Liberty, Equality, Sorority

Current French polling has not bad looking for her age Segolene Royal, the Socialist Party candidate, leading in the presidential polls against the UMP candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy.

No word yet as to whether the senile communist tending current French president, Jacques Chirac will seek a third term.

Segolene Royal looks decent in a swimsuit and has a nice smile but there is more to directing a country than good looks as we are sure Barack Hussein Osama Obama will discover. In addition to the required executive skills a presidential candidate must protect his or her country from enemies both foreign and domestic.

We thus find it discouraging that the main reason Sarkozy is trailing in the polls to mademoiselle Royal is that voters are "worried" by Sarkozy's tough stance on immigration and crime.

Following the Paris riots and the fact that Paris police are unable to enter muslim* neighborhoods without legitimate and probable fear of their lives, it would stand to reason that voters would want security and so elect Sarkozy.

Thankfully, this author's French blood was bred away three centuries ago. Current French residents seem to be more concerned with their August holidays than the possible end of their country.

*We do not capitalize anything associated with islam until when, and if, their followers wish to rejoin the human race.

Le français actuel n'interroge pas a mauvais cherche son Segolene d'âge Royal, le candidat de Parti socialiste, menant dans les sondages présidentiels contre le candidat de UMP, Nicolas Sarkozy.
Aucun mot pourtant si le communiste sénile a la tendance président française actuelle, Jacques Chirac cherchera un troisième terme.
Segolene Royal paraît décent dans un maillot de bain et a un sourire agréable mais il y a plus à diriger un pays qu'un bons regards comme nous sommes Barack Hussein Osama Obama sûrs que découvrira. En plus des compétences exécutives exigées qu'un candidat présidentiel doit protéger son ou son pays des ennemis étrangers et domestiques.
Nous ainsi trouve le décourageant que le Sarkozy principal de raison traîne dans les sondages à mademoiselle Royal est que les électeurs sont « inquiétés » par la position de Sarkozy dure sur l'immigration et le crime.
Suivre les émeutes de Paris et le fait cette police de Paris est incapable d'entrer musulman* les voisinages sans la crainte légitime et probable de leurs vies, il se tiendrait pour raisonner que les électeurs voudraient la sécurité et si Sarkozy d'élu.
Heureusement, ce sang français de l'auteur a été loin élevé trois siècles il y a. Les habitants français actuels semblent plus être concerné avec leurs vacances aoûts que la fin possible de leur pays.
*Nous n'écrivons pas avec une majuscule n'importe quoi a associé avec l'islam jusqu' à quand, et si, leurs partisans souhaitent riposter la race humaine.

John Edwards Blows It Again

We are watching with amusement the Democraps who are running for president. Lost yesterday among the Hillary vs. Barack Hussein Osama Obama's slap-down bitchfist, was another example of why John "Pretty-Boy" Edwards will never be president.

Mr. Edwards, according to Variety columnist, Peter Bart, said at a Hollywood fundraiser that the state of Israel, in mulling the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, might be the greatest short-term threat to world peace.

Did I write this comment was made at a Hollywood fundraiser?

What ethnic group predominates in Hollywood, Mr. Edwards?

Needless to say, the fundraiser quickly shut down and rightfully so. Israel is a long-standing friend of the United States. Israel has to endure a lot with all of the nut job muslims surrounding her who deny the holocaust occurred or promises to annihilate Israel.

Funny that Democraps do not yet realize that any of their presidential candidates are not electable as president. All the more fun to watch their stunned faces post-election day.

In a further signal that Democraps in congress are out-of-touch, an Edwards spokesman said the former one-term senator "...believes..." "...one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace is Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon." Trial lawyer Edwards may want to inform the House and Senate Democraps of this.

Czech President questions Al Gore's Sanity

Below is English translated text of Czech president Vaclav Klaus from www.drudgereport.com

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.

This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you're not a climate scientist (neither is Al Gore a climate scientist -ed). Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrically opposite.

Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.

Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...

A: ...I am right...

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.

It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.

That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]

Link to Hospodárské noviny here: http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx