"You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." -Gov. Sarah Palin-

"The media are not above the daily test of any free institution." -Barry M. Goldwater-

"America's first interest must be to punish our enemies, then, if possible, please our friends." -Zell Miller-

"One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." -President Thomas Jefferson-

"Don't get stuck on stupid!" -Lt. Gen. Russel Honore-

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." -Isaiah 5:20-

Petition For The FairTax

GOP Bloggers Blog Directory & Search engine Blog Sweet Blog Directory

Directory of Politics Blogs My Zimbio

Righty Blogs Of Virginia

Coalition For A Conservative Majority

A REASON TO TRY available from Barnes & Noble
A REASON TO TRY available from Borders
A REASON TO TRY available from Books-A-Million
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks New Zealand
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks Australia
A REASON TO TRY available from Chapters.indigo.ca Canada's Online Bookstore
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon.com
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon UK
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon Canada

Monday, December 31, 2007

So True

Hidden Black On White Crimes, New Deal Economics And Alternative Fuel Woes

On this last day of the year 2007 A.D. (Yes, I say Anno Domini rather than the politically correct C.E.), I have three articles I would like to bring to the front. The first is a column by Dr. Walter Williams:

Whenever there is a case of white on black crime, whether real or alleged, it becomes front-page headline news. But, when it is black on white crime, well, then it is treated differently by Old Media.

Dr. Walter Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well. Oh yeah, for those of you who didn't know it, he is also a black man.

Here is what he writes about this issue over at TownHall.com:

If you're like I am, you've heard scores of media reports about the 2006 Duke University rape case, in which three white lacrosse players were falsely accused of raping a black stripper at a wild party at the home of one of the team members. These guys, convicted by the news media and Duke faculty, were later found innocent. It turned out that Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong was running for re-election. In seeking the black vote, he concealed DNA evidence that would have exonerated the lacrosse players.


I don't know about you, but it was just recently that I heard about a gruesome murder in Knoxville, Tenn., that is far worse than the false charges in the Duke rape case and is at least as horrible, if not more so, than the dragging death of James Byrd. Unlike the Duke rape case and the Jasper lynching, the national news media's coverage of the interracial Knoxville murders paled in comparison. On Jan. 6, 2007, University of Tennessee student Channon Christian and her boyfriend, Christopher Newsom, were carjacked and kidnapped in Knoxville. Both of them were later murdered.

According to a 46-count indictment, suspects Darnell Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson, George Thomas and Vanessa Coleman, all blacks, are charged with committing rape, including sodomy against Christian and Newsom, both of whom are white. After being raped, Newsom was shot several times and his body was found burned along nearby railroad tracks. Christian was forced to witness her boyfriend's rape, torture and subsequent murder before she was ultimately raped, tortured and murdered. The police discovered her body inside a large trash can in the kitchen of the home where the murders took place. Before disposing of her body, the murderers poured bleach or some other cleaning agent down her throat in an effort to destroy DNA evidence. Trial dates have been set for next May.

Dr. Williams rightly asks where the news media is and why they aren't covering this incident as closely and completely as they did the Duke fake-rape case. He also rightly asks why the NAACP doesn't speak out about this as they spoke out against the prosecution of the Jena 6.

Why is this so important to us? Read on:

According to the 2004 FBI National Crime Victimization Survey, in most instances of interracial crimes, the victim is white and the perpetrator is black. In the case of interracial murder for 2004, where the race of victim and perpetrator is known, more than twice as many whites were murdered by a black than cases of a white murdering a black. The failure of civil rights leaders, people like Jackson and Sharpton, as well as politicians to vocally condemn black-on-white crime -- and the relative silence of the news media in reporting it -- is not simply a matter of double standards. It's dangerous, for it contributes to a pile of racial kindling awaiting a racial arsonist to set it ablaze.

The column is short but profound and can be accessed on-line here:

Hiding Black Interracial Crimes
Dr. Walter Williams
December 26, 2007

Since 2008 is a Presidential election year, it would be a good idea to start looking at the campaign promises of the various candidates and how those promises reflect on certain relevent issues. Probably the biggest issue is that of the economy. We all know that the market is heading for a massive readjustment pretty soon, probably within the next year. The question will be: how do we respond to it?

Many Democrats have already decided that the solution is to impose New Deal style socialist policies on the United States. But is that really a good idea?

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Amity Schlaes has the following:

Notwithstanding the largest peacetime appropriation in the history of the world, the New Deal recovery remained incomplete. From 1934 on--the period when the spending ramped up--monetary troubles were subsiding, and could no longer be blamed alone for the Depression. The story of the mid-1930s is the story of a heroic economy struggling to recuperate but failing to do so because lawmakers' preoccupation with public works rather got in the way of allowing productive businesses to expand and pull the rest forward.


People became accustomed to a sort of calculus of frustration. The closer the country got to the prosperity of 1929, the more impossible reaching such prosperity seemed. The 1930s came to be known as the always recovering but never recovered decade. The Dow itself confirmed this pessimistic assessment by stubbornly remaining below 1929 levels through World War II and into the 1950s.

The relevant points for today are simple. The famous "multiplier effect" of public spending may exist. U.S. cities do indeed need new highways, new buildings and new roads, maybe even from government. But these needs should be weighed against damage that comes when officials create projects and jobs for political reasons.

An emergency such as a Great Depression, a Sept. 11, a Katrina, can serve as a catalyst for an infrastructure project and for job creation too. But the dire moral quality of that emergency does not guarantee that the project undertaken in its name will be more efficient than your standard earmark.

In other words, candidates may want to be careful as they climb onto FDR's shoulders. The New Deal edifice may look solid, but it doesn't form a good basis for the American future.

Socialist policies have never succeeded in bringing any nation to economic prosperity. It didn't happen during the New Deal and certainly didn't happen when James Earl Carter unleashed his disasterous policies on the American economy back in the late 70's. So, why are the Dems so intent on inviting that same disaster here in the Y2k's? It would only lead to higher unemployment and more economic dispair which would in turn put a larger burden on the American people.

Free markets are the way to go, not inefficient central planning.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The New Deal Jobs Myth
Amity Schlaes
December 31, 2007

And finally we have another story about alternative fuels and what they are really costing us. Eric Berger, writing for the Houston Chronicle brings us the following:

The recent passage of the mammoth energy bill could have unintended consequences for the Gulf of Mexico that have nothing to do with oil and gas platforms.

Under the law, production of ethanol is set to increase five-fold to 36 billion gallons a year by 2020.

Some environmentalists are worried that the shift to ethanol — viewed as a home-grown alternative to foreign oil — could enlarge the northern Gulf's "dead zone," an 8,000-square-mile area so devoid of oxygen that fish, shrimp and other sea life cannot survive.

Already ethanol, by doubling corn prices since 2002, has driven corn production to its highest levels since World War II. Growing corn requires considerably more nitrogen-based fertilizer than most crops. When the fertilizer runs off fields in the Midwest, it drains into the Mississippi and eventually reaches the Gulf of Mexico.

"This year's dead zone is the third highest on record, and I think we're already seeing an impact from increased ethanol use," said Donald Scavia, a University of Michigan professor who studies farm practices and hypoxia, or low-oxygen water.

Scientists say the Gulf's dead zone has grown larger since its discovery more than 20 years ago. According to Nancy Rabelais, a professor with the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium who annually surveys the area, the dead zone has been about 15 percent bigger in the last five years than normal.

It is a great truism of the Universe: you cannot get something for nothing. Sometimes the something you get is not worth it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Ethanol Stirring Coastal Concerns
Eric Berger
Houston Chronicle
December 31, 2007

Friday, December 28, 2007

Benazir Bhutto, Rest In Peace

I was going to post some other articles today, but they paled in comparison to the news from yesterday. David Ignatius, writing for Investor's Business Daily has the following to say about Benazir Bhutto:

I remember encountering her once when she was a graduate student at Oxford, shaking up the august and occasionally somnolent Oxford Union debating society as its president. She was wearing a Rolling Stones T-shirt, the one with the sassy tongue sticking out, and I recall thinking that Pakistani politics would never be the same once she returned home.

In later years, I would see her during her periodic visits to Washington after she assumed her family's mantle of political leadership and became prime minister in 1988, at the age of 35. She changed in her outward appearance, wearing a head scarf and traditional clothes as she matured, but not in her inner passion for change.

Bhutto was fearless, from her college years in America to her cruel assassination Thursday. She had an unshakable belief that Pakistan should embrace the modern world with the same confidence and courage that she had.

Although the corruption charges that marred her second term as Prime Minister were legitimate, she was Pakistan's trail-blazer into the modern political world and thus a symbol for others to follow.

