! Me no him!”

A year ago Mitt Romney had tons of money and knew that the economy would be the #1 issue and would decide the election, if properly played.

So it is great that only a few days before the election 673 economists endorse Mitt Romney’s economic plan.

But why wouldn’t a campaign with plenty of money put that in motion up 8 to 10 MONTHS ago?

Mitt Romney has never tackled the most crucial question of the entire election:

“Sure, Barack Obama has not fixed the economy, but should we take a chance on you the Republican and the risk that you mght make things WORSE?”

If you are a voter who is hurting, you’re not happy with your life under Obama. But can you take a chance on the economy getting even worse if Republican policies would cause a re-run of the 2008 economic crash.

Cheerleaders for the establshment Repulicans fail to understand:

If you are a voter struggling with this economy, you survived (almost) one economic crash. You cannot afford to risk another economic crash. So if there is even the slightest chance that Republican policies might cause another crash, a rational voter would choose a bad Obama over a “worse” Romney (as they might perceive it).

Republican political gurus have run away from the issue, because they always run away from every issue and have the spines of wet linguni, for the last 4 years.

Well, now that negligence and cowardice is coming home to roost.

Republican gurus allowed Democrats to get away with bald-faced lies about what caused the Democrat-inspired economic crash in 2007 and 2008. EXIT POLLS RIGHT NOW are showing that a majority of those showing up to vote blame the bad economy on George Bush. That is very bad news for Romney, because it gives a clue to WHO is turning up to vote.

I have been in those meetings with self-proclaimed campaign experts when they wring their hands and squirm in their seats and wet their pants over the prospect of EXPLAINING something decisively and forcefully to the voters, countering Democrat lies, and taking a stand on anything. They think they are brilliant and clever by saying absolutely nothing of substance in a campaign.
While Mitt Romney has dramatically over-performed early expectations of him as a perceived establishment Republican, his actual campaign apparatus has struggled under the albatross of traditional Republican mistakes.

Delaware Election Results Explode Christine O'Donnell Myths

Delaware election results just dropped a nuclear bomb on political theories among Republican moderates and liberals.
 
In 2010, Christine O’Donnell got 40% of Delaware’s heavily-skewed Democrat electorate for US Senate, despite nasty civil war within the Republican party nationwide and in Delaware.

No, this is not about her. This is about YOUR understanding of how elections work and what is going on politically in Delaware.

In 2012, even Republican Mitt Romney only equaled in Delaware Christine O’Donnell’s vote — both at 40%.

How do all the “haters explain how Mitt Romney did no better in Delaware than Christine O’Donnell did for US Senate? Both got 40% of the vote.

In 2012, Republican candidate for US Senate Kevin Wade = 29%

Republican candidate Tom Kovach candidate for US Congress = 33.4%

Republican candidate for Governor Jeff Cragg = 28.6%

Republican candidate for Lt. Governor Sher Valenzuela = 37.1%

Republican candidate for Insurance Commissioner Benjamin Mobley = 36.8%

Now, let’s REVIEW.

WHY? TO LEARN. To PLAN for next time. To do better next time. To build a house on a firm foundation of sound strategy, not on clouds of self-delusion.

So if we put all the theories to the test…. Are all those theories wrong?

Why under the various theories did Christine O’Donnell do BETTER than all of these Republican statewide candidates?

If one's theories don’t work, do you re-examine our political theories, or do you dig in and believe in fairy tales?

Get Some SLEEP on Election Night -- We Probably Won't Know Results for 10 Days

I believe we will not know who our next President is for at least 10 days.  Ohio will be very close.  So a recount is likely.  And there are a huge number of Ohio voters who will be casting PROVISIONAL BALLOTS because they requested absentee ballots but did not return them, according to one report on Fox News (by a commentator not a journalist).  So when they go to cast their votes in person, they will be allowed to vote but only with a provisional ballot.  Those provisional ballots won't be counted for 10 days.  Not a recount.  They won't even be counted the first time for 10 days, while officials verify the voter.

Update on Liberal Democrat Cat

The liberal Democrat cat is no longer begging at our door.  The cat was last seen running off with another, bigger cat.  Yup.  Typical.

Barack Obama Fails his "Hurricane Katrina" Moment - or What They Don't Teach You in Harvard Policy Seminars

by Jonathon Moseley

George Bush as Commander in Chief supplied fuel to the troops fighting in Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, in spite of the complete absence or breakdown of all infrastructure, including electricity.  George Bush flew emergency food supplies to many places around the world, including air dropping military Meals Ready to Eat (MRE's) into Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries.

After a much milder Hurricane Sandy, Barack Obama cannot supply fuel or supplies to New Jersey, a few miles from some of the busiest ports in the world, where railroad tracks converge from around the country.  Unlike Katrina in New Orleans, Winter temperatures are dropping from a hurricane that was geographically huge but mild in strength compared with Hurricane Katrina.  

Gas shortages are crippling fire departments, police departments, ambulances, EMT's, hospitals, electrical utility repair crews, delivery trucks bringing supplies to civilians and the public in general.

The quickest way to illustrate what Barack Obama is failing to due is to recommend what the Commander in Chief (POTUS) should have done from the first moment that gas shortages were reported.  And the moment New Jersey Governor Chris Christie realized that the White House was not getting it done, Christie should have acted as follows.

If I were advising NJ Governor Chris Christie, I would even now recommend:

1)    Acting as commander in chief of the New Jersey National Guard, immediately call the Secretary of the Air Force.  Speaking as the National Guard of New Jersey, formally make the following requests.  No doubt there is a protocol for the National Guard borrowing assets as needed.  Hang the protocol.

o   use of the gigantic tanker air craft that can fly enormous loads of gasoline around the world.
o   use of ordinary cargo planes that can fly supplies around the world.
o   identification by the Air Force of the most suitable landing strip in the New York / New Jersey region.
o   immediate use of cargo aircraft to air-lift heavy cargo helicopters, including helicopters capable of moving huge fuel bladders, tanks or tanker trucks by helicopter, along with the apparatus to fill the bladders or tanks from the tanker planes. 
o   immediate use of cargo aircraft to air-lift food, bottled water, tents, blankets, and generators to the identified airport as a distribution point.
o   officially request the use of heavy-lift cargo helicopters to distribute food and bottled water from the airport to the areas hardest hit, probably using shopping mall parking lots cleared by police to land.
o   officially request the use of those heavy-lift cargo helicopters to distribute fuel from the tanker plane(s) to local gas stations with the longest lines (if landing areas nearby are possible) or at a relay point if necessary.
o    Ideal would be heavy-lift helicopters that could move fuel tanker trailers, drop the tanker trailers in open spaces in shopping mall parking lots, where the truck "tractor" can be married up with the tanker trailer for immediate delivery to nearby local gas stations.  (Note that municipalities sometimes have their own filling depot for police cars, fire trucks, etc.)
    
