Getting To Know John McCain

This is a column everyone should read. How well do you think you know John McCain? How well would you like to know John McCain?

Read what Karl Rove has to say in the Wall Street Journal:

It came to me while I was having dinner with Doris Day. No, not that Doris Day. The Doris Day who is married to Col. Bud Day, Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, fighter pilot, Vietnam POW and roommate of John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton. As we ate near the Days' home in Florida recently, I heard things about Sen. McCain that were deeply moving and politically troubling. Moving because they told me things about him the American people need to know. And troubling because it is clear that Mr. McCain is one of the most private individuals to run for president in history. When it comes to choosing a president, the American people want to know more about a candidate than policy positions. They want to know about character, the values ingrained in his heart. For Mr. McCain, that means they will want to know more about him personally than he has been willing to reveal. Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple." The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again. But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, he put Mr. Day's splint in place. Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complemented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again. Another story I heard over dinner with the Days involved Mr. McCain serving as one of the three chaplains for his fellow prisoners. At one point, after being shuttled among different prisons, Mr. Day had found himself as the most senior officer at the Hanoi Hilton. So he tapped Mr. McCain to help administer religious services to the other prisoners. Today, Mr. Day, a very active 83, still vividly recalls Mr. McCain's sermons. "He remembered the Episcopal liturgy," Mr. Day says, "and sounded like a bona fide preacher." One of Mr. McCain's first sermons took as its text Luke 20:25 and Matthew 22:21, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." Mr. McCain said he and his fellow prisoners shouldn't ask God to free them, but to help them become the best people they could be while serving as POWs. It was Caesar who put them in prison and Caesar who would get them out. Their task was to act with honor. ... Mr. Day recalls with pride Mr. McCain stubbornly refusing to accept special treatment or curry favor to be released early, even when gravely ill. Mr. McCain knew the Vietnamese wanted the propaganda victory of the son and grandson of Navy admirals accepting special treatment. "He wasn't corruptible then," Mr. Day says, "and he's not corruptible today." The stories told to me by the Days involve more than wartime valor. For example, in 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about. Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.

I'd be proud to have John McCain as my next-door-neighbor. I'd be equally proud to have him as President of the United States of America.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Getting To Know John McCain
Karl Rove
The Wall Street Journal
April 30, 2008

Ethanol: The Side Effects

Take a look at this:

They don't have enough to eat. Five people are dead in Port Au Prince, Haiti after a week of food riots. Unions in Burkina Faso have called a general strike to protest the high cost of grain. Food riots have rocked Egypt, Cameroon, Indonesia, Ethiopia and other nations. In Manila, police with M-16s have supervised the sale and distribution of subsidized grain. Hoarders have been threatened with life imprisonment. In Thailand and Pakistan, troops are guarding fields and warehouses. In Egypt, the army has been called out to bake bread. Even in the United States, a run on rice has caused big-box retailers Sam's Club and Costco to limit the amount of rice consumers can purchase per visit (though the cap is extremely generous -- each customer can buy four 20 pound bags of rice per day at Costco).

That sounds like the plot to one of the futuristic apocalypse/disaster movies from the 1970s/1980s. But it's not. It's real life and it's happening today. Why? Well, the answer to that will surprise most liberals and green activists.

In his epic work, Wealth Of Nations, Adam Smith noted that whenever a transaction between two people occurred, it was because both believed they were gaining something in the exchange. Further, Smith noted that when both parties did gain something, there were unintended side-benefits that went beyond the single transaction.

Well, the idea of side-benefits also applies to unintended consequences. What you read in the above excerpt is just that: unintended consequences of a transaction that has been forced upon us by our own government. I am, of course, referring to ethanol.

It is simple economics. When supply goes down, price goes up. It does not matter the reason that supply went down, just that it went down. When our government mandated the use of ethanol in our gasoline, it cut into the supply of corn that we use for food and food production. As a result of this, the price of food has gone up, not just here at home, but worldwide.