Rest In Pace, Madam Prime Minister.

Bhutto Paid Ultimate Price For Freedom
David Ignatius
Investor's Business Daily
December 27, 2007

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Scams Targetting Military Families, Anti-Illegal Activists Band Together And Global Warming Not So Hot

Okay, what kind of a sick bastard does something like this? How low can a human being go?

From Stars & Stripes:

According to 1st Lt. David Cowan, in early December his 84-year-old grandmother received a phone call from a man calling himself J.D. Taylor. The man claimed that Cowan was on his way home on leave from Iraq for the holidays, but had gotten hung up and lost his wallet and military identification card.

Cowan’s grandmother, he said, was “asked by this person to wire $800, allegedly on my behalf so that I could get back home and surprise my family for Christmas.”

The claim was a scam. Luckily for Cowan and his family, his grandmother knew to be suspicious of strangers asking for money, even if they’d somehow managed to reach the relatives of a soldier whose name they knew.


In recent years, the FBI has tracked a growing number of scams targeting military families or making false claims to prey on the public’s feelings of good will for troops.


Investigators say Cowan handled the situation correctly. Law enforcement authorities advise people to never provide any personal or financial information over the phone or send money to a stranger on a relative’s behalf.

I wish I could get my hands on people pulling scams like this.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Scams Targeting Troops And Their Families
Joseph Giordono
Stars and Stripes
December 27, 2007

Here in the Washington D.C. area, grass-roots organizations are moving to make state and local governments enforce immigration laws and cooperate with Federal authorities. It is a pity that this is what it takes to get our elected leaders to listen to us. Members of Congress and the President should have been doing this stuff years ago.

From the Gazette.net:

Anti-illegal immigrant activists from around the metropolitan area held their first meeting Wednesday night to begin work on forming a regional coalition aimed at pressuring local and state governments to cut their support of illegal immigrants next year.

Representatives from a dozen grassroots groups in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., attended the meeting.

The focus in Maryland will be on driver’s licenses, in-state tuition and day-laborer centers, said Brad Botwin of Derwood, director of the grass-roots group Help Save Maryland. He expects to draw on lessons learned by groups such as Help Save Herndon in convincing local officials to enact tighter illegal-immigrant laws.

"Clearly, our friends from Virginia are light years ahead of us in Maryland," said Botwin, who coordinated the meeting. " ... We want to see what they can do to help us, and vice versa."

Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group that hosted the meeting at its Washington headquarters, recently filed a public information request with Montgomery County to obtain all information relating to its three day-laborer centers, as well as information on all funding and grants for Casa of Maryland, the immigrant advocacy group that runs the centers.

All major metropolitan areas should have a meeting of the minds such as this one. It would send a strong message to our elected officials that we, the people, are fed up with the illegal immigrant problem and want real solutions, not amnesty which would only create more problems for us.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Activists Opposed To Illegal Immigrant Services Band
Sebastian Montes
Gazette.net of Maryland
December 26, 2007

And here is some more information about Global Warming that Old Media will never tell you about.

(BTW, Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and a member of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)

From the American Spectator:

Scientists have known for years that temperature records can be contaminated by so-called "urban warming," which results from the fact that long-term temperature histories tend to have originated at points of commerce. The bricks, buildings, and pavement of cities retain the heat of the day and impede the flow of ventilating winds.

That's also known as the "urban heat island effect," a phenomenon that has been shown to greatly skew temperature data around major cities like New York.

Michaels goes on:

Adjusting data for this effect, or using only rural stations, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states with confidence that less than 10% of the observed warming in long-term climate histories is due to urbanization.

That's a wonderful hypothesis, and Ross and I decided to test it.

We noted that other types of bias must still be affecting historical climate records. What about the quality of a national network and the competence of the observers? Other factors include movement or closing of weather stations and modification of local land surfaces, such as replacing a forest with a cornfield.

Many of these are socioeconomic, so we built a computer model that included both regional climatic factors, such as latitude, as well as socioeconomic indicators like GDP and applied it to the IPCC's temperature history.


The adjusted IPCC data now looks a lot like the satellite data. The biggest change was that the high (very warm) end of the distribution in the IPCC data was knocked off by the unbiasing process.

Where was the press? A Google search reveals that with the exception of a few blog citations, the only major story ran in Canada's Financial Post.

There are several reasons why the press provides so little coverage to science indicating that global warming isn't the end of the world. One has to do with bias in the scientific literature itself. Theoretically, assuming unbiased climate research, every new finding should have an equal probability of indicating that things are going to be more or less warm, or worse-than-we-thought vs. not-so-bad.

Too bad Old Media isn't listening to real scientists like Patrick J. Michales but would instead give attention to charlatans like Al Gore.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Not So Hot
Patrick J. Michaels
American Spectator
December 27, 2007

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Social Conservatives 'Mad As Hell' And Congress Gets An 'F'

If you are anything like me (and the fact that you are coming here and reading this blog usually means that you are, at least, a little like me) then you have been watching the GOP primary and seeing the front-runners go up and down like yo-yos. Not a very promising start to the 2008 campaign season, but at least it is entertaining.

That is where the positive spin ends. The GOP has a real problem, one that it has ignored for far too long. Paul Edwards' latest column explains what this problem is. There is a schism within the ranks of the GOP and no one seems willing to admit it or to do anything about it. But really, what can be done?

We are stuck between giving up our priciples in order to maintain a good economic status or giving up our fiscal beliefs in order to see our social ideas have a chance. Why can't we have both?

Edwards writes:

The Republican establishment has looked down its nose at social conservatives far too long, tolerating us because they need our votes. But now the tables are turned. The grass roots are looking up at the establishment with the will of a Lech Walesa, demanding that fiscal issues take a back seat to moral issues for a change. It’s long past time for the moral and social issues of our times to be given more than just lip service. It’s now time for our fiscal policies to be informed by our social policies rather than sacrificing our morality to our economic standing in the world.

Don’t expect the Republican establishment to take this lying down. The New Media tanks are already rolling in to suppress the revolt.

So, which candidate is going to take advantage of this? I don't know. I just know that whomever follows the philosophies of the Republican Party most closely should win:

I'm a Republican Because...

I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

You can access Mr. Edwards' complete column on-line here:

Social Conservatives Are “Mad As Hell”
Paul Edwards
December 25, 2007

And now that the end of the year is close at hand, we can look back at what our Democrat controlled Congress has done and effectively grade them.

Here is what Jennifer Rubin has to say over at Human Events Online:

The Democrats in Congress, despite a year in the majority and facing a president whose approval ratings are historically low, have been spectacularly unsuccessful in achieving items both small and large on their agenda. A combination of overreaching and incompetence on their part and savvy prevent defense by President Bush and Congressional Republicans has spared the country untold grief.

Most striking was the Democrats utter failure to live up to the key promise of their 2006 campaign: “ending the war in Iraq.” First, the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petreaus (who had committed to a Surge strategy) by an 81-0 vote in late January. Despite more than 60 votes to withdrawal or limit U.S. forces in Iraq, Democrats could not win a veto proof majority to begin retreat in Iraq. This included a 108-day fight over the Defense Department Supplemental spending bill. Although the demise of the “Surge” policy was widely anticipated in September, testimony by General Petreaus and Ambassador Croker shifted the tide -- with help from a backlash over the ludicrous and outlandish MoveOn.org attack on General Petreaus -- and drowned out Democrats demands that U.S. forces close up shop.


Democrats also failed on other priorities held dear: federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, elimination of secret ballots for union elections, hate crime legislation protecting homosexuals (tucked into a defense authorization bill), voting rights for the District of Columbia, and government price setting for Medicare drugs. Even the pettiest of goals --working five days a week -- could not be achieved. On the SCHIP -- the Dems’ plan for a first middle-class entitlement program -- President Bush and Congressional Republican stared down the Democrats’ threats to expand this poverty program to millions of middle class Americans, not just the “children” that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid paraded before the cameras.

On immigration after the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill failed Democrats could not even achieve victory on a more limited measure --yes, for the “children” -- the DREAM Act. They likewise failed to pass a separate immigration bill for agriculture. Although Democrats swore that hard line Republican views on immigration were a losing proposition and contributed to GOP losses in 2006, they had no stomach after the immigration fight for any more immigration “reform.” (“Blue Dog” Democrat Heath Shuler, who apparently learned a different lesson, did introduce an enforcement only measure which quickly gathered over a hundred co-sponsors.)


Democrats got an energy bill, but not the one they envisioned. In June and again this month Republicans refused to agree to a bill that would have resulted in millions in new taxes for energy companies. Republican also achieved outright wins: a seven year extension of the internet tax ban and utter rejection of Charlie Rangel’s “mother of all tax bills” (which never received so much as a committee vote) that would have “solved” the alternative minimum tax issue by raising billions in new taxes. Democrats cherished “Pay Go” (their self imposed rule that all tax reductions must be “paid for”) just went.

And why did all of this happen?

First, the Democrats badly misinterpreted the results of the 2006 election. Had the vast majority of the country wanted amnesty, defeat in Iraq, socialized medicine and the like, the elected representatives in Congress on both sides of the aisle would have felt the heat and voted accordingly. Second, divided government may be a powerful argument for the GOP presidential nominee. If it were not for the presidential veto -- actual or threatened -- much of the Democratic agenda could well have slipped through. The GOP nominee will be greatly aided by a simple argument: “Do you want Nancy and Harry to have their way?” Finally, Republicans do best when they do not “split the baby” (e.g. give Rangel half of his tax increases) but instead say “no” and force Democrats to vote on measures unpalatable to most voters. In that regard, 2006 may have made 2008 a far easier year -- provided Republicans stick to their guns for one more year.

You can access Jennifer's complete column on-line here:

Democrats' 2007 Report Card
Jennifer Rubin
Human Events Online
December 21, 2007

And more evidence of a deserved 'F' comes from the Associated Press:

President Bush, successful in forcing the Democratic Congress to bend to his will, complained Thursday that lawmakers had wasted time and taxpayers' money. His aggressive stand set a confrontational tone for Bush's final year in the White House.

Bush used a year-end news conference to scold lawmakers for stuffing 9,800 special-interest projects into a $550 billion spending measure. He directed his budget director to explore how to erase what Bush considers wasteful spending.

What began as a troubling year for Bush, facing a new, energetic Democratic Congress, ended in triumph for the president as frustrated Democrats nursed their losses. Democrats failed in their No. 1 objective to stop the war in Iraq and bowed to Bush and his veto threats on tax policies, energy legislation, children's health insurance and general spending.

I seem to recall the Dems claiming back in 2004 and later on that President Bush was "stupid" or "dumb" or "not intelligent enough" for the Presidency.

Well, maybe someone should add up the collective IQs of the Dems in Congress and compare it to the IQ of President Bush, and then answer why the Dems lost so many intellectual fights.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Says Congress Wasting Time, Money
Terrence Hunt
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
December 21, 2007

Monday, December 24, 2007

The Night Before Christmas - Marine Corps Style

T'was the night before Christmas, he lived all alone
In a one-bedroom house made of plaster and stone.
I had come down the chimney with presents to give
And to see whom in this house did live.

As I looked all around a strange sight I did see,
No tinsel, no presents, not even a tree.
No stockings by the fire, just boots full of sand.
On the wall hung pictures of a far-away land.

With medals and badges, awards of all kinds,
A sobering thought soon came to my mind.
For this house was different, unlike any I'd seen.
This was the house of a U.S. Marine.

I'd heard stories about them, so I had to see more.
I walked down the hallway and pushed open the door.
And there he lay sleeping. Silent. Alone.
Curled up on the floor of his one-bedroom home.

He seemed so gentle, his face so serene.
Not how I pictured a U.S. Marine.
Was this the hero of whom I'd just read?
Curled up on his poncho, a floor for his bed?

His head was clean shaven, his face weathered tan.
I soon understood this was more than a man.
For I realized families that I had just seen that night
Owed their lives to these men, so willing to fight.

Soon around the nation the children would play
And grown-ups would celebrate a bright Christmas Day.
They enjoyed freedom each day and all year
Because of Marines like the one lying here.

I couldn't help but wonder how many lay alone
On a cold Christmas Eve in a land far from home.
Just the very thought brought a tear to my eye.
I dropped to my knees and I started to cry.

He must have awakened for I heard a rough voice.
"Santa, Don't cry. This is my choice.
I fight for freedom. I don't ask for more.
My life is my God, my Country, my Corps."

With that he rolled over, drifted off into sleep.
I couldn't control it, I continued to weep.
I watched him for hours. So silent. So still.
I noticed he shivered from the cold night's chill.

So I took off my jacket, the one made of red,
To cover this Marine from his toes to his head.
Then I put on his tee-shirt of scarlet and gold,
With an eagle, globe and anchor emblazoned so bold.

Although it barely fit me, I began to swell with pride.
For one shining moment, I was the Marine Corps deep inside.
I didn't want to leave him, so quiet in the night,
This guardian of honor, so willing to fight.

But, half asleep, he rolled over, and in a voice clean and pure,
Said, "Carry on, Santa, it's Christmas Day - All Secure."
One look at my watch and I knew he was right.
Merry Christmas, my friend. Semper Fi - and good night!

Friday, December 21, 2007

Disturbing Idea For The United Nations

Writing for the New Media Journal, Frank Salvato puts forth a very disturbing idea: a standing army for the United Nations. Now, in a world where power grabs by despots and leftist elitists are common, the last thing we should ever approve of is a corrupt, immoral organization like the U.N. having its owned armed force.

Mr. Salvato writes:

That the United Nations is a corrupt and ineffective institution is an understatement. The list of illegal activities and instances of institutionalized bigotry are so numerable that they weave a tapestry of embarrassment that would incite any governmental body with integrity to disband. Truth be told, they can’t even agree on a definition for “terrorism.” As they say, absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

An example of the UN’s corrupt leadership can be seen in the Oil-for-Food scandal, one of the larger blemishes on the face of the organization. Alas, it is a blemish that the secular-progressive press failed to expose in detail. You see, a few corrupt world leaders – we’ll cite Jacque Chirac as a prime example – were utilizing their seats on the UN Security Council to hold the United States and aligned coalition countries at bay while they violated the resolutions put in place by that very organization. Their actions defrauded the Oil-for-Food program of millions if not billions of dollars and enriched Saddam Hussein in the process.

If the U.N. were that bad before, what other human rights violations would they be getting into if we gave them an armed force?


And while many of those who support the charitable efforts of the UN tout their humanitarian missions, i.e., their efforts to feed the starving and treat the diseased, the fact is that most often the food and medicine provided by the UN literally serves to empower the oppressive elements of those affected regions. Food and medicine routinely sit idle at the drop-off locations only to be used by warlords and militias as leverage against the very people the supplies were meant to benefit.

Today, with all these many failures to show for its tenure, the United Nations is now attempting to expand its potency in an effort to create authority beyond its chartered mission statement:

“The stated aims of the United Nations are to maintain international peace and security, to safeguard human rights, to provide a mechanism for international law, and to promote social and economic progress, improve living standards, and fight diseases.”

Nowhere in the UN charter does it give the international body the authority to impose any kind of tax on its member nations or the citizens thereof. Additionally, its charter does not give the body the authority to redefine – especially in a time of peace – the sovereign borders of any nation, regardless of the economic benefit. Yet two initiatives championed by the United Nations establish these authorities.

Those initiatives are the Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST) and the other is Global Warming which is turning out to be a huge hoax.

Mr. Salvato goes on:

To declare that the scientific debate on mans role in the global warming and cooling cycle is over, a consensus reached, is to promote a blatant lie. The only consensus that exists is entered into by those politicians and scientists who believe man is a major element in the current global warming cycle. Those who agree that man is a significant cause of global warming have formed a consensus.

Responsible scientists, devoid of political pressure and eco-agenda, have been feverishly attempting to bring forth information that debunks mans influence on the naturally reoccurring global warming and cooling cycles. They have been thwarted every step of the way by not only the Green movement, environmentalists and that entrepreneurial opportunist, Al Gore, they have been rendered voiceless by the counter-culture eco-generation of the 1960s, now in control of mainstream media and the United Nations hierarchy itself.

A shadow of doubt is cast over the legitimacy of the science presented by the UN and its manmade global warming proponents by basic scientific dogma. A scientist is taught to systematically “rule out” detractor arguments and possibilities in their quest for a theory’s validation. In essence, a consensus should never be reached unless it is a consensus that a group of scientists cannot disprove a theory. In the case of manmade global warming there is a sizable contingent of scientists who can disprove manmade global warming but they are being silenced by the eco-community, even to the extent of being banned from the most recent climate conference in Bali.

With all of this on their resume, the U.N. should never, under any circumstances, be given its own armed forces. They should, and rightly so, rely on the forces loaned to them by member nations and use those forces only in peacekeepng operations.