2)   Get the CEO or operations head of the major oil companies on the phone, in person, and demand to know within 2 hours what the New Jersey National Guard can do to help the oil companies supply all fuel and energy needs, backed up by other State National Guards and/or the US Air Force by borrowing their assets and the US Navy.

     Governor Christie should give the heads of the oil companies his personal cell phone number and warn them that if they hit an obstacle, his personal cell phone in his pocket had better ring or there will be hell to pay.

3)   Ask the oil companies where there are ample supplies of gasoline where an Air Force tanker can land nearby and fill up on gasoline and fly it to the New Jersey / New York area.

4)   As Governor, Christie would need to settle up for the costs of the gasoline by paying the oil companies the normal wholesale price and charging the local gas stations what they would have paid for it from the oil company, and probably giving the gas free to police stations, fire departments, EMT's, ambulances, electricity repair crews, etc.  But the transportation and delivery costs would have to be chalked up to disaster relief.

5)   People are homeless in some cases.  They are desperate, and panicking not knowing what they are going to do.  Winter is coming.  People could be without homes being rebuilt for a couple of months.  The region should have more than enough motel and hotel space, but people without power at their own homes are filling hotel and motel rooms.  But the affected area is blessed by excellent sea access.

     As Governor, Christie's staff should hand him the phone number of the heads of the cruise ship lines.  The cruise ship industry is over-built.  Most companies have older ships they are retiring and replacing.  The disaster will likely leave people not taking cruises.  Ask if an older cruise ship, perhaps one of many decommissioned, could be rushed to New York harbor to provide temporary housing for the homeless.  Getting an older cruise ship re-programmed or re-positioened and into place could take a week or longer.  But the sooner they start the sooner it will be done. 

6)    As commander in chief of the National Guard, call the Secretary of the Navy and request whatever ships can be rushed fastest to New York Harbor, followed quickly by the "small" aircraft carriers (by modern standards) known as Amphibious Assault Ships like the Kearsage.  Navy ships are capable of creating vast amounts of fresh water from sea water.   Amphibious Assault carriers have the helicopters and/or hovercraft to deliver water and supplies over a wide distance. 

      Some navy ships could provide immediate living quarters for the homeless

7)    Quite naturally, all resources both Army Corps of Engineers and private companies are needed to restore electrical power.  Certainly this is being done.  But moving around the area quickly is a problem.  The New Jersey National Guard and if necessary resources from other State National Guards or the US Air Force should fly these crews around in helicopters to be able to restore power as quickly as possible.

      Now, is there any of that which President Barack Obama could not have ordered almost a week ago, last Tuesday?   Although Obama is not prepared by policy seminars for handling such a crisis, his staff also has seriously failed.  Presidential staff who are not rookies should have handed the President action memos clipped in urgent-action file folders ready for the POTUS to simply scan and sign, to set all of this in motion last Tuesday.

                          ###
Jon Moseley

THIS KITTEN IS A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

At my parents' house, we've picked up a wild stray kitten.

But the kitten is a liberal Democrat.

I put a little food half-way down the driveway.  But the cat is still begging for food at our front door.  If the cat would just go out and look, there is food sitting out there half-way to the street.  But instead the cat is meowing insistently at our front door.

If it wasn't so busy begging at the door, and went out hunting, it would find the food 

It's a very small kitten.  And it's already had enough to eat today.  Earlier in the day, I already fed the cat more than enough for one day for one kitten.  Yet the cat is still neowing insistently at the door begging for more.  Then it was meowing at the back door.  And at the neighbor's door.  And then again at our back door.  

The island has wild cats.  The feral (wild) cats have kittens. 

So this kitten at our door has never been domesticated.  It lives in the wild.  It has never lived in a house nor been fed by a family.

Yet somehow it knows to come begging at the door of a house?  It instictively knows to beg.  This cat is a liberal Democrat.

Thousands of years before cats started to live as house pets, cats were living in the wild.  They can find their own food.   But this one was born to beg.

In fact some people here want to get rid of the feral cats because they eat the "curly tail" lizards that are a symbol of island life here.  And they also catch and kill the wild parrots (occasionally).  So there is a war between the defenders of the wild cats and the defenders of the parrots and curly tails.

Now a cat's natural food in nature wouldn't appeal to me.  But for thousands of years little cats have been eating things that don't sound so great to humans but are appropriate for them:  Bugs, lizards, mice, birds, etc.

Yet I felt bad after the hurricane blew through.  Still, I didn't want the cat to get in the habit of coming to our door and expect to get fed every day.  So I put some food down the driveway toward the road, away from the house.  I was hoping to slowly get the cat looking farther and farther away from the house until the scraps were out on the road.

If it found some food after searching for it, it would develop the habits to survive.  It wouldn't know who put the food out there.  So it would learn to search instead of begging -- but the search would be rigged with something to find.  

Instead, the cat just sits there on the doorstep meowing. There's food out there.  I put it there.  It is not very far at all.  And it's really, really obvious.  It's next to a tuna fish can with fresh water in it that used to be at the door.  There's nothing else around on the gravel driveway.  But the cat is so busy begging it doesn't see it.

This also makes me think about how God looks at us.   God has placed what we need all around us.  But we can't find it because we're not looking.  Or maybe looking in all the wrong places.  God probably has his hand on His forehead, so to speak, amazed that we haven't found what He has provided.  It's not hard to find.  It's our attitude that is the problem.  If this cat were not so determined to beg, it would take about 3 minutes to find the food.

Most of all I want the cat to learn how to fend for itself.  It's a wild cat.  There is plenty out there to eat.  So the kitten needs to learn how to live off the land.  After all, we're not always here staying at this house.  So if the cat becomes dependent on hand-outs at our door, it won't have anything to eat when we're not here.

THE TRUTH (video on CNN): MITT ROMNEY' on "Managed Bankruptcy" to Save and Reform the Auto Industry

Barack Obama is LYING about Mitt Romney's position on the automobile industry. Hear THE TRUTH for yourself on CNN, from the Republican Presidential primary debate

What to expect in the Joe Biden - Paul Ryan Debate

In Thursday's debeate, it isn't Joe Biden's job or Paul Ryan's job to look better than the other VP candidate, but to be the attack dog tearing down the other party's Presidential canddiate.