More, from Mona Charen over at TownHall.com:

It seemed like such a painless solution. It fits on a bumper sticker. In fact, I saw one yesterday: "Don't burn fuel. Grow it." The EU adopted a goal of producing 10 percent of its fuel for road transportation from biofuels by 2020. The U.S. government (cheered on by the agriculture industry and environmentalists) adopted a mandate of 36 billion gallons of biofuel production by 2022 -- a five-fold increase over 2006 levels amounting to 28 percent of the U.S. grain harvest. Congress and the president joined hands to pass this feel-good legislation just when, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, new data were demonstrating that biofuels cost more energy than they save. "When the hidden costs of conversion are included, greenhouse-gas emissions from corn ethanol over the next 30 years will be twice as high as from regular gasoline. In the long term, it will take 167 years before the reduction in carbon emissions from using ethanol 'pays back' the carbon released by land-use change."

Of course, that will be a small relief to those who will starve over the next 167 years just so we can feel good about a law that will never reach it's stated goals.

We aren't even sure that Global Warming (or any kind of climate change) is even human induced. But we can be absolutely sure that whatever we try to do about it will have serious costs.

Mona's parting shot:

"When millions of people are going hungry," Palaniappan Chidambaram, India's finance minister told the Journal, "it's a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels." This is not to suggest that all efforts to conserve energy or maintain the environment are folly. Rather, it's a cautionary tale. How much environmental improvement do we really get and -- this is paramount -- at what price?

Yes. At what price? I have no doubt that the environmentalists and others who cheered on this bill went to sleep that night feeling very good about themselves.

But, as was noted in the book (and movie) The Neverending Story, when travellers reached the second gate to get to the Southern oracle, they looked into a mirror and saw their true selves. Brave men found they were truly cowards and kind people found they were truly cruel. Those who cheered on this ill-thought out ethanol law fall in the latter category.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Let Them Eat Ethanol?
Mona Charen
TownHall.com
April 25, 2008

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Voter IDs

Now, really. Everyone must have known exactly how this one was going to turn out, even before the arguments were written in draft. Not requiring a photo ID before voting is tantamount to inviting massive voter fraud. Without such a check on the process, who is to say that one voter couldn't go and vote at five or more polling places?

Clearly, the only people that wanted to strike down voter ID laws were those who had designs on using such a legal loophole to allow a single voter to vote multiple times. "Vote early and vote often" was becoming the new leftist battle-cry.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively put an end to the multiple-vote-casting-single-voter scheme. From MSNBC:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud. It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case. The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

The three votes against? Well, as Gomer Pyle would say, "Suprise! Suprise! Suprise!" Those three votes came from the three most liberals justices on the Court. Care to guess what they were thinking when they tried unsuccessfully to strike down a law aimed at curbing voter fraud?

More:

Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it. Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

You get all that? "Indiana provides IDs free of charge." Clearly, there is no conspiracy to keep the poor from voting. But without a voter ID law, it is clear what kind of conspiracy could crop up.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law
Associated Press via MSNBC.com
April 28, 2008

Book Review: Mark Steyn's "America Alone"

I like to read whenever I get the chance. But lately, my only chances have been at the gym where I can sit at one of the bicycle machines and do a 30 to 40 minute aerobic workout while reading some good current event analysis.

The latest book I've been able to finish is America Alone by Mark Steyn. My advice? Go get this book and read it thoroughly. When you are finished with it, send it to someone you know in Europe because they need to read it more than we do.

The premise of the book is that within 60 to 70 years, the United States will be alone in facing Islamic terrorism since Europe will have since become an Islamic Caliphate. Sound far-fetched? Like something out of an apocolyptic movie produced in Hollywood? Read the book and you will see exactly how serious it is.