Due to the corruption and graft that is rampant at the U.N., only a fool would give them any kind of enforcement capability.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

A Standing Army For The United Nations
Frank Salvato
New Media Journal
December 14, 2007

Democrat leaders in Congress will have no one to blame but themselves for the fact that millions of people will have their tax returns delayed next year. Why? Because the Dems took too long in passing the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief. But instead of admitting their own responsibility, they have a plan in the works to try and blame the Bush Administration for it. Their plan is going to fail.

Writing for Cybercast News Service, Susan Jones has this:

Millions of Americans are expected to face delays in getting their tax refunds because the Internal Revenue Service must scramble to revise and print tax forms -- and change its computer programs -- to reflect the changes.

The New York Times reported on Dec. 5 that the delay in passing the AMT fix was already endangering a "smooth start" to the tax filing season. According to that Dec. 5 report, the main problem is reprogramming I.R.S. computers: "The agency's protocol calls for seven weeks to analyze changes in tax law, write the software code and test it, as well as notify all the tax professionals and others affected," the New York Times reported.

But Pelosi and Reid said the IRS should have anticipated what Congress would end up doing.

"On October 30, 2007, the bipartisan leadership of the Congressional tax-writing committees wrote to Acting Internal Revenue Service [Director] Linda E. Stiff to notify her that Congress would soon act on our AMT legislation," Pelosi and Reid wrote to Bush on Thursday.

"This letter also provided specific details about this legislation so the IRS could prepare to process 2007 returns." The tax-writing committees urged the IRs "to take all steps necessary to plan for changes that would be made by this legislation," Pelosi and Reid said.

At a White House press conference on Thursday, President Bush noted that Congress had passed an AMT patch. : But, he added, "unfortunately Congress passed this legislation after a lengthy delay, and the delay is going to add time it takes to process tens of millions of dollars in refunds."

Bush said his administration would "work hard to minimize the impact of the congressional delay so that Americans can get their refund checks as soon as possible."

Reid and Pelosi are trying to make the case that the IRS should have anticipated passage of the AMT relief bill. But experience shows that one cannot trust a Democrat controlled Congress to get anything meaningful done. In fact, it is just as likely that the Dems would have changed the rules a second time if the IRS had begun preparations before the bill was passed, just to hand an embarrassment to the Administration.

You can access the article on-line here:

Democrats: IRS Should Have Acted Before We Did
Susan Jones
December 21, 2007

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Dems Work To Protect Terrorists And Global Cooling At Work?

Two interesting pieces coming out of the Washington Times today. The first deals with efforts by the Democrats to inhibit the efforts of American intelligence agencies to gather information about terrorists and their plans for future attacks.

Senators Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold (all Dems) are all set to kill the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on February 1, 2008. From the Times:

After they failed on Monday to block Republican efforts to retroactively bar lawsuits against telephone companies that helped the government monitor suspected jihadist communications after September 11, Mr. Reid pulled from the floor legislation to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the primary law governing the monitoring of electronic communications. Unless Congress acts, on Feb. 1 U.S. intelligence agencies will lose the ability to monitor at least some overseas terrorist telecommunications without first obtaining court approval.

Some special-interest groups would be very happy to see FISA expire. With the support of groups like People For the American Way, the ACLU and the blog DailyKos, Messrs. Feingold and Dodd have been working feverishly to deny the telephone companies protection from lawsuits over their participation in terrorist surveillance efforts.


No case on the public record better illustrates the heightened dangers Americans will face than the case of three soldiers from the Army's 10th Mountain Division who were ambushed May 12 south of Baghdad, apparently by al Qaeda. One soldier was found dead on May 23, while the other two remain missing. As coalition forces searched for the missing soldiers on May 13 and May 14, intelligence officials learned about insurgent communications they believed to be related to the ambush. On May 14, a special court overseeing FISA issued an order permitting some suspected terrorist communications to be monitored. The following day, lawyers and intelligence officials spent more than nine hours discussing the need for a FISA order to monitor these communications before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales authorized monitoring. Critics attribute the delays in the search to bureaucratic "bungling" — an intellectually dishonest argument, because it overlooks the fact that the FISA court had issued several rulings earlier this year that called into question the government's authority to act without prior court approval.

Mr. Reid this week was faced with a choice between fixing the problems and pandering to special-interest groups who want to make it impossible for the military to do its job. Once again, he made the wrong choice.

And when it came to choosing between allowing terrorists to continue their planning of killing innocent people and the safety of innocent Americans, the Dems have once again sided with the terrorists.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Sen. Reid's Stink Bomb
The Washington Times Editorial
December 19, 2007

And the Global Warming alarmists are not going to like this one, but apparently their theories and predictions about the demise of the planet and the human species have all been wrong.

Writing for the Washington Times, David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma:

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

Now, according the Global Warming theory, none of this should have happened. In fact, Global Warming predicited the opposite.

Deming goes on:

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.


Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

And Al Gore got an Oscar and a Nobel Prize for the junk science known as Global Warming.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Year Of Global Cooling
David Deming
The Washington Times
December 19, 2007

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

An Apology From A Boom Baby

Tom Brokaw dubbed them "The Greatest Generation" but a good close look at them would seem to indicate otherwise. Of course, I am referring to the Baby Boomers, the generation that brought us radical pot-smoking hippies in the 60's, VD transmitting sexual revolutionaries of the 70's, useful idiot anti-West protesters of the 80's and ignorant Clintonites in the 90's.

Dennis Prager reveals what the real Boom Babies are all about in his most recent column:

We live in the age of group apologies. I would like to add one. The baby boomer generation needs to apologize to America, especially its young generation, for many sins. Here is a partial list:

First and perhaps foremost, we apologize for robbing many of you of a childhood.

We baby boomers were allowed perhaps the most innocent childhoods known to history. We grew up without material want, in one of the most decent places in world history, with media that preserved our sexual and other innocence, in schools that generally taught us well, and we were allowed childhood play from boy-girl play to rough and tumble boy-boy play to monkey bars and ringalievio. Our generation has deprived you of all these things. And while we were aware of the threat of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, few of us believed that we were threatened with death anywhere near the amount we have scared you about death from secondhand smoke, global warming and heterosexual AIDS, to mention just a few of the exaggerated death scares we have inflicted on you.

Our generation came up with two truly foolish slogans that also ended up robbing you of childhood.

One was, "Never trust anyone over 30." Our infantile attitude toward adult authority has inflicted great harm on you. Because of it, many baby boomers decided not to become adults, and this has had disastrous consequences in your lives. It deprived you of one of the greatest needs in your life -- adults. That in turn deprived you of something as important as love -- parental and other adult authority. With little parental authority, you were left with little personal security, few guardrails and a diminished sense of order in life. And we transferred this denial of authority to virtually all authority figures, from teachers to police.

The other slogan whose awful consequences we baby boomers bequeathed to you was, "Make love, not war." Our parents had liberated the world from immeasurably cruel and murderous regimes in Germany and Japan -- solely thanks to waging war. But instead of concluding that war could do great moral good, we sang ourselves silly with such inane lyrics as "Give peace a chance," as if that deals in any way with the world's most monstrous evils. So we taught you to make love and not war. And we succeeded.

Dennis goes on:

We also made you weak. We did everything possible to ensure that you suffered no pain. Sometimes we changed game scores if a team was winning by too large a margin; we abolished dodgeball lest anyone suffer early removal from the game; and we gave trophies to all of you who played on baseball teams, no matter how awfully you or your team played so that none of you missed getting a trophy while members of another team did. Much of this was thanks to the self-esteem-without-having-to-earn-it movement, which in our generation's almost infinite lack of wisdom we inflicted upon you. Sorry for that, too.

We also apologize for coming close to ruining so many of your schools and universities. Despite the unprecedented sums of money we had America spend on education, most of you got an education quite inferior to the one we got at a fraction of the cost. But we thought of our teachers as fools (they were, after all, over 30) who just concentrated on reading, writing and arithmetic (and history, music and art). We were sure we knew better and we therefore concentrated on sexual issues, and teaching you about peace, global warming and the horrors of smoking. The fact that few high school graduates can identify Mozart, let alone were ever exposed to his music, is far less significant to many baby boomers than your knowledge of the alleged perils of secondhand smoke. Most of you cannot identify Stalin either, and we are sorry for that, too. But, hey, we did make sure you saw Al Gore's film.

Billy Joel sang We Didn't Start The Fire, in which he gave a history of the Cold War up to 1988. But maybe he should have sang "We did start the fire, but just didn't feel like fighting it."