Traditionally and logically, the role of the candidate for Vice President in the vice presidential debate is to attack the other party's Presidential candidate.

Whereas the Presidential candidate tries to look presidential and likable, the vice presidential candidate is free to attack.

At this, Joe Biden can be very effective. He can memorize the attack themes and lies that Obama's campaign consultants want to push, and Joe Biden can deliver those attacks very effectively.

Paul Ryan can present a strong image of a better debater and a better choice for Vice President. But Joe Biden can deliver attacks on Mitt Romney very effectively.

However, Joe Biden like Barack Obama has a severe weakness: Obama's entire campaign is built on LYING about Mitt Romney and other Republicans in general. This makes it like shooting fish in a barrel to not only debunk what Biden is saying but humiliate Biden the way Romney humiliated Obama. Obama and Biden are way out on a limb making false arguments. So Paul Ryan can slice and dice Joe Biden in the debates if he is ready to be aggressive and indignant at the lying (which he is).

If Paul Ryan brings a gun to a knife fight (as one Obama strategist once put it), he will win the strategic goal of the debate. Joe Biden will deliver the Obama campaign's attack lines with great force, energy, charisma, and persuasion. Paul Ryan should be able to anticipate almost exactly what Joe Biden is gong to say.

President Mitt Romney wins the Campaign in the First Debate

This article by Jon Moseley is now published at the TEA PARTY TRIBUNE:

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/10/04/i-believe-that-mitt-romney-just-won-the-election-in-last-nights-october-3-debate/

The Real Story: How Jonathon Moseley Got the Blockbuster Book "Unfit for Command" Published in 2004

One of my political treasures is an autographed copy of the smash 2004 book Unfit for Command -- autographed by co-authors Jerry (Jerome) Corsi and John O'Neill as well as Rear Admiral Roy Francis Hoffmann.

In my autographed copy of the blockbuster book, both of the authors thank me, Jon Moseley, in their own handwriting for making the book possible, right above each of their signatures on the book.  

Now, I believe in giving credit where it is due:  Jerry Corsi and John O'Neill did the impossible.  When Regnery said "yes" to the book on May 31, 2004, the book was not written yet !!!

John O'Neill and Jerry Corsi wrote this book in 1 month.  I don't mean draft.  I mean FINAL, FINAL manuscript ready to go to the printers.

And this was not opinion, but dense, fact-based, research-based writing that we all knew would be attacked and nitpicked.  So John O'Neill and Jerry Corsi did the impossible by a factor of 10.  Fortunately they had the bits and pieces of the research ready, but the book still had to be written.

Regnery Publishing did the impossible. From a manuscript delivered at the end of June, Regnery had actual books ready for the shelves in book stores rolling out the loading dock, boxed up for shipping, by the end of August.   This was an extraordinary effort by everyone involved.

Admiral Hoffman spear-haded and organized 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' which was headed by John O'Neill.  In the Vietnam War, John O'Neill was the captain of John Kerry's 'swift boat.'  A 'swift boat" was a fresh water river patrol and fast attack armored boat.  John O'Neill was on the same boat on the same patrol routes immediately after John Kerry faked three purple hearts and got sent home to the USA after only a few months in Vietnam.   John O'Neill served out a full term, taking over for John Kerry's few months of service.  John Kerry claimed to have seen -- along the very same patrol route and with the same personnel -- military atrocities.   But John O'Neill was on the same patrol route working with the same people and saw it wasn't true.  So John O'Neill called John Kerry out on Kerry's lies.

So I was shocked to hear the other day a tea party leader say that heard doubts about my role in getting Unfit for Command published.  I have the hard proof:  First, his signed "confession" that I got the book published in his own handwriting and over his own signature, written on a copy of the book.  Second, I have dozens of emails documenting what happened -- including emails from him admitting the whole series of events.

So how is it that people can refuse to give credit where credit is due?  Now, I have to say, that I am taking a leap here.  Maybe the tea party leader misunderstood.  Maybe he did not remember clearly what the conversation was.  Maybe the person was in a hurry or thinking about something else or didn't hear the question.  Maybe if we put it to this person clearly and directly he would cheerfully agree:  "Of course, Jon Moseley was responsible for getting Unfit for Command published."

Yet there are so many people who will not share credit for those who have helped them along the way.  Why would anyone help you in the future if you never give credit for how people have helped you?    Such people burn more and more bridges.  While they think they are lifting themselves up by taking from others while giving nothing back, in reality they are flying like a rock -- about to fall back down again.  As the list of people angry at them gets longer and longer, they mortgage their future for a quick flash in the present.  They may burn more brightly for a brief moment, but then come crashing down once and for all.

So, I don't know who is right in this situation.  And I should give a person every chance to explain and or make things right.

But for the sake of posterity, here is the truth, as documented in dozens of emails from the authors of Unfit for Command.

On Friday, May 27, 2004, I was driving through the part of McLean, Virginia, that borders on Great Falls, in the bumpy hills and sharp turns through faux horse farms and mansions.  I remember the terrain because I was worried the cell phone call would drop the signal.  And I was having an extremely bad day.  I had plenty of reason to feel sorry for myself and feel that I was being wronged.  Why should I give a darn about anybody else's problems?

It was radio talk show host Paul Schiffer, a long time friend of mine.  

Starting in February 2004, Paul Schiffer had spearheaded the public presenation of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.  John O'Neill and Admiral Hoffman had referred some Swift Boaters to Paul Schiffer's radio talk show broadcasting from Canton, Ohio, on a mega super-station.  Paul Schiffer's talk show could be heard across 6 States, even reaching just inside the Northern border of Virginia.  I could hear his show near the river in Great Falls, Sterling, or Ashburn, but no father South.

As the Swift Boaters talked on Paul Schiffer's show "The Schiffer Report," they kept connecting in more and more of the veterans from the Vietnam War.  People who had not spoken to each other in over 30 years were reconnecting on Paul Schiffer's radio program.  Paul Schiffer's radio show turned into a class reunion.

So by May 27, Paul Schiffer called me and said that some of the Swift Boat Veterans wanted to write a book.   Paul knew that I had some knowledge of the book world, partly for some personal reasons, but partly because I had been working on publising my own book Cold Peace.

So Paul Schiffer asked to introduce me to Jerry Corsi over the phone.  Would I take Jerry Corsi's phone call, Paul asked?

Again, I was in a bad mood.  I had my own problems to worry about.  Why should I take on any one else's problems?   But I beleive:  Give and it shall be given unto you.  I believe that we are here on this Earth to do good, not just to care only about ourselves.  So, fighting back my own annoyance at events in my own life from that morning, I said sure, why not.