First, Mark deals with birthrates and what they mean. Right now, Occidental Europeans are not replacing themselves. Their birthrates are far below the rate of 2.1 live births per death needed to effectively replace the population and maintain current levels. As Mark puts it, European couples wait until their late 30's and decide to have "one designer baby." That's one baby coming from two adults. What happens after one generation? Population drops fast.

But not all European groups are below this 2.1 rate. In fact, Muslims are far above it, somewhere between 3.0 and 5.0. So, what happenes to their population after one generation? It grows and it grows fast. Europe is going to lose to numbers. The Muslims will have the numbers while the Occidentals will not.

Other factors come into play too. Europe has made no effort to assimilate their Arab/Muslim immigrants. In fact, Europe has bent over backwards to accomodate them, even to the point of letting them on the welfare rolls and giving them unconditional financial support. The Arab/Muslim response? Take a look at the riots that occurred in France. That is how the Arab/Muslims said "Thank you."

Even when Muslims flatly state outright what their intentions are, the Europeans show no backbone in confronting the obvious threat.

Consider this from Page 197 of the book:

After the carnage in Spain, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed told Lisbon's Publica magazine that a group of London Islamists were "ready to launch a big operation" on British soil. "We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents," he said, clarifying the ground rules. "Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value."

How can anyone interpret that any other way than for it to mean exactly what he said? Fools might attempt to do so, but the truly wise among us will see the truth.

Finally, here is one more excerpt from Page 200 that describes precisely what situation Europe is walking straight into with their collective eyes wide open:

Bomb us, and we agonize over "root causes." Decapitate us, and our politicians rush to the nearest mosque to declare that "Islam is a religion of peace." Issue blood-curdling calls at Friday prayers to kill all the Jews and infidels, and we fret that it may cause a backlash against Muslims. Behead sodmites and mutilate female genitalia, and gay groups and feminist groups can't wait to march alongside you denouncing Bush and Blair. Murder a schoolful of children, and our scholars explain that the "vast majority" of Muslims "jihad" is a harmless concept meaning "healthy-lifestyle lo-fat granola bar."

See how many fools there are who would quickly side with the likes of Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed?

Europe is sliding down a greased pole right now. We can't stop it. Only the Europeans can, but they don't have the courage or committment to do so.

That is why, by the time my grandchildren graduate college, America will be alone in facing the Islamic threat.

Let's Compare The Dems And Their Idiotic Ideas For Tax Hikes

Even Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos get it! The reporters for the leftist-leaning ABC News finally grew some cojones and asked some hard questions in interviews with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The issue? Taxes.

From Donald Lambro at TownHall.com:

"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?" CNBC economic reporter Maria Bartiromo asked Obama a few weeks ago. It's a question that could define the rest of the presidential election and boost GOP prospects at a time when the No. 1 issue is the economy, dwarfing the war in Iraq. Picking up on Bartiromo's pointed question, ABC News anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos also pummeled both candidates last week for their tax policies. "If the economy is as weak a year from now, as it is today, will you ... persist in your plans to roll back President Bush's tax cuts for wealthier Americans?" Stephanopoulos asked Clinton. Clinton said, yes, she would raise the top 35 percent marginal tax rate on incomes over $250,000 "to the rates they were paying in the 1990s" under President Clinton, which would lift them to a confiscatory 40 percent. "Even if the economy is weak?" an incredulous Stephanopoulos asked. "Yes," she replied without hesitation. "I do not believe it will detrimentally affect the economy by doing that."

The scary part is that she really does believe it. She is so detached from reality that is is pathetic. Here is what the economic experts say will be the result of such a tax hike:

But business advocates and economists dispute that claim, saying it isn't just wealthier Americans who pay the top income tax rate, but also 25.8 million small businesses, many of them family-run operations, that create about 75 percent of the jobs, according to the Small Business Administration. ... Sadly, the Democrats' agenda doesn't include small businesses that earn more than $250,000 but do not consider themselves rich. Many, in fact, are struggling just to keep their heads above water. ... I queried a number of top economists around the country about [Barck Obama's] tax plan, and here's what Glenn Hubbard, the former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and now the dean of Columbia University's Graduate School of Business, had to say about it: "Raising capital (gains) taxes is bad at any time -- and particularly in a weak economy. The only argument for such a tax increase -- since that argument can be neither economic efficiency nor efficient revenue collection -- would be a policy of (income) redistribution." And that, of course, is what Obama has in mind. He would pay for his middle-class tax cuts in part by taxing the 100-million-member investor class, 50 percent of whom are the middle class. It is income redistribution by the government, pure and simple. "They claim they do not want to raise taxes on anyone up to $250,000, but more and more ordinary Americans own stocks through mutual funds, IRAs and 401(k) plans at work. A higher capital-gains tax on stock reduces the value of the stock," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

That's Obama's plan: relieve the middle class by taxing the middle class. His hold on reality isn't any better than Clinton's.

Gibson called him on that:

While Obama promises in one breath that he would not tax anyone below $250,000, with the next breath he says he would raise the $97,000 cap on the Social Security payroll tax to extract money from "millionaires and billionaires" who don't have to pay beyond that rate. "But that's a tax ... on people under $250,000," Gibson reminded the Harvard graduate. "There's a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $250,000." Obama, obviously, hadn't thought of that.

As I said, no grasp of reality in his plans or his thinking.

Hillary's grasp is still no better:

If that's not contradictory enough, former Clinton White House adviser Gene Sperling, Hillary Clinton's chief economic adviser, said that if the United States were still in a recession next year, she would stick to her tax-hike plan, while proposing a temporary economic stimulus. "Her view would be to add another stimulus through more progressive temporary tax cuts that would have a higher bang for the buck, but she will still revert back to the old top tax rate," he told me.

So, Hillary's solution to a recession is to stimulate the economy through some sort of stimulus plan and then tax away the gains in higher taxes.

Honestly, is their anyone out there who can say they truly believe this socialist tripe?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Income Redistribution, Tax Hikes Top Democratic Agenda
Donald Lambro
TownHall.com
April 24, 2008

Movie Review: Ben Stein's 'Expelled'

I went to see this movie last Sunday with my wife. After the first three minutes, my wife turned to me and asked in an exasperated voice, "Will the whole movie be like this?" But by the end, she was enthralled as was the rest of the crowd with the way Ben Stein presented his evidence and showed the world what a truly responsible investigative journalist would produce.

Brent Bozell had the following to say:

It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay "rights." Abortion "rights." On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism's power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia, and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension.

And the issue Ben Stein chose to illustrate this: Intelligent Design.

Ben Stein's extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection. Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics -- experts all -- who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves "expelled" from intellectual discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State University). That's disturbing enough, but what Stein does next is truly shocking. He allows the principal advocates of Darwinism to speak their minds. These are experts with national reputations, regular welcomed guests on network television and the like. But the public knows them only by their careful seven-second soundbites. Stein engages them in conversation. They speak their minds. They become sputtering ranters, openly championing their sheer hatred of religion.

And this was probably the most moving part of the film:

The most controversial part of the film follows Stein to the Dachau concentration camp, underlining how Darwin's theories of natural selection led to the eugenics movement, embraced by Adolf Hitler. If there is no God, but only a planetary lab waiting for scientists to perfect the human race, where can Darwinism lead? Stein insists that he isn't accusing today's Darwinists of Nazism. He points out, however, that Hitler's mad science was inspired by Darwinism.

And here is what Nina May has to say:

There is a wonderful new documentary out, called Expelled, produced by Ben Stein, that looks not only at the conflict between the two views of whether or not God created all we behold, or if it just happened by accident. It looks at the move by the unbelievers to keep the concept and even discussion of a “God possibility” out of the marketplace. The film successfully tracks the history of