Al Gore displays how 'out of touch' he is.

During an interview with 60 Minutes to be aired this Sunday, Al Gore said:

I think that those people [who don't believe Global Warming is man-made] are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.

Well, just for argument's sake, let's look at the numbers ...

• 7% to 10% - Percentage of people that think it 'highly unlikely' that we landed on the moon. (SOURCE and SOURCE)


• 32% - Percentage of people that think that the Earth is flat.* (SOURCE)
  
• 52% to 65% - Percentage of people that think that threat posed by Global Warming is exaggerated. (SOURCE and SOURCE)


• 71% - Percentage of people that think Global Warming is a natural occurence, not man-made. (SOURCE)

Sure, Al. Looks like the debate's all settled and, clearly, 71% is a 'tiny, tiny minority' ...

* - If you visit the source linked here, you'll find the source himself is a lunatic whackjob and, thus, the number might be entirely unreliable. Unfortunately, it was the only percentage I could find related to this on the entirety of the internet (or, at least, the first 10 results on Google). Sorry ...

And the Obamas' hits just keep on rolling ...

Back in January, at USC, Michelle Obama revealed that her previous comment about 'finally being proud to be an American' probably wasn't a misstatement or a faux pas when she told the world what she thinks of Americans -- not white Americans, not black Americans, but just plain ol' Americans in general.

"We don't like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables- you all living in different dorms. I was there. You're not talking to each other, taking advantage that you're in this diverse community. Because sometimes it's easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance... That's America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?"

Maybe it's just because I'm a 'typical white person', but being constantly and consistently called a ignorant racist by someone who spent 20 years hanging out with Rev. Jeremiah Wright is really starting to grind my gears ...

"Loyalty to the State."

In an opinion rendered ruling that it parents don't have a Constitutional right to home-school their own children, Justice H. Walter Croskey of California's 2nd District Court of Appeal wrote:

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."

Wow. 'Loyalty to the state' ... ? That sounds more than just a little fascist, doesn't it?

And, just so we're all on the same page, when did schools stop being a place where we taught our kids how to think -- things like letters, numbers, reading, and math -- and we started teaching them what to think?

IH Pop Quiz: Which candidate said it? [Answer]

The correct answer to yesterday's Intellectually Honest Pop Quiz question is:

D) Barack Obama

According to the Boston Globe:

In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. ... It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

The statements are consistent with others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US invasion.

If you're surprised to read that, apparently, Barack Obama was for remaining in Iraq before he was against it, you can read more about Obama's shifting views on Foreign Policy at The American Thinker's blog.

Counting eggs as chickens in the DNC.

Over on Slate.com, Akhil Reed Amar bloviates about how the Democrat party could truly have co-presidents if Obama and Clinton would just agree to truly 'share' the ticket.

But humor me, for a moment, and imagine that the kind of reconciliation that would allow them to be running mates is possible. Not to mention the best outcome for the party.

But which should it be: Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton? In fact, voters in November could actually endorse both versions of the ticket—truly, two presidents for the price of one. How? The Constitution's 25th Amendment allows for a new paradigm of political teamwork: The two Democratic candidates could publicly agree to take turns in the top slot.

He goes on to wax inane about how the 25th Amendment would allow the Obama-Clinton/Clinton-Obama ticket to have whichever candidate got to be president first to resign, have the Vice-President take over as President and then, subject to Congressional approval, re-appoint the former top half of the ticket as Vice-President.

The only problem (well, aside from that whole 'subject to Congressional approval' bit) ... ?

It seems almost as if, in Mr. Amar's world, the only two candidates even in contention for the Presidency are the two fighting over who'll pull the most super-delegates and successfully subvert the will of at least 45% of their own electorate. But, the fact remains that, at least as of right now, both candidates are running behind John McCain.

The Democrats, or at least Mr. Amar, might be counting their eggs as chickens. And, we've already seen how well that worked out for the New England Patriots ...

IH Pop Quiz: Which candidate said it?

Pop Quiz: Which candidate, during a speech stating that we had an 'absolute obligation' to remain in Iraq long enough to ensure success there, said:

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster. It would dishonor the men and women who have already died. ... It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

A) John McCain
B) George W. Bush
C) Hillary Clinton
D) Barack Obama

The correct answer will be posted tomorrow.

Obama needs more education.

Barack Obama, attempting to get people thinking about something other than his lunatic pastor, Jeremiah Wright (retired), went to West Virginia last Thursday.

In his speech, he attempted to illustrate just how 'in touch' he was with the needs of West Virginians, and how he could've better spent the money we've spent during the War in Iraq.

“For what folks in this state have been spending on the Iraq war, we could be giving health care to nearly 450,000 of your neighbors, hiring nearly 30,000 new elementary school teachers, and making college more affordable for over 300,000 students.”

Unfortunately, Barack either forgot where he was or he's not particularly good at math ... or both.

For example, according to someone who actually, you know, lives in West Virginia, there are approximately 140,000 elementary school kids and they've already got 10,000 teachers for them. That puts their students-per-teacher ratio at 14:1 -- which is, currently, one of the best in the nation.

Barack's proposal to add 30,000 new elementary school teachers would reduce that ratio even further to one teacher per every 3.5 kids.

Call me nuts, but I think that might be overkill.

Further, and in addition to that ridiculous increase in the number of teachers the state could've hired, he proposed that they could've made education more affordable for 300,000 college students.

Unfortunately, West Virginia only has 80,000 college students, of which 10,000 already go to college for free as their state-sponsored slot machines already pay tuition for any student that keeps their GPA at 3.0 or above.

In other words, they'd have to find some way to import 220,000 college students.

Perhaps the next time candidate Obama wanders into a state, blabbering about how we 'can't afford the war' but somehow could, apparently, afford to spend an equal amount of money on domestic education programs, perhaps he should first take time to educate himself.

Obama's Poll numbers tanking after Wright revelations.

According to Rasmussen's daily Presidential tracking polls, as of Friday, Obama's numbers were dropping quickly and, despite his speech on race relations in the United States, he appears to be unable to staunch the bleeding.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows John McCain’s lead growing against both potential Democratic opponents.

McCain currently leads Barack Obama 49% to 42% and Hillary Clinton 51% to 41% margin (see recent daily results). African-American support for Clinton has collapsed, falling to 55% in the general election match-up.

Obama, on the other hand, earns solid support from African-American voters but attracts only 36% of white voters in a match-up with McCain. Over the past month, McCain has gained ground in Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Both Democrats continue to lead in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and California.

Yes, that was Friday, but Obama's numbers aren't showing much improvement.

The good news for Obama is that his numbers have stopped falling since his speech on Tuesday. The bad news is that they haven’t bounced back.

In fact, according to today's poll, McCain's lead over Barack is growing.

McCain leads Barack Obama 50% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 49% to 42% (see recent daily results).

And, for the first time, Barack Obama's unfavorable rating has gone over 50%.

On Monday, McCain is viewed favorably by 55% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 42%. Obama’s reviews are 46% favorable and 52% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 42% favorable, 55% unfavorable (see recent daily results).

Now, admittedly, polls in March don't really mean all that much. But it's becoming clear that, despite his highly-praised speech, Obama's chances of winning the general election are quickly slipping away.