Jerry Corsi's and John O'Neill's book proposal had been turned down by Regnery Publishing (who ultimately changed their minds) and by World Net Daily books and by potential agents.

I listened as Jerry Corsi described the book, and he asked my thoughts on getting it published:

Won't work, I responded.  (I have a habit of sayings can't be done, NOT giving up, and then getting it done where no one else can.)   Look:  It is now May 27.  You haven't started writing.  The election is November 2.   No publisher is going to admit that the book is only about the election.  But practically speaking the shelf life of the book is going to largely end on November 1.

So you have to write the book. They have to edit your manuscript.  Maybe your manuscript will stink.  I explained how a very famous conservative woman handed in a manuscript to Regnery Publishing which was AWFUL  and Regnery had to anguish over how to salvage the manuscript without alienating a leading conservative so major that they couldn't afford to cut her loose.

Then they have to physically print the book, warehouse it, distribute it to regional wholesale distribution centers, sell it to bookstores, distribute it to book stores, promote it, and get it on the shelves, and leave enough time for people to actually BUY the book significantly ahead of the elections.  So the book would have to be on the book shelves by September.  This is May.  And you haven't even started writing it yet.

And on top of all of that, I happened to know that the owner of Regnery was in Europe, and for something this challenging would have to be consulted, despite being out of the country.

I tried to be positive and encouraging.  I said, you should start thinking about self-publishing.  Go ahead and write the manuscript.  We'll go to Berryville Graphics (a big book publishing plant in little Berryville, Virginia.)

But in the meantime -- I always believe in covering all the bases -- send me your book proposal and I will see if we cannot get Regnery or some other publisher to publish it.  Let's pursue all pathways at the same time, and see where it gets us. 

So Jerry Corsi emailed me their book proposal.

Jerry Corsi is a great writer, not only in quality but in the astonishing pace and volume of books he churns out.  Jerry Corsi is a great thinker and conservative.  He has written a couple dozen wonderful books.

But his book proposal was atrocious.    It may be the worst book proposal ever.

Not understanding his audience and not knowing what hot buttons needed to be pushed with publishers, Jerry Corsi -- a great writer in general -- failed to mention in his proposal to publishers that he had ever written a book before.  That's a huge worry for publishers:  Your idea sounds great.  But can you write?  What if your manuscript stinks?

As a result, I took the highly unorthodox step of insisting that Jerry Corsi INCLUDE several of his prior books in the package sent to the publisher.  When the question arises:  "But can he write?"  I wanted the dramatic, physical, answer right there in front of them:  Here are some of my prior books right on your desk.  So big and bulky you can't miss them even if you try.  There is no place to put your coffee without seeing that -- YES, HE CAN WRITE.

Then there is marketing and distribution.  Most authors (like 99%) imagine that when they hand over the mansucript their work is done.  Unfortunately, no.   The publisher wants to see how are WE -- that is the author and the publisher -- going to market and sell this book? 

Jerry Corsi and John O'Neill had a fabulous story to tell on how they would market the book.   But that story was not in the book proposal (or not clear enough to be understandable).  Through the Winter Soldier project led by Scott Swett, Unfit for Command had a vast, ready-made network for mass marketing the book, from Day 1, Minute 1 of publication.  That neeed to be better explained.

But then there was the risk:

And so I committed one of the greatest sins in book publishing history.   The gods of the book world must have shrieked in horror.  Any book agent would have a heart attack.

I recommended that Jerry Corsi and John O'Neill -- the sky is flashing with angry lightning even as I write these horrifying words -- WAIVE THEIR AUTHOR ADVANCE !

Such a blasphemy is unheard of.

The name of the game in publishing is that the author tries to get the biggest possible advance, so that if the book flops, the author still gets the money while the publisher is left holding the bag.  The publisher wants to pay as small an advance as possible so that if the book flops they limit their losses.

So book agents exist to try to negotiate as big an advance as possible.

I recomended that if Corsi and O'Neill wanted to have any hope of getting this book published that as of May 27 they hadn't started writing yet for a November 2 election, they should try the shocking and dramatic step of lowering the risk for the publisher:   Waive your advance as authors.

Now, it is true that a book can be on the book shelves in 5 months (from late May to November 1), but in this case the window on book sales would close on November 1.  Most books might be of interest for yeras to come.  But a publisher would have to assume, pessimistically, that no one would want this particular book after the election.  Perhaps if John Kerry won and became President.  But for sure if he lost, most likely no one one buy the book on November 3.

So any publisher would be taking an extreme risk starting the process on Monday, May 30, 2004, for a book whose relevance would end on November 2, 2004.  Getting the book published would take an extraordinary solution.

It worked.  They FedExed my rewritten book proposal to Regnery on Monday.  (I sent a heads up email to the President of Regnery to watch for it.)   It arrived on Tuesday.  

Remember that Harry Crocker had already sent an email to Jerry Corsi rejecting the book.

Tuesday mid-day, Regnery called -- having already said "no" remember earlier -- that they wanted to set up a meeting.

Tuesday afternoon Regnery called back and said forget the meeting, we're taking the book.  The Chicago book show is coming up, and we want to promote the book there.

I still had plenty of -- very unfair -- problems of my own going on.  But I figured if I am going to go down, I am going to go down fighting.  I am going to do as much good in this life as I possibly can.  If bad thing are going to happen to me unfairly, I am going to move the ball forward as much as I can.

Over 1.1 million copies of UNFIT FOR COMMAND were printed.  I don't know how many were sold, because to get the book on the shelves available to be bought, there are always extras that don't get sold.  But I think it must have been pretty close to 1 million copies.

Many political observers believe -- as do I -- that the massive television advertising campaign of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth combined with UNFIT FOR COMMAND (two sides of the same coin) changed the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election, and re-elected George Bush who was running a lukewarm campaign.

John O'Neill ended up donating $1.5 million to charity from the book, to help the families of fallen veterans.  Remember:  They waived their advance, at my suggestion!  It paid off BIG !

But I also have to give credit to the public relations and marketing genius of Jerry Corsi.  I was very privileged to be in the loop from June through September 2004 as Jerry Corsi magnificiently planned and implemented the marketing for the book.  I won't give away any secrets here for free.  But I learned a lot from Jerry.  

There is no doubt that without Jerry Corsi's marketing genius, UNFIT FOR COMMAND would scarcely have even been noticed.  The mainstream media would have ignored it, and small sales would have allowed them to get away with it.

The Blonde Co-Pilot Joke

This is the story of the blonde flying in a two-seater airplane with just the pilot. He has a heart attack and dies. She, frantic, calls out a May Day. "May Day! May Day! Help me! Help me! My pilot had a heart attack and is dead. And I don't know how to fly. Help me! Please help me!" She hears a voice over the radio saying: "This is Air Traffic Control and I have you loud and clear. I will talk you through this and get you back on the ground. I've had a lot of experience with this kind of problem. 'Now, just take a deep breath. Everything will be fine! Give me your height and position." She says, "I'm 5'4" and I support Obama." "O.K." says the voice on the radio.... Repeat after me-- "Our Father...Who art in Heaven.."

What is a RINO -- estabilshment Republican?

There is a serious need to come up with better terms to describe different movements.

Liberals are not for liberty. Conservatives don’t want to conserve, at least not as an overriding rule. Most “country club Republicans” have never been to a country club. Blue blood Republicans doesn’t really explain whom you are talking about. They used to be called Rockefeller Republicans because they supported Rockefeller. There are probably very few Republicans today who were even alive when Rockefeller was on the ballot.

There are libertarians and then there are libertarians. There is one movement that is highly intellectual, well-read, academic, with a strong and profound sense of their political philosophy. There is a completely different movement HIJACKING the name libertarian who are just one provocation away from rioting in the streets, burning cars, and smashing storefront windows “like” the anti-IMF / anti-Globalization riots. I mean “like” because I think they *ARE* the same people, who are just flying under the libertarian label to try to cause havoc within the GOP.

So how do we describe the very different characters who always seem to get everything wrong, all the time, in the GOP, and spend all their time and effort trying to tear down conservatives who actually have the answers?

As I have said, I think the dominant characteristics of these RINO’s is COWARDICE. They are afraid of what the newspaper will say. They are afraid of what their neighbors, co-workers, family will say.

The dominant distinction between Republicans who actually have the answers (=conservatives) and the RINO’s is that

• Conservatives believe it is more important to be right and to do the right thing, regardless of the personal price one must pay
• RINO’s believe that nothing matters except their own personal comfort, convenience, and feelings and are willing to sacrifice the country and our future in order to remain popular and friendly with their neighbors, co-workers, family, etc.

 

A conservative will die confident that he or she has tried his or her very best to do what is right.

 

A RINO will die a thousand deaths, mortified at the possibility that someone might say something negative about them.

I don’t believe any true RINO ever created a job. That would require taking a risk. Someone might criticize them. What if it didn’t work? What would people say?
Better to play it safe.

(And the funny thing about “playing it safe” is that it is the path MOST LIKELY TO FAIL. “Playing it safe” is usually the riskiest course of action possible.)

A true RINO is the corporate bureaucrat who may manages the businesses that other true entrepreneurs created. But a true RINO is — by disposition — not a job creator.

A true job creator is an entrepreneur who would never put up with RINO’s.

President Barack Obama ADMITS Cutting $700 Billion from Medicare -- vow to veto any bill to RESTORE Medicare funding

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/president-obama-in-2009-pledged-to-veto-attempts-to-undo-medicare-cuts/

The exchange on Medicare occurs at 2:15:   From a November 9, 2009 interview we had with President Obama in which he not only acknowledged that one third of his health care bill was paid for by cuts to Medicare, but that he would veto attempts to undo those cuts.



TAPPER: One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “Right.

TAPPER: A lot of times, as you know, what happens in Congress is somebody will do something bold and then Congress, close to election season, will undo it.

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: You saw that with the ‘doc fix.’
OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?

OBAMA: Yes. I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks. I said I wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t meet that criteria. The full transcript of the interview can be read here.

Islam at WAR with the USA since Thomas Jefferson Was President -- Christopher Hitchens

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/01/jeffersons_quran.html

A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery.

The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson's friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen." This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute.

That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience.

I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And, even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of his presidency.

It took several years of bombardment before the practice of kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic justification or not.

What will happen with Paul Ryan Debates Vice President Joe Biden in the Presidential Debates?

 

Barack Obama -- Practicising Islam in the White House (today)

OBAMA HOSTS ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS CEREMONIAL DINNER IN WHITE HOUSE DID HE EVER HOST A PASSOVER DINNER IN THE WHITE HOUSE? The end of Ramadan -- Iftar -- is a religious Islamic observance. Obama is practicing the Islamic religion in the taxpayer-funded White House Here is the official White House press release: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/08/11/president-obama-hosts-fourth-annual-iftar-dinner-white-house

Paul Ryan Tears Barack Obama Apart on Obama Care

 

Paul Ryan's Position on Saving Medicare -- Opposing Barack Obama's $500 Billion Cuts to Medicare

 

Ronald Reagan Explains Democrats vs. Republicans

 

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

So when someone tries to blame Bush,

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

Do you HATE Evolution with a Passion Yet? Black Student Throws a Fit in Florida Evolution Class

Here is evolution for you:

http://upressonline.com/2012/03/fau-student-threatens-to-kill-professor-and-classmates/
This is very sad. And it seems crazy at first.

BUT THINK ABOUT IT. It is obvious to me what is going on here. Yes, I am guessing / reading between the lines. But I think it is very clear.

The class was being taught about EVOLUTION:

A fellow classmate, Rachel Bustamante, was sitting behind Carr prior to her outburst and noticed she had been avoiding looking at the professor until 11:35 a.m. — that’s when she snapped. The classmate reported that Kajiura was discussing attraction between peacocks when Carr raised her hand to ask her question about evolution. She asked it four times, and became increasingly upset each time Kajiura’s answer failed to satisfy her.

DID YOU CATCH IT? The professor was discussing the evolutionary role of "attraction between peacocks."

In other words, how do animals / people choose a mate?


If you remember what evolution teaches, it teaches that INDIVIDUALS *MATE* BASED UPON PERCEIVED *SUPERIOR* CHARACTERISTICS for evolution.

So this Black woman Jonatha(?) Carr obviously perceives that BEING BLACK IS ASSUMED (by many) to be INFERIOR and that evolution means that men CHOOSE women based upon what is perceived to be SUPERIOR qualities.

What evolution means to Carr -- and who can blame her, logically? -- is that men are going to choose "BETTER" women than her, and she is not going to get chosen as a valuable person or desirable mate.

Hence, the discussion of how animals, like peacocks, CHOOSE A MATE based upon how they other one LOOKS.

