The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Angels guard thee



Beneath the quiv'ring leaves, where shelter comes at last,

All sadness sinks to rest, or glides into the past;

Her sweet eyes prison'd now, in their soft silken bars,

O! my love, calm she sleeps beneath the trembling stars.



Ah! wake not yet from thy repose,

A fair dream spirit hovers near thee,

Weaving a web of gold and rose,

Through dream land's happy isles to bear thee!

Sleep, love, it is not yet the dawn,

Angels guard thee, sweet love, til morn!



Far from the noisy throng,

by song birds lulled to rest,

Where rock the branches

high by breezes soft carres'd;

Softly the days go on,

By sorrow all unharm'd,

Thus may life be to thee

a sweet existence charm'd.



by Benjamin Godard (1849-1895)

Chill out over global warming



By David Harsanyi

Denver Post Staff Columnist

DenverPost.com



You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.



Why not give it a whirl?



Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.



Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.



The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.



Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.



"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."



Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.



"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."



Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?



Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.



Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.



I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?



"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."



Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.



"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."



Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."



Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.



"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."



So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.



Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.



Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.



David Harsanyi's column appears Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.

An Email I received:



The following article pasted below is bang on the money, but I must disagree with him on his point about her single sentence about the 9/11 widows, the "Jersey Girls" as being over the top.



I will explain at the bottom of this page, after the article.



-------------------------------------------------------



Liberals should be very worried about this book.



Ann Coulter's Best Points



by James Robison



If you've watched television, read a newspaper or surfed current events on the web in the last week, you've heard about Ann Coulter's new book, Godless. You've probably heard her statement about a few 9/11 widows "enjoying their husbands' deaths" through their roles as political, anti-Bush celebrities. While that one sentence in the book arguably falls into the category of shock value foolishness, I believe that it's the rest of the text that should worry liberals and could inspire those who believe there are absolute principles upon which sane societies must build.



In a rambling, jolting and often snide assault on the thinking of America's left, Coulter thrashes the flawed liberal philosophies of abortion, sexuality, education and Darwinism.



"As a matter of faith," Coulter writes, "liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out people who don't reproduce? And if gays can't change, why do liberals think child-molesters can?"



She cites case after case in which Christianity and its tenets have been shoved aside by politicians, courts and liberal activists in favor of repugnant or damaging practices.



"This is a country in which taxpayers are forced to subsidize 'artistic' exhibits of aborted fetuses, crucifixes in urine, and gay pornography. Meanwhile, it's unconstitutional to display a Nativity scene at Christmas or the 10 Commandments on government property..."



Coulter calls abortion "the holiest sacrament" of a godless religion and unflinchingly points out that "to a liberal, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of the war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate."



She also lines up the crosshairs of her analytical assault on those who will not even consider a Creator as a scientific possibility. "Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology and scientific rigor.... We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God. Even if evolution were true, it wouldn't disprove God. God has performed more spectacular feats than evolution."



Her overall theme centers on liberalism as a state-sanctioned religion, though the people that use "separation of church and state" as a weapon vociferously deny that charge. She points out several diametrically opposed differences between Judeo-Christian beliefs and liberalism. While we believe that mankind was formed in the image of God and social progress stems from "the spark of divinity in the human soul," liberalism reduces humans to animals "no different morally from the apes" who are, ultimately, "an insignificant part of nature."



Godless is both entertaining and challenging; thought-provoking and disturbing. The image that the author projects in public is a little more difficult to understand. She seems flippant and callous at times, yet her analytical depth and insight cannot be denied. Whether you love or hate her inflamed rhetoric, most of her arguments are absolutely right. Most Christians would enjoy reading her book, though some would be repelled by her merciless wit and blunt language. Liberals need not fret over her "widows" quip, but they should be very concerned about her other brilliantly stated points that expose their too-often Godless beliefs.









---------------------------------------------------



Now for my $20 worth.



Coulter is actually absolutely right in saying that they are enjoying their husband's deaths in that it took their husbands to die so tragically to put them into the position that they wallow in today. They are fawned over by the media, are treated like queens and celebrities everywhere they go and have been payed millions of dollars as a result. I callenge anyone to say that they are not enjoying their newfound fame, a position they would not be in if their husbands had not been killed on 9/11.



Why just these four women? There have been many other women who lost their husbands on that day, and there were many husbands who lost their wives on that day, but we rarely hear about them, do we? Why? Because they don't bash a conservative president or use their spouse's deaths to make leftist political statements as the Jersey Girls do, as well as morons like Cindy Sheehan. These women are certainly financially better off than they were, and they are likely mourning a lot less these days. probablty a lot less than others who are not making these assinine political statements.



Does this mean they wouldn't turn back time to have their husbands back? I'm sure they would love to but that's not the point. The point is that since they have turned their mourning into political activism, the wealth and celebrity status they have achieved has no doubt helped the sands of time to heal the wounds a lot faster than others who also lost family on that day, or indeed, even those who lost families in traffic deaths.



Therefore, Coulter is techniclly and emotionally correct with her statement as she says it, exactly, in context. These women are literally profiting from their husband's deaths, and just like ANYONE who tragically loses their spouse, they do eventually move on. But the despicable actions of those four show that they are not typical mourners, they are instead selfishly using their losses for personal gain.



Plus, as David Limbaugh wrote in his recent column:



"Whether she (Coulter) intended it this way or not, the "harsh" remarks she made in the book have proven one of her theses in a way the book alone could not have done -- at least not as effectively.



She contends that liberals have employed certain "human shields" to advance their unpopular arguments, especially those pertaining to the war on terror. These people have either earned respect, like military heroes, or become sympathetic figures through personal tragedy, like Cindy Sheehan and the widows of 9/11 victims.



As a result of their status, these individuals are entitled to say anything they want, not just as a matter of free speech, which no one would dispute, but with full immunity from criticism. Their actions and statements cannot be challenged, no matter how ludicrous, no matter how destructive."



(Limbaugh's full column can be found here: http://www.redstatesusa.com/archives/2006/06/a_religion_or_c.html)



Like Coulter has correctly always maintained: "There is nothing too outrageous you can say about liberals because it's all true".



Modern liberals, socialists and other assorted leftists are truly a despicable lot who deserve no respect whatsoever when they act in the way these four "grieving widows" have done, and the media is just as guilty and just as despicable for aiding and abbetting their shameful and outrageous behaviour. The left knows no shame.

You're a wild thing!



You were born to be bad. Naughty by nature, you've tried everything at least once and aren't afraid to get your hands - or the rest of you - dirty when opportunity knocks. Whether that means plotting for advancement at work or toying with somebody's affections, you're willing to break the rules. As long as you're having a laugh and getting ahead, anything goes. And it is fun to defy convention every once in a while, but you're walking a bit of a tightrope. Every so often, try listening to that little angel on your shoulder who keeps saying "no!" - it's okay to be nice sometimes. In the meantime, keep being bad and enjoy yourself. Just don't throw caution entirely to the wind.

Friends are like butt cheeks.

Shit separates them but they always come back together!