You can access Dennis' complete column on-line here:

Baby Boomers Owe Young People an Apology
Dennis Prager
December 4, 2007

Well, it turns out that Mr. Nava made up the story about his "attack." Just another in a long line of fake "attacks" being reported by the press over the years, I guess.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Clinton, Buffet Renew Support For The Tax That Is Killing Family Owned Businesses

Here's more of that leftist socialist spew from Hillary Clinton. Note the idiotic things she says about the Death Tax:

At a joint appearance with billionaire investor Warren Buffett, Clinton said the inheritance tax, due to be temporarily repealed in 2010, was a symbol of "what kind of society we are."

"The estate tax has been historically part of our very fundamental belief that we should have a meritocracy, that we do not want a system -- where we expect people to make it on their own -- to be, over time, dominated by inherited wealth," she said. "That we do believe that people should have to get out there and make their way, to a great extent."

I don't think any politician has ever been so detached from reality.

The Inheritance Tax does not make us a "meritocracy." In fact, it destroys the concept of advancement by merit and replaces it with the concept of advancement by being super-rich already.

Everyone thinks that Wal-Mart and other super-corporations are crowding out the Mom & Pop stores and family farms. Wrong. The Death Tax is killing them. Here's how:

Suppose a man started his own small business back in the 50's or 60's. He bought property and built up his trade over the years. He bought a house and some land and paid it off over time. When he originally purchased his property, it was a total value of, say $50,000.

Then he dies in 2007 leaving his business and property to his family survivors. Today the business and property is worth over $5,000,000. If the Death Tax was 45%, then his survivors would owe $2,250,000 in taxes as a result. If he left only $20,000 in his bank account, his survisors would have to come up with $2,230,000 to pay off the tax or the government would come in and take everything leaving them with nothing.

What is the family going to do to raise $2,230,000? They sell the business and the property thereby leaving a hole in the local market for Wal-Mart or some other corporation to come in and fill.

I can easily believe that Hillary Clinton is incapable of grasping this concept, but Warren Buffet? I guess he likes the idea of mega-corporations taking over the small businesses of America.

The Death Tax must be done away with entirely and any politician who calls for its revival should be tarred and feathered.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Clinton, Buffett Denounce Income Gap
Scott Lindlaw
Associated Press via GOPUSA
December 12, 2007

Liberal Media Demoralizing America And A Gay Man Invites Sex Offenders To Live With Him

This should come as no surprise to those of you who have been following the demise of Old Media. It makes perfect sense though. Leftist newsreaders in Old Media have for years been pushing their agendas rather than reporting accurately and objectively.

Michael P. Tremoglie, writing for the Bulletin in Philadelphia, gives us some really good insights on this:

There is a disputed quote, attributed to North Vietnamese General Võ Nguyên Giáp, which states the American military would have won the Vietnam War were it not for the efforts of the American media to demoralize the nation. Giap purportedly wrote, "What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. ... We were ready to surrender! ... We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields."

But the modern evidence is even more damning:

Recently, the esteemed magazine The New Republic (TNR) published a series of articles, by a soldier serving in Iraq, who claimed he witnessed misconduct by his fellow soldiers. He described horrible incidents such as insulting a disfigured woman, abusing corpses and being cruel to animals.

"Conservative" bloggers and the "conservative" media disputed the accounts. Yet, TNR defended the articles. Even after an internal investigation by the military revealed that there was no truth to them, TNR still maintained their validity. They even claimed, in an Aug. 7 statement, that they spoke to military personnel who corroborated the articles.

Finally, after months of denial, TNR issued a statement: "After months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in [the soldier's] pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories."

But, leftist newsreaders have always been ready to stand by anti-American characters throughout the world:

Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, resigned after he remarked, in 2005, that American soldiers in Iraq targeted journalists. Mr. Jordan, it seems, was more inclined to falsely report American atrocities than he was to truthfully report Iraqi atrocities since, in 2003, he admitted to withholding information about atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein.

The Boston Globe published photos of American soldiers allegedly raping Iraqi women in 2004. The story was false. The photos were common pornography.

Then there was the case of Jesse MacBeth, who claimed to be an Army Ranger and Iraq veteran. He said he committed and witnessed atrocities while serving in Iraq. Later it was learned that MacBeth had never been in Iraq. Of course, his accusations were already circulating by that time.

During 2004 and 2005 The Associated Press, which provides articles for thousands of newspapers and radio news broadcasts, published atrocity stories by former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey, an Iraq war veteran. These too were later proven to be false.

Old Media, in most cases, should not be trusted to police themselves nor to vet their own stories.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Disinformatsya: How Liberal Media Attempts To Demoralize America
Michael P. Tremoglie
The Bulletin
December 13, 2007

And how militant can homosexual activists become? How about militant enough to offer rooms to murderers and sex offenders? That is what is happening down in Dog River, Alabama where a homosexual activist is threatening to open his doors to sex offenders who may want to rent a room in his house.

From WKRG, Channel 5 CBS affiliate:

Attention sex offenders and murderers: Do you need a place to live?

A Dog River couple is getting ready to rent out rooms. They say people in their neighborhood are trying to get rid of them and its payback time.

You can't miss the FOR RENT signs. They're posted in the yard and the trees!

Bobby White says he's fed up with the neighbors. "I will be here renting out rooms to sex offenders and ex-murderers and ex-thieves! They forced me into this as long as they are not on parole or on paper. I can rent out rooms to whoever I like."


Their Dog River neighbors like Eleni Tyler says that the signs just popped up one day. "They've got signs up and I'm having to explain to my daughter what this means. The neighborhood is extremely upset about it."

It's no secret that Ham was convicted of a sex crime in 1990. Everyone got the notice.

Tyler claims an inappropriate comment was made to her 11-year old daughter. "They were cat calling her Hey Baby and their excuse was they were looking for their dog."

White says the couple wanted to move but they can't do that either. He says the real estate agents have been harassed too "If they want us to leave so bad, leave our real estate alone." News 5's Tiffany Craig says, "That doesn't make sense! If they don't want you here why would they mess up the selling house process?" White replies, "I have no idea."

White's claim in that last paragraph does seem to be contradictory, doesn't it?

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Sex Offenders And Murderers Welcome
Tiffany Craig
WKRG Channel 5
December 11, 2007

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Heisman Trophy Winner Tim Tebow Could Have Been Aborted

So, if you look at all the reasons that the pro-abortion folks give for having abortions, (e.g. economic status, drug/alcohol abuse in the family, family size, etc.) you have to wonder if babies born into those circumstances will just turn out to be failures who leech off of the rest of society. Well, my family fell under the aforementioned circumstances and the pro-abortion crowd would have said that it would have been best if I had been aborted. I don't think so.

I went on to serve in the Marine Corps, earned a Bachelor's Degree from the University of Maryland and am married and provide a very comfortable living for my wife and family. But the pro-abortion people would still scream that babies like me should have been aborted anyway.

Well, I am not alone. There are thousands, if not millions, of babies like me who the pro-abortionists claim should have been done away with. One of the more well-known is Tim Tebow, the sophomore Florida Gator football player who won the Heisman Trophy. From LifeNews:

University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow became the first sophomore in the history of the NCAA to win the coveted Heisman Trophy as the best football player in the nation. However, Tebow's accomplishments may never have been supported had his mother followed a doctor's recommendation to have an abortion.

With 29 passing touchdowns and 22 rushing touchdowns, Tebow displayed the kind of versatility that has become more valued at the quarterback position.

Pam Tebow and her husband were Christian missionaries in the Philippines in 1985 and they prayed for "Timmy" before she became pregnant.

Unfortunately, as the Gainesville Sun reports, Pam entered into a coma after she contracted amoebic dysentery, an infection of the intestine caused by a parasite found in a contaminated food or drink.

The treatment for the medical condition would require strong medications that doctors told Pam had caused irreversible damage to Tim -- so they advised her to have an abortion.

As the Sun reported, Pam Tebow refused the abortion and cited her Christian faith as the reason for her hope that her son would be born without the devastating disabilities physicians predicted.

Pam ultimately spent the last two months of her pregnancy in bed and, eventually, gave birth to a health baby boy in August 1987.

As she told the newspaper, Pam was not surprised that her son would be up for the Heisman despite no underclassman receiving the award since its inception in 1933.

"The combination of Timmy's God-given talent, hard work, character and leadership have made a mark on and off the football field," she said.

As prominent researcher Joel Brind writes in a new LifeNews.com editorial, doctors are frequently telling women they should consider abortions when confronted with various medical situations affecting their health.

Yet, as he notes, physicians can successfully treat both mother and child without suggesting that the baby be killed to spare a mother's life.

Because Tim Tebow was spared, he's wowed a nation by his athletic skill and, at his younger age, has an opportunity to become the second person to win two Heisman awards.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Heisman Trophy Winner Tim Tebow Could Have Been A Victim Of Abortion
Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 9, 2007

Monday, December 10, 2007

Global Warming Lies Create A Climate Of Crisis

So, now that Al Gore has won a Nobel Prize for his work based on junk science, what will furture generations think of us when they look back and see how all of the Al Gore types ran around like Chicken Little and they were honored for it?

Alan Caruba asks that question and a few others in his latest column dealing with Global Warming. Here is an excerpt:

The United Nations conference in Bali, attended by some 10,000 participants and observers, is likely to make future generations conclude that ours was deranged to be discussing how humans could have any affect whatever on the climate. They will, in retrospect, agree that the global warming theory was a lie whose agenda was to retard anything that might extend and enhance life on earth.

The Protocol is based entirely on a lie that predicts dramatic and imminent global warming. Global warmers insist that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced, but carbon dioxide does not cause climate change. Climatologists will tell you that any rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not precede, but follows warming cycles.

That's right. How many GW alarmists have ever allowed anyone to even mention the Medieval Warming Period when global temperatures were even warmer than they are today?

[Note: Global Warming alarmists tried to discredit the Midieval Warming Period based on a November 2006 report from the National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration, but that report itself was debunked when NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies revamped their temperature measurements in August of 2007.]

However, Caruba goes on and addresses the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on regional economies:

A November 30 Bloomberg News article by Kristian Rix and Mathew Carr reported that Japan, Spain, and Italy face as much as $33 billion in fines as the result of having agreed to reduce so-called “greenhouse gas” emissions and failed. These three nations are deemed the “worst performers among 36 nations that agreed to curb carbon dioxide gases that cause climate change.”

Among the nations exempt from the Kyoto Protocol are China and India, both of whom represent two of the six billion people on planet Earth. The idea that limits on carbon dioxide emissions could be achieved without their participation is idiotic.


Consider now how many schools, hospitals, bridges, roads, and other benefits to their citizens that $33 billion represents to Japan, Spain, and Italy. Such fines will be transferred to the coffers of the United Nations for having failed to curb CO2 emissions that are actually a benefit to the Earth!

An entirely bogus system of “carbon credits” has been created to transfer huge amounts of money from industrialized nations accused of producing too much CO2 to those nations that, for lack of development—failed economies—will garner funding as they “sell” their excess credits. The same system would allow various industries to sell the same worthless credits to those—primarily producers and users of energy—deemed to be major CO2 “polluters.”

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has fallen prey to the lie that CO2 represents a form of “pollution” and should be regulated, the known science renders this decision an egregious juridical error

The Earth, over billions of years, has gone through cycles of warming and cooling that are well established. It has gone through periods when the CO2 content in the atmosphere was far higher than today. The latest cooling period is called the mini-ice age and lasted from around 1300 to 1850. The Earth has been warming naturally since then.

There is no dramatic warming occurring. Predictions of this are based on totally flawed computer models, none of which can begin to approximate the sheer chaos and complexity of the Earth’s weather system.

And a very important question, as Caruba asks, is: What would that $33 billion in fines have meant to the people of the nations being forced to pay them? Further, what exactly is the United Nations going to do with it? (This scheme conjures up memories of the Iraqi Oil-For-Food Scandal that made so many UN bureaucrats rich at the expense of Iraqi children.)

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Global Warming Lies Create A Climate Of Crisis
Alan Caruba
Canada Free Press
December 10, 2007

Nancy Pelosi Was Okay With Waterboarding Back In 2002 And Dems Concede Tax Increases

So, the Dems were okay with waterboarding as an interrogation technique back in 2002 but waited until 2007 to come out against it? Why? Due to the secretive cloak that the Dems use to surround their true agenda, we may never know. But Fox News has this:

Four top members of Congress, including now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, got a close look at CIA overseas detention sites and interrogation techniques in September 2002 and offered no challenge to their legitimacy, according to a news article out Sunday.

On the contrary, at least two lawmakers involved in the briefing that day questioned whether the CIA was pushing hard enough, even after hearing the details of the now widely criticized technique known as waterboarding, two U.S. officials told The Washington Post.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," one official is quoted saying.


"Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," Porter Goss, a former CIA director and congressman who chaired the House intelligence panel at the time of the briefings, told The Post. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Perhaps a member of Old Media will go back and ask Pelosi about her reaction during these briefings and then ask to reconcile that reaction to the fact that only one member of the Congressional delegation raised any objection at all: Democrat Jane Harman.

But then, that would require integrity on the part of the Dems and on Old Media.

Not likely.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Report: Top Members Of Congress Were OK With Waterboarding In 2002
December 9, 2007

And the Dems are quickly knuckling under as it has become apparent that the American people do not want higher taxes nor more government spending.

From the Associated Press:

Cracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity, as frustrated lawmakers concede their majority status is not enough to overcome Republican resistance on taxes, spending, Iraq and a host of other issues.

The fissures, which became obvious this week, are undermining Democrats' hopes for several key achievements this year. They also point to a bruising 2008 election in which Democrats will say Republicans blocked prudent tax and spending plans to score political points on immigration and other hot-button issues.

Republicans say they simply want to prevent higher taxes of any kind, even if the targets are not-so-sympathetic groups such as oil companies and hedge fund managers.

And the Dems also think we are stupid enough to buy their criticism. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity, but many have taxed themselves into poverty. Thus, no tax plan that includes higher taxes can ever be called "prudent." Too bad the Dem leadership just doesn't seem capable of grasping that.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Cry Uncle On Taxes, Spending
Charles Babington
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
December 7, 2007

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Pelosi Proposal Would Send American Economy Into A Depression

Nancy Pelosi seems to be getting desperate. The general view that the American public has of the current Democrat controlled Congress is that it is a do-nothing legislature completely impotent in it's own world. Thus, she came up with H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. This bill is supposed to take us towards greater energy independence and less reliance on fossil fuels. Unfortunately for Ms. Pelosi, she does not understand economics nor does she have a grasp of history.

The National Taxpayers Union breaks down the problems with H.R. 6 here:

  • Huge Tax Increases -- The House previously passed $14 billion in vengeful tax hikes on so-called "Big Oil." Though billed as a way to move us toward energy independence, similar taxes in the past have simply reduced domestic oil production and increased oil imports. Congress ought not to repeat those mistakes.
  • Renewable Fuels Standard -- Forcing Americans to consume 36 billion gallons of heavily-subsidized ethanol and other alternative fuels will serve to dramatically raise fuel prices, taxes, and food costs for everyone.
  • Renewable Portfolio Standard -- Requiring that 15 percent of all electricity be produced by alternative sources will likewise raise utility bills, causing harm to those Americans who can least afford the additional expense.
  • Higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards -- Though raising CAFE standards may appear productive at first blush, ultimately this policy would have little effect on total fuel consumption while creating vehicles that are more expensive and less safe.
  • Price Gouging Language -- There is no evidence that price gouging has taken place, even after disasters like Hurricane Katrina. Congress ought not to interfere with the delicate balance of energy markets.

These five items are all in H.R. 6. This bill needs to be defeated, or, if passed, vetoed.

You can access the original article on-line here:

An Open Letter to Congress: Taxes, Regulations, And Subsidies Are NOT The Answer For Energy Security!
National Taxpayers Union
December 3, 2007

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Adult Stem Cells Win Again And Death Before Burkas

And there is some more bad news for the industry of infanticide and its main supporter, the Democratic Party. Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts have successfully repair damaged mouse hearts with stem cells, but not embryonic stem cells, rather adult stem cells.

That's right. Adult stem cells. Adult stem cell research is the only branch of stem cell research that has actually been beneficial to any patients. Embryonic stem cells have done nothing but caused cancer in the test rats that had been injected with them. Adult stem cells have actually been used to cure patients in the real world.

That is why news like this is so big. And since it doesn't involve embryonic stem cells which means doing abortions and killing unborn children, Old Media is not going to cover this with any kind of interest.

From NatureNews:

Researchers have managed to restore heart function by transplanting [adult] muscle stem cells into damaged mouse hearts. Their results suggest that the technique could one day be used to heal heart tissue in humans.