So this Black woman is obviously perceiving that evolution means that men will choose the SUPERIOR candidate for mating and reproduction, and evolution produces "improvement" over time by men selecting SUPERIOR women -- meaning NOT HER.

Whereas Christianity teaches the value and infinite worth of E V E R Y human being in God's eyes, and that every man and woman is not only valuable just for who they are, but infinitely valuable in God's heart, evolution teaches that this Black woman is INFERIOR to other women, to be discarded and rejected in the evolutionary march toward perfection.

Buried in her thinking must be the idea that Black men (so the cliche goes, true or untrue) prefer White women over Black women. (I suspect this flows from Blacks being persecuted and wanting the affirmation of being valued by a perceied more powerful class, not because there is anything inherently superior about White women over Black women in an evolutionary sense.)

God looks over the vast diversity of human types and characteristics, and says IT IS GOOD: ALL OF IT. All of the vast differences and variety. There is no "better" or "worse" in God's eyes. There is no human being more (or less) valuable than this Black woman Carr. Everyone is equally cherished in God's heart.

Somewhere, if we can learn to follow God's plans (which unfortunately is much more difficult and mysterious than it sounds, and can be a frustrating search), God knows the PERFECT CHOICE of a man for Jonatha Carr.

NO, the man isn't perfect, any more than Miss Carr is perfect. No one is perfect. Marriage involves the strange situation of two VERY IMPERFECT human beings trying to live a life together without killing each other. Therein lies the challenge of learning to APPLY God's principles in real life. Marriage is like the "lab class" in comparison with the "class lecture." We get to put into practice during the week what God tries to teach us on Sunday.

But God says that if Miss Carr can put her trust in God's hands, there is a perfect choice of a mate for her. God doesn't move on our time table, and God can be frustrating sometimes. But in God Miss Carr lacks nothing.

However, evolution tells Miss Carr that life is a hostile, adversarial, dog-eat-dog COMPETITION in which she is necessarily going to be the LOSER because (in her mind, as she has been bombarded with negativity) being a Black woman puts her at the bottom of the list of choices.

Evolution means survival of the fittest and (she thinks) that ain't her.

Can you see now why she yells "I HATE EVOLUTION!"

The question is:

DO YOU?

DO YOU HATE EVOLUTION, TOO?

For the very same reason that Miss Carr understandably hates evolution, shouldn't we all?

Evolution is not simply an irrelevant side show for those who believe in God.

EVOLUTION IS A DIRECT AND VIOLENT ASSAULT ON THE WORTH AND DIGNITY AND SELF IDENTITY OF HUMAN BEINGS, TEARING DOWN THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THEMSELVES, AND PITTING BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER AND SISTER AGAINST SISTER, IN AN UNGODLY COMPETITION. Evolution breeds violence, hatred, depression, and despair.

There is not a single human being alive whom God does not want. And there is not a single human being alive whom God wants any more than any other.

Yet evolution tells this young Black woman - and any one else who has ever, temporarily, felt inferior for a moment in time -- that she is destined to be discarded by life, that she is trash to be excluded and rejected by the world.

Do you hate evolution with a passion, yet?

Is Global Warming a Hoax: The Myth that Won't Die

I recently had the following debate with a proponent of global warming regulations on a blog, which is worth preserving:

Does continuing to burn coal, gas and oil, have no effect on the atmosphere?

It has no effect on global warming. It can emit actual pollutants into the air. (CO2 is not a pollutant by any sane definition.) But it has nothing to do with global warming.

If our planet were 5 degrees warmer, would that be a good thing for polar regions?

Since the polar regions are MORE THAN 5 degrees BELOW freezing, it would make absolutely no difference to the polar regions. If water freezes at 0 degrees Centigrade, and you warm the poles from -31 degrees C to -26 degrees C, is ice going to melt? Since when does ice now melt at less than the freezing point?

Please explain how the temperature at which water freezes has CHANGED?

Is the ice getting thicker in the Arctic region?

Yes, actually, it is. As nature is wont to do, it is ALWAYS CHANGING. It is getting thicker in some places and thinner in other places. It is ALWAYS CHANGING.

Have you seen the photographs of liquid ocean at the North Pole found by a photograph, I think 80 years ago? Nature is not a static thing.

Should folks ignore 90% of climate scientists from around the world?

No, 90% of TRUE climate scientists tell us that WE DON'T KNOW if human activity is affecting the global temperature. If you ignore the vocal minority, including those who are not climate scientists, you should listen to those who tell us there is no evidence for man-made global warming.

Are they a worldwide scientific conspiracy to control republicans?

Not to control Republicans, but to control T H E M O N E Y , H O N E Y, hell yes it is a POLITICAL conspiracy to abuse science to control people's lives and steal money from countries like the USA.

Is the earth’s global temperature different or the same at different locations around the earth? Why is that?

While there should theoretically be a concept of a global temperature, in reality there is no such thing as a practical matter. Temperatures vary wildly throughout the Earth and over time. NOBODY HAS THE FOGGIEST CLUE what the global temperature is, or was over time.

No one can tell you TODAY what the global temperature is, in part because only parts of the Earth are measured with weather stations. They cannot tell what the global temperature was yesterday, last month, last year, 10 years ago, or 100 years ago.

Widespread weather stations distributed throughout the Earth only began -- and have not yet been achieved -- with the rise of aviation between World War I and World War II. Prior to around 1850-1880, there was not standardized SCALE for measuring temperature and recording it in a meaningful way. Prior to World War 2, only a few scattered places on the globe were being measured -- and most of those cities.

Most weather measurements (that are regularly recorded) have been taken over time at airports, which consist of ASPHALT installations that collect heat, and which have CHANGED from propeller planes to JET ENGINES, and which have systematically been surrounded by urban sprawl. There is a known "heat effect" of construction. So as cities have surrounded the airports, the "heat effect" of buildings and roads (which absorb the sun's heat) has made temperature measurements at airports reflect the changing conditions at the weather stations -- not a fundamental change in the Earth's climate.

So those weather stations have measured a REAL rise in temperature at that location caused by the increased heat from jet engines (changed from earlier prop planes), expanded asphalt from larger runways and more buildings, and the change in the environment around the airport from undeveloped land covered with foliage to urbanization encroaching around the airport.

One measuring station was found to be directly in the path of jet blast from jets taking off on the runway.

One measuring station on the roof of a building was found to be directly next to a huge industrial air conditioner, so that heat from the air conditioner was blowing on to the temperature gauge.

What’s the current carbon dioxide measurement Moseley? Why is it changing?

CO2 is an extremely tiny component of the atmosphere. The geological data shows that increased CO2 occurs * 800 YEARS AFTER * a rise in global temperatures.

