It's amazing just how the main stream media (MSM) goes through as many cycles as global temperature does. I'm old enough to remember the global cooling hysteria and now we have to put up with the global warming hysteria.

There is a definitive truth to global temperatures. They go up and they go down. Hmmm … Imagine that. Global temperatures don't stay the same. What a concept. In fact, it's not even a new concept. Most everything, or should I write Everything with a capital E, changes. While we have yet to find something that does not change, the possibility exists. It's an extremely small possibility, but one nonetheless.

So, going forward with out theory that everything changes, we must conclude that the Earth changes. With that, we must look outward and conclude that other planets change. Our sun changes, the universe changes, and whatever is beyond that, changes.

Well, sure, you think. We all know that. For most people, that is. However, I have yet to see a model in the global temperature arena that includes changes in our solar system. Mostly, you see the "human" factor in the latest warming hysteria. Every now and then, I read about the solar influence on the Earth and on Mars.

But, I have yet to read (and I'm still reading so I could come across it) any article that includes the solar system and universe in its model. Yet, what plays a large part in any planetary body? Certainly a sun would. But what is bigger than the sun? The system which holds them all. And that would play a very important role in a planetary system.

Let's expand or contract that idea. We have a solar system with a sun and nine planets. That system changes just as everything else. What kind of changes would need to occur to effect a planetary system. Hmmm … how about expansion or contraction of planetary bodies?

Let's say that our solar system is in a contracting mode. That means that the planets are ever so slowly, inching their way towards the sun. While not the best of models and certainly one that would be hard pressed to prove, it can happen. Just imagine two larger systems moving toward each other with our smaller system in between. Or imagine a slinky that's elongated and you push each end together. While the spring in the slinky doesn't want to contract, other forces are at work. What this means to us is that over a period of time (dependent on how much force, etc) the Earth's temperature will rise. There will be wobbles and shifts and the temperature won't have a steady incline but cycles with an overall incline upwards.

Let's say the opposite. Our solar system is expanding. There are a myriad reasons and not a whole lot of proof. Imagine a merry go round with several kids on it. When the merry go round starts spinning, the kids feel a force pushing them outwards. The center is the sun, the kids are planets. Now, take a much bigger leap and imagine the planet, Mars, being about where the Earth revolves around the sun. Yeah, it'd go a good ways to explain the Martian environment being what it is now. So, with the theory of expansion, you can see that the Earth just might be headed away from the sun. As with the contraction theory, there are a multitude of variables that would allow for the temperature to fluctuate, but overall, one should see a steady decline.

Or you can view the solar system as being stable and not expanding or contracting. Heck, it'd be the first perpetual motion machine discovered in the universe. Imagine that.

I listened to Sean Hannity on the radio yesterday. He talked to one caller about Giuliani and about how conservative Giuliani was. Mr. Hannity seemed to think highly of Giuliani. While I don't know all of Giuliani's positions, I do know that he was mayor of New York City and that he did nothing to end the most restrictive enforcement of the second amendment.

The second amendment is a very important area for conservatives. It is also a very major position that can elevate or destroy a politician, and a president's view of the second amendment is very influential. It is for these reasons that conservatives should not support Giuliani.

The facts.

1. Giuliani was mayor of NYC and did nothing to ease the burden of gun restrictions. He is reported to strive for stricter gun control laws.

"He spoke in favor of a licensing system for gun owners that would require trigger locks and firearms training, and he lobbied Congress to outlaw most military-style assault weapons." More can be read at the link below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/us/politics/23rudy.html?ei=5070&en=76ea2208f8dd6f7a&ex=1181880000&pagewanted=print

2. Not only did Giuliani push for stricter gun laws, but he also strove to drive the gun industry out of business using the legal system. In June 20th, 2000, here is the report:

"Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and City Council Speaker Peter F. Vallone, joined by Corporation Counsel Michael Hess, today announced that the City of New York has filed a lawsuit against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors." More can be read at the link below.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774286/posts

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2000a/weekly/wkly0626.html

3. Too close to the Democrat party where the second amendment is concerned.

In an article about Giuliani before he took office, he is quoted as supporting Democrats in future elections if it would help their cities.