To test whether connexin 43 was indeed the key factor, the [sic] team tried using adult muscle stem cells that had been forced to express the protein. This produced similarly good results. “If you make these cells express connexin 43, they correct or reverse the vulnerability to arrhythmia,” says Kotlikoff. This could liberate future researchers from relying on embryonic tissue, which can be more difficult to acquire.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Cells Mend Damaged Mouse Hearts
Heidi Ledford
December 5, 2007

And here is something that uber-leftist organizations like the National organization of Women have been silent on: the treatment of women in the Islamic world. Kyle-Anne Shiver has something to say about that. From the American Thinker:

Anyone who thinks I’ve spent the last 40 years of my life learning how to properly apply makeup and avoid bad-hair days, only to end up donning that hideous black thing at the command of some foreign guy with a severe case of Male-Chauvinist-Pig syndrome, is in for a fight.

Give me death before burkas!

Before the current high-tech, news-around-the-world-in-the-blink-of-an-eye age, I doubt many Americans would even know how the proverbial other half of the planet lives; but now we do. We can read about it every day, 24/7. We have pictures, videos yet. Even in some of the most repressive regimes on earth, some brave soul with a laptop, internet access and a cell phone/camera/camcorder manages to get the word out, and blast it around the globe instantaneously.

And in my opinion, the ultimate oppression of our age, no matter how one cares to cut it, slice it, dice it, whatever, is hands-down the subjugation of females – from birth to the grave – in places ruled by this cockamamie Sharia law. Liberals may be scared to call a spade a spade, but I’m not.

Man! This woman is a pistol!

You can access her complete column on-line here:

Death Before Burkas!
Kyle-Anne Shiver
The American Thinker
December 5, 2007

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Mexican Rigs In Violation, More CNN Embarrassment And The Truth About Alternative Energy

It's been awhile since Mexican rigs started to come rumbling across the Southwest border. But many of our fears are being realized. The Independent Drivers Association, a trucking advocacy group, has documented hundreds of safety violations on Mexican rigs running on American highways.

From World Net Daily:

"The Department of Transportation is allowing Mexican long-haul rigs to operate in the United States without requiring U.S. rules and regulations to be enforced," Rick Craig, the director of regulatory affairs for the group, told WND in a telephone interview yesterday.

"The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is providing exemptions from U.S. safety rules that the FMCSA claim are covered in a Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Mexico," Craig continued.

"It's a clear double standard," he said. "Mexican truck safety regulations are being accepted by the FMCSA as equivalent to U.S. rules, even though the FMCSA refuses to provide any real detail about how or why the decision was made."

The association has filed a lawsuit against the DOT and FMCSA in San Francisco, challenging that the Mexican trucks the government is allowing into the U.S. under the DOT demonstration project are unsafe when tested by U.S. safety rules and regulations.

Do you want your family to be on the same road as one of these unsafe Mexican rigs? I don't either.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Hundreds Of Safety Violations Documented For Mexican Rigs
Jerome R. Corsi
December 5, 2007

Apparently, CNN is still trying to lie it's way out of the GOP YouTube Debate scandal. CNN Washington Bureau Chief David Bohrman was talking with Howard Kurtz about this recently. Here is a part of the transcript from NewsBusters.org:

HOWARD KURTZ, host: David Bohrman, you said you didn't know -- that no one at CNN knew that General Kerr was on these Hillary Clinton advisory boards. Shouldn't you have tried harder to find out by using an online Google search?

DAVID BOHRMAN, CNN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Well, we did a Google search. I mean, we went through 5,000 questions and narrowed it down and narrowed it down. And there were an awful lot of gay in the military questions. The one from the general was striking, but the first thing we said once we saw this question was, is this guy for real? Let's check him out.
We did a Google search. And, you know, if you Google him today you'll find all the Hillary Clinton references. Back then what we discovered is he's for real. He was a real brigadier general. He had -- he had a real career, and he was now active in gay and lesbian issues.

Tim Graham, the author of the NewsBusters article, notes that a Clinton campaign document that was over six months old would have showed up on a Google search if CNN had actually done one.


KURTZ: Right. But in the vetting process, no one ever asked him, "Are you affiliated with any presidential candidate?"

BOHRMAN: Right. But here's why we stopped. Here's why we stopped making sure that he was a real general and making sure that he hadn't contributed to a campaign. His question was great. All right?

You have a group of Republican candidates that have some difference of opinion on this topic. You have a true war hero in John McCain. You have Mitt Romney, who's on record as saying, I live for the day when gays and lesbians can serve openly, and a question coming from a general was extremely powerful, regardless...

You read that right. CNN stopped the vetting process because "His question was great."

No integrity over at CNN. None at all.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

CNN's Bohrman: Unrepentant About Stupid YouTube Debate Tricks
Tim Graham
December 4, 2007

What is the reality behind alternative energy? Roy Innis looks at that question in his most recent column. Let's jump right into it:

Over half of our electricity comes from coal. Gas and nuclear generate 36% of our electricity. Barely 1% comes from wind and solar. Coal-generated power typically costs less per kilowatt hour than alternatives – leaving families with more money for food, housing, transportation and healthcare.

By 2020, the United States will need 100,000 megawatts of new electricity, say EIA, industry and utility company analysts. Unreliable wind power simply cannot meet these demands.

Wind farms require subsidies and vast stretches of land. To meet New York City’s electricity needs alone would require blanketing the entire state of Connecticut with towering turbines, according to Rockefeller University Professor Jesse Ausubel. They kill raptors and other birds, and must be backed up by expensive coal or gas power plants that mostly sit idle – but kick in whenever the wind dies down, so factories, schools, offices and homes don’t shut down.

And this:

For three decades, US demand for natural gas has outpaced production. In fact, gas prices have tripled since 1998, to $13 per thousand cubic feet today, and every $1 increase costs US consumers an additional $22 billion a year.

With Congress and states locking up more gas prospects every year, this trend is likely to continue – further driving up prices and forcing us to import increasing amounts of expensive liquefied natural gas, often from less than friendly nations.

We simply cannot afford to halt the construction of new coal-fired power plants, though some are trying to do exactly that.

Chesapeake Energy Corp. masterminded and bankrolled anti-coal initiatives in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. The scheme was intended to drive up the price of natural gas, and thus profits, by making coal less available and more expensive – with little regard for poor families.

As Kansas discovered after its environmental chief blocked a proposed new coal generator, coal projects also come with transmission lines to carry intermittent wind-generated electricity and more reliable coal-generated power. Wind farms typically do not. Now a dozen Kansas wind projects are also on hold.

Former Clinton Administration environment staffer Katy McGinty engineered the lockup of 7 billion tons of low sulfur Utah coal, worth $1 trillion. Current and proposed air and water quality rules would make it even more difficult and expensive to provide adequate coal-fired electricity. But the facts support more coal use, not less.

Just something to think about.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Truth About "Alternative Energy"
Roy Innis
Decmeber 5, 2007

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Revised SCHIP Still Has Loophole For Illegals

If you were the supervisor or manager of a buisness and your employees kept making the same mistake over and over and over again dispite the fact that you made it very, very clear about how things are to be done, would you keep those employees on or fire them?

Most bosses would fire them. That is what we need to do with the current Congress. Fire them. Relieve them of their duties. Put them out to pasture.


Because we've been telling them for over a year now that we do not want illegal aliens to be given any kind of amnesty at all. But either Congress still doesn't get it or they are deliberately thumbing their collective noses at us. Their latest attempt to pull the wool over the voters' eyes is the revised SCHIP bill. According to the Washington Times:

The revised children's health insurance bill that Congress is about to send to President Bush still has loopholes that both illegal aliens and ineligible legal immigrants could exploit to join the program, a new Heritage Foundation analysis shows.

Under the bill, those applying for the State Children's Health Insurance Program would not have to prove citizenship. Instead, they only would have to provide a valid Social Security number — something most legal immigrants and many illegal aliens already have, said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, whose analysis is being released today.

"If you're illegal, you're going to have to come with a valid but bogus Social Security number. If you're a legal permanent resident, you have a Social Security number, it's just a piece of cake for you to walk in," Mr. Rector said.

He said the SCHIP bill that Congress passed would undo the 1996 welfare policy that restricted most public benefits to legal immigrants who have been in the country for at least five years. The new bill doesn't change that requirement, but only requires states to ask for a Social Security number, which Mr. Rector said means ineligible immigrants could sign up.

"You couldn't be clearer in their saying, 'We really don't care about that five-year time period,' " he said.

Illegal aliens who have stolen a valid Social Security number could also join, he said.

Democratic leaders in Congress said Friday that they will send the SCHIP bill to Mr. Bush and force him to make good on his threat to veto it.

How many different ways are they going to try to give amnesty to illegals? If you were the boss, would you keep employees like this around? No, you wouldn't.