Yes, there is an inconvenient truth for you. Over the history of the Earth, when temperatures rise, CO2 rises on average 800 years *LATER* in time. Only in the la-la land of liberal world does something that happens 800 years AFTERwards count as "cause and effect."

Is the idea of man-made global warming a hoax? YES. Because proponents hide the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 occurs on average 800 years AFTER warmer temperatures in the geologic record.

The fact that global warming activists HIDE this fact from the public qualifies their efforts as a hoax and a fraud.

This is probably due to warming of the oceans, which lowers the capacity of the oceans to hold dissolved CO2, causing more to be released into the atmosphere.

Is carbon dioxide an irrelevant chemical in the atmosphere that should be ignored?

The idea that anyone knows is a complete fantasy. There is no data available that in the context of a complex system like the atmosphere atmospheric carbon dioxide has any affect on warming the Earth. It is equally likely -- it has never been TESTED -- that when CO2 absorbs heat, AND HOT GASSES *RISE* TOWARD OUTER SPACE, the CO2 radiates the heat at high altitudes, thus COOLING the Earth. Once again: If CO2 traps heat, THEN RISES TO HIGH ALTITUDES because warm air rises in relation to colder air, that the net affect is to TRANSPORT heat from the Earth's surface up to higher altitudes, where it is radiated and part of it is radiated into outer space. In other words, it may function exactly like an air conditioner, trapping heat near the Earth's surface and trasnsporting heat up to the upper atmosphere.

The problem comes from ASSUMING that what happens in a controlled simplistic situation in a laboratory translates into the complex global weather pattern of the atmosphere. Yes, CO2 absorbs heat... AND THEN WHAT? You think HOT gas just sits there and stays still and never moves? If CO2 traps heat, why do you imagine it remains anchored in a fixed place, never moving, hovering a few feet off the ground? Hot air rises.

BOTTOM LINE: NO ONE KNOWS WHAT EFFECT INCREASED CO2 HAS.

The only thing we know for certain is that over the Earth's history, the Earth warms AND THEN LATER, about 800 years later, more CO2 is measured in the atmosphere.

Has the sun been hotter in the last ten years?

10 years is not the measure, but since 1973, because there are long time delays in the impact. And the answer is *YES* the effective energy STRIKING all of the planets has been greater. Across the spectrum of radiation and output of solar wind, the IMPACT of energy on the Earth, Mars, Pluto, the moon Triton, and Jupiter and Saturn INCREASED.

One reason for this appears to be that dramatic changes in the Sun's magnetic field affect how much interstellar dust enters the solar system. (The sun is MOVING through the galaxy -- and quite rapidly -- as it circles the galactic center. We are moving INTO clouds of gas and dust from time time as we circle the galaxy.) This seems to create more or less dust FILTERING the amount of energy hitting the planets from the sun. As the sun's magnetic field lets more dust in, there is more dust FILTERING the radiation hitting the Earth.

The Sun is a big blob of gas. The orbits of the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, and to a lesser extent Uranus and Neptune cause the sun to WOBBLE around the solar system's center of gravity, and the sun to SLOSH around the mutual center of gravity of all of the planets taken as a whole. Like a large bowl of water, if you pivot around in a circle, the orbits of the planets causes cyclical changes inside the sun.

Those cyclical changes create variation of the sun's activity on an 11 year cycle (really two halves of a 22 year cycle), 170 year cycle, a 400 year cycle, etc.

See my detailed explanation, citing to (gasp) SCIENTISTS about all of this, at:
http://usnavjonmoseley.blogspot.com/2009/04/global-warmings-astronomical-origins.html

In January, Japan's prestigious Society of Energy and Resources gave an "astonishing rebuke" to scientists promoting the idea of man-made global warming. JSER, a government advisory board, compared global warming theories to "ancient astrology." JSER noted that the Earth stopped warming in 2001 (other say 1998), but in general the Earth has merely been recovering naturally from the "Little Ice Age" that occurred between around 1400 and 1800.

The Japanese scientists criticized over-reliance on inherently-unreliable computer models, without real-world testing of the hypothesis. JSER concluded that cycles in the sun's activities cause variation in the Earth's climate: "Through the 11 year sunspot cycle, ultraviolet rays vary considerably, the ionosphere and ozone layer
are affected."

Poland's Academy of Sciences recently published a document that rejects man-made global warming, also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The Polish Academy notes that over the history of the Earth, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased an average of 800 years AFTER warmer temperatures. This data decisively proves that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Global warming comes first. Then carbon dioxide increased later. (Most likely dissolved CO2 evaporated from warming oceans.)

Is there no anthropogenic CO2, other than from breathing?

Mankind does not create anything in terms of physical material. All we can do is move it around. Nature created the CO2, and the constitutent chemicals. It is arrogant vanity to ascribe so much power and impact to humans. Yes we can chemically combine carbon and oxygen into CO2, but it was photosynthesis that previously converted CO2 into C and O2. So all we are doing is shuttling back and forth among what nature created.

What is now considered the CO2 tipping point?

The concept of a tipping point is a fantasy, stacking assumption upon assumption. Not only is it an untested guess, but the logical path is obviously flawed.

Furthermore, the more CO2 in the atmosphere THE MORE PLANT LIFE WILL BE STIMULATED, converting CO2 back into Carbon and free oxygen. CO2 in the atmosphere is like fertilizer for agriculture, forests, and algae in the water. Combined with a naturally occurring warming of the solar system, increased plant life in the warmth will eliminate the increased CO2 and convert it back into free oxygen and trapped carbon.

Is the sun turning the oceans acidic?

Well the oceans are not becoming acidic, other than in hysteria-driven computer models, but if the sun is warming the Earth, causing more dissolved CO2 to escape from the oceans, then the alkaline-acidic balance of the oceans would be affected by the evaporation of CO2 previously dissolved in the ocean's seawater.

Of course, plant life (including the vast quantities of algae in the gigantic oceans) wil then gobble up the CO2 and convert the CO2 back into oxygen.

Is methane 70 times more powerful GHG than carbon dioxide? Is free releasing methane a good thing?

Methane -- like water vapor -- is a more powerful chemical at THEORETICALLY trapping heat than carbon dioxide. But what does that have to do with anything? By your logic, it would be a very good thing to harvest all the methane we can, BURN IT, and turn it into CO2. As you know, methane does escape NATURALLY from pockets including under the sea floor. If methane traps more heat than CO2, than we should aggressively grab as much of it as we can, BURN IT FOR FUEL, and convert methane into CO2, which is less harmful.