"Insisting on the need for urban reform, Republican leaders of two of the nation's largest cities -- Mayor-elect Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York City and Mayor Richard J. Riordan of Los Angeles -- said yesterday that they support tough gun-control laws. They also praised President Clinton. And they said they would consider campaigning for Democrats in future elections if it would help their cities."

Beyond that, here is another part of the article.

"But they stopped short of directly criticizing their party for holding up passage of the Brady bill, a measure passed by Congress last week that requires a five-day waiting period before gun sales. And while they said they support bans on the sale of some semiautomatic weapons, they did not go so far for handguns."

If Giuliani isn't smart enough to know that the so called "assault weapons" are merely cosmetic in nature and that they function the same as all other semiautomatic weapons, then do we really want him as President of the United States?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEED71E31F93AA15752C1A965958260

4. Flip flopping. Giuliani did nothing as mayor of NYC to ease gun control restrictions. His stance then was very clear that he was anti gun. Now that he's running for president, he's taken a much more casual stance to gun control.

"The former mayor told Hannity that gun control was "appropriate" for the city, but that states and cities should be allowed to make those decisions locally."

Think about that. The second amendment is something that can be decided locally. Cities can override state laws, states can override the second amendment. This is what Giuliani is stating here. He believes in the strict gun control laws of NYC that most of the conservatives believe to be unconstitutional. Yet, Giuliani is for allowing cities or states to pass those laws. Giuliani supported national gun registration in the 1990s, but now he doesn't? He blamed less restrictive states for NYC's crime problems. But, now he believes that states can choose their laws? Not to even touch the problem of thinking that lax gun control laws caused crime problems in NYC.

http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/giuliani.htm

More flip flopping shown here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Gun_control

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=gaynorm&date=070529

Conclusion.

If Giuliani became president, then we would have a man in a position of power who would work with Democrats to pass stricter gun control laws, to work with any politician to find ways in the legal system to enforce stricter gun control laws, to let states bypass the second amendment, to let cities bypass state laws and the second amendment, and to work with current mayors who are pushing for stricter gun control laws.

Conservatives should wake up and drop this sheep masquerading as a sheepdog. Place your support on someone who deserves it. There are a number of candidates in the field right now who actively support the second amendment. Giuliani isn't one of them, no matter what he says.

 June 6th 1944. D-Day. A day to be remembered for all the lives lost in a battle for the freedom of many. It sets a reminder to those of us in the US that the price for freedom runs higher than any we ever expect to pay. And that the sons and daughters of US citizens pay that price willingly so that we may sit in comfort in a relatively safe environment, far away from the brutality. An estimated 4500 US soldiers died on this day alone. Approximately 9000 total. In one day.

We sit here and read about how badly the world is, but we forget that 9000 soldiers died in the water, in the sand, falling from cliffs, from gunfire, in the trenches, hand to hand, up close and from afar. We forget the many stories of how bravely our men and women fought so that the world could be safe again. How some, wounded and dying, not only fought for life and breath, but pushed forward and routed the enemy.

We forget how close the fighting became in the trenches and across the open ground. How it meant facing a hail of bullets, a volley of mortars, and the explosions of grenades.

Some sit in their safe, alarm-protected house amidst bodyguards armed with guns and preach that the US should quit this current war, that it is lost, that we should not be there, and that playing nice will win the day.

But they fail to affirm that the only reason that they can do these things is because 9000 soldiers, now dead and buried, gave their life willingly in a cause to keep the world free. Not to forget the thousands who served, fought, and did not die, either. No, they sit there in their crystalline bubble, protected from the evil, and cast aspersions upon those who stand and fight and those who solidly support the American ideal. All the while reaping the benefits from the current soldiers who willingly protect our homes, our families, and the world in which we live. They deny what our soldiers are accomplishing today, just as they deny remembering the previous soldier's accomplishments.

Freedom rang loudly and tragically when 4500 of our soldiers gave their all and a bit more for America and for the Republic for which she stands. We stand proudly behind those soldiers and the ones now serving. And it's from willpower alone that we hold back the tear in our eye every time we see the American flag waving on high for we realize what it takes to keep it there -- A supreme sacrifice for life and liberty. May the flag wave brilliantly in the sun, may America stand proudly for freedom throughout the day, and God bless all of our brave soldiers who stand between us and the dark of night.



For those who want to read about our Medal of Honor recipients, you can find it here:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/Moh1.htm