We need to send them their pink slips.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Revised SCHIP still has loophole for illegals
Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
December 3, 2007

How Massachusetts Supports The Troops And Unfair Criticism Of The Fair Tax

We've already seen a few instances where the government of Massachusetts has been cracking down on displays that support the troops fighting the War on Terror. It gets even worse now. Massachusetts is now trying to eliminate U.S. flags and other diplays along the highways. According to the Boston Globe:

The crackdown comes a year after the state's last attempt to regulate the overhead displays. At the time, under pressure from military families and their advocates, highway officials said signs would be allowed if positioned behind fences, but now they are saying even these must go.

"When the soldiers or their families hear about this, they're going to be up in arms," said James Wareing, the leader of a military support group who assembled and maintains the display dedicated to Jimenez, whose family lives in Lawrence. "It has nothing to do with safety. . . . Nothing has ever happened in six years."


"I was told I could do that and they gave me their word and that was it," said Linda Noone, 49, of Reading, who put up a series of flags on an Interstate 93 overpass near the Wilmington border in 2005, a year after the death of her father, a Korean War vet.

What will they do next?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Overpass Flags, Troop Tributes To Be Removed
Noah Bierman
The Boston Globe
December 4, 2007

You know, when people criticize the Fair Tax, it would be a good idea if they actually read the plan before commenting on it. I showed earlier how Bruce Bartlett got his criticism wrong in this blog post:

Bruce Bartlett Gets It Wrong
August 29, 2007

Now Rich Lowry is commenting on a Tax Plan for which he has obviously not even read the plan. Here is what Lowry wrote in the New York Post:

To avoid the risk of getting both a national sales tax and an income tax, FairTaxers would have to repeal the 16th Amendment. Good luck: Huckabee's magic wand will come in handy.

Then, there's the sales-tax rate. FairTaxers say that a 23 percent rate would be enough to replace current revenues. What they're really talking about is a tax of 30 cents on every dollar - what most people would call a 30 percent rate. The government would pay the tax on all its purchases, a gimmick "done solely to make revenues under the FairTax seem larger than they really are," notes economist Bruce Bartlett. Budget trickery aside, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the rate would have to go as high as 57 percent.

I will simply repeat what I wrote about Bartlett's misguided comments:

"This is a total misrepresentation of how the Fair Tax works and hence my conclusion that he never really researched it or he is deliberately giving false information.

What Bruce forgot (or neglected) to say was that the Fair Tax first strips away all Federal taxes that go into the price of a new consumer good at the retail level. Currently, 22% of what you pay at the retail level is taxes that have been passed on from supplier to producer to distributor to retailer to you.

Thus, under the Fair Tax, an item that costs $1 under the current tax system would be reduced in price by 22% (i.e. all of the taxes passed on to the consumer), that is, its real cost would be $.78. It is at this point where the Fair Tax is levied. A 23% tax rate would take to price of that product up to $.99. But to keep it simple, round that back up to $1."

As for the part about repealing the 16th Amendment, if Lowry and Bartlett had actually read and fully comprehended HR 25, they would have both seen that the bill includes a provision for a national referendum on repealing the 16th Amendment. But apparently, people like Lowry and Bartlett just don't want the facts to get in their way.

Lowry, Bartlett, et. al. would be better served if they would inform themselves rather than just listening to the blather of others without bothering to check out the validity of the blather. In each case here, Lowry and Bartlett both rewrote the Fair Tax Plan and then criticized their own rewrites.

Isn't that how libs do their reporting?

You can access Lowry's misguided and erroneous criticisms on-line here:

Huck's Sales Tax Lunacy
Rich Lowry
New York Post
December 4, 2007

Saturday, December 1, 2007

More CNN YouTube Plants Being Uncovered And Glenn Beck At #1

You have to wonder if CNN was just completely ignorant, or completely stupid as to how they handled the GOP YouTube Primary Debate. Those are the two choices and there is no third option.

If CNN was completely ignorant, then they really didn't know that several of the "undecided" voters posing questions to the field of GOP candidates were actually plants from the Democrats' various campaigns because the staff at CNN was too dumb/lazy/incompetent to research and expose them as such. (Bloggers and other New Media institutions got to the truth within mere minutes of the plants appearing in the debate.)

If CNN was completely stupid, then they did know that those "undecided" voters were plants but chose to try and hide that fact in the hopes that you and I wouldn't be sharp enough to catch it. (I saw something wrong from having watched only fifteen minutes of the debate.)

Well, we've found more two "undecided" voters who were plants in the debate.

From Michelle Malkin:

Surprise: Muslim YouTube Questioner Was Former CAIR Intern
Michelle Malkin
November 29, 2007

From Ray Robinson over at the American Thinker:

Another questioner named Mark Strauss of Iowa asked Ron Paul to run as an Independent. Wasn't it a little bit of a tip off to CNN producers that Strauss is not interested in Republican issues when his question was nothing more than an encouragement for a candidate to leave the party?

But clearly, CNN likes the idea of a Republican candidate taking Republican voters to the Independent block for the general election. In case you missed it, Nader did this to Gore and Gore lost. Perot did it to Bush, Sr. and Bush lost. Wonder what CNN might have had in mind by promoting this idea at the debate and selecting it out of thousands of questions that actually would have mattered to Republicans?

Strauss was not randomly chosen as CNN presented a previous video of his at the Democrats' debate. There is a history between him and CNN. So the "we did not know" defense shouldn't play here any more than it does in the case of Gen. Kerr who had been on CNN previously.

In fact, Strauss has his own website where he wrote (very poorly) the following:

In October 2006, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts came to my door in Iowa, yes, at my house. He was there walking up and down the street with Robby Smith campaigning with him. Man, did he pick the wrong door. What is the Governor of MA doing in IA, with a young rookie running for state house? He is a Republican first-American second...hopefully not our next "decider".


Mitt asked me what I woud [sic] do in Iraq. I proceeded to explain how we need to get not only the effected nations in the region involved, but strike meaningful discussion and secure true resilution [sic] with the world thru the U.N.. Mitt laughed and called the U.N. a joke. This is the man that wants to be President. Don't we already have a decider in office that considers the other world leaders a joke? I then said "I have no use for you, get off my property", and I closed the door. This guy cannot be elected into office in 08.

Clearly, Strauss was not "undecided" and CNN either knew it, or ignored it. One or the other. But they had knowledge of it.

You can access Mr. Robinson's complete article on-line here:

CNN/YouTube Questioner Kicked Romney 'Off My Property'
Ray Robinson
The American Thinker
November 30, 2007

As a result of all this, CNN should be banned from ever hosting a debate ever again.

From Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters:

In the greatest of ironies, after Democrats refused to participate in debates sponsored by Fox News due to its supposed partiality, CNN has now shown itself in back-to-back debates to be as biased as biased can be.

After either participating in or allowing the planting of campaign operatives at November 15's Democrat presidential debate in Las Vegas, it has now become apparent that similar stocking of audience questioners occurred in Wednesday's Republican debate.


Regardless of whether or not CNN is specifically involved, as this is now the second consecutive incident of such behavior at a debate sponsored by this network, has it now abused the public trust enough to not be allowed to sponsor any more debates in this election cycle?

As I said, either stupid or ignorant. Take your pick.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Should CNN Be Allowed To Host Any More Debates?
Noel Sheppard
November 29, 2007

Glenn Beck has a new book out entitled An Inconvenient Book. Catchy, eh? But the title is not what I'm interested in here. I am interested in the book's rank on the New York Times Bestseller list. It is #1.

So, you may ask, what of it? Well, NewsMax made a very interesting observation about Beck's book and the previous #1, I Am America (And So Can You) by leftist liberal Stephen Colbert. You see, Colbert had all sorts of publicity, interviews and book reviews with Old Media in order to get his book to #1. Beck had none of that, but still went to #1. What does that say about the differences between Old Media and New Media?

From NewsMax:

Radio and TV talk show host Glenn Beck’s new book has soared to the number one spot on the New York Times bestseller list — despite the fact it has been totally ignored by the mainstream press.

Beck’s “An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems” (Simon & Schuster) will appear the Times’ list of Hardcover Nonfiction bestsellers that will appear on December 9.

The book is already the No. 1 best-seller among all books on Amazon.com.

Before Beck’s book hit the top of the Times’ list, Stephen Colbert’s “I Am America (And So Can You)” had been the leader in the Hardcover Nonfiction category for six weeks.

But unlike Beck, the liberal Colbert enjoyed considerable attention from the mainstream press. His book was reviewed by, or he was interviewed by, the Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, Entertainment Weekly, “Good Morning America,” “Meet the Press,” and David Letterman.

That is a serious question. What does this say about the differences between Old Media and New Media?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Glenn Beck Hits No. 1 On New York Times List
November 29, 2007