However, hydrogen fuel cell cars, and even electric battery cars, cause more water vapor to be emitted into the atmosphere. The water vapor from fuel cell cars is a greater danger to global warming than the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.

Obama Faces Re-election AS GAS PRICES TOP $5 A GALLON in some places, near $4 per gallon nationally

When is Birth Control NOT Birth Control? Exposing Barack Obama's Latest Scam in Health Care

Liberals are desperately trying to cling to their lie of a Republican "war on women." That lie is vanishing like the mist before their eyes. Their last gasp is to try to confuse people about the supposed need to take "birth control" for "a medical purpose."

"Birth control" medication used for a medically necessary purpose is not birth control. Such use is covered by health insurance -- even health insurance from Catholic and other religious institutions. Catholic religious doctrine approves of the use of such medication for treating a genuine medical problem, just not with interfering with God's will concerning child-bearing.

The now notorious testimony of Sandra Fluke, Georgetown University Law School Student and head of "Law Students for Reproductive Justice" at Georgetown, claimed that students cannot afford their own birth control because "as you know" it costs "OVER $3,000" for a student to get birth control during the three years of a law school education.

The $3,000 cost is the central lynchpin of the argument, because if it is impossible to get birth control for less than $3,000, within an affordable budget, then students need help paying to continue to have sex instead of studying. On the other hand, if birth control is affordable and easily available, then most Americans will expect men and women alike to pay for their own sex, thank you very much. And all the more Americans would expect a woman's male friend(s) to help with the cost before asking health insurance or the taxpayer to pay for a woman to have sex.

But that liberal lie is unraveling fast. The Weekly Standard did what I thought about doing (but didn't have time):
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dc-target-sells-birth-control-9-month-georgetown-student-tells-congress-friends-are-going-broke-pay-pills_632955.html

The Weekly Standard called a Target pharmacy near to Georgetown and found that birth control pills, without insurance, can cost only $9 per month. Note that the question is how little can you pay, not how much you can pay. The question is do students NEED to have help paying for their own sex lives? If students could pay as little as $500 over 3 years, instead of $3,000, this dramatically changes the case for a supposed "need" to have other people pay for your private sex life.

In her Congressional testimony, Sandra Fluke confessed (Emphasis added):

“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

So while spinning her sob story, Sandra Fluke let the cat out of the bag.

Medication used for a non-birth control purpose is not birth control.

For example, Minoxidyl is a medication that was developed to control blood pressure. However, it was discovered that if you spread Minoxidyl on your head, it might grow hair for men with thinning hair (probably won't, but it works just often enough to keep hope alive).

When controlling blood pressure, Minoxidyl is medically necessary, prescribed for a medically necessary purpose. Therefore, it is covered by health insurance. However, when used on the scalp, externally, it is sold under the brand name Rogaine and it is NOT covered by health insurance. Used to control blood pressure, Minoxidyl is medically necessary. When used for male vanity, for mere appearance, Rogaine (Minoxidyl) is not covered by health insurance.

Similarly, aspirin is one of nature's wonder drugs. It can minimize blood clots, and can minimize the risk of heart attacks. It can reduce a fever. And it can reduce your headache. That's only three of its many uses. When used to deter blood clots and heart attacks, it is clearly a drug prescribed for a medical condition, and is covered by health insurance. When used to treat the occasional headache, it would probably not be covered by most health insurance.

In the same way, the medication that produces a birth control effect also has other effects, as well.

So when the same medication is being used to treat a medical condition it is NOT birth control, it is not coded for health insurance purposes as birth control, it is paid and covered by ALL health insurance, even at Catholic institutions, and it is approved of by the Catholic Church.

Even Sandra Fluke admits that Georgetown University's health insurance policy will cover birth control medication when needed for a non-birth control reason.

But Sandra Fluke admits this "inconvenient truth" (for liberals) under her breath and then proceeds to try to explain it away and obscure it. Meanwhile, others taken in by the scam, repeat the bald and naked falsehood that women with a medical need or medical condition would not be able to get the medication covered by health insurance. That is pure unadulterated hogwash and balderdash.

Aware that her argument has a giant hole in it, Sandra Fluke tries to navigate an oil tanker through a shallow creek:

“Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs."

That just isn't true. The same Catholic bishops leading the charge against Obama's war on religion have clarified that Catholic religious doctrine APPROVES OF medication to cure disease or alleviate suffering, even when it is the exact same medication that can also be used for a contraceptive purpose. There is no religious objection to particular drugs. The religious perspective (for those denominations that object to birth control) is focused on using the medication for a contraceptive purpose. (I don't have any personal objection to birth control. My outrage is directed at liars trying to take away people's freedoms.)

But then Sandra Fluke illustrates what you can expect from a highly-paid Georgetown lawyer -- to twist reality into a pretzel of falsehood. Fluke testified:

“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms."

HUH? Hell, no.

If you don't have any documentation from a doctor, maybe.

LET'S TRANSLATE THE ABOVE: If you are LYING and claiming to have a medical need, without any medical records, without any medical diagnosis from a doctor, then yeah, people are going to scratch their heads and wonder "What are you talking about?"

But if a woman has been diagnosed with a medical condition, all she needs to do is pull out her medical diagnosis from a doctor and say "HERE" and point to the doctor's diagnosis.

I don't just mean that I think Sandra Fluke is lying. I mean that Fluke's statement contains within itself the seeds of its own falsehood.

_________________________________________________________________________

Let's listen in (hypothetically):

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Could you explain why you are claiming a medical condition or medical need for this medication?"

Georgetown Female Student: "HERE IS MY DOCTOR'S DIAGNOSIS." "ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?"

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Oh. No. Thank you very much. That's all we need."

_________________________________________________________________________

What kind of "interrogation" is Sandra Fluke talking about? Clearly, she is referring to students who are LYING or perhaps SELF-DIAGNOSING a medical condition.

Let's listen in again (hypothetically):

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Could you explain why you are claiming a medical condition or medical need for this medication?"

Georgetown Female Student: "I have ovarian cancer."

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Why do you think that?"

Georgetown Female Student: "I got on the internet and diagnosed myself."

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Have you seen a doctor about your ovarian cancer?"

Georgetown Female Student: "No"

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Do you have any documentation of your medical condition?"

Georgetown Female Student: "No"

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "I'm sorry. But we need some kind of documentation that you have been diagnosed with this medical condition. And I strongly urge you to see a doctor immediately. If you really do have ovarian cancer, you cannot treat yourself as your own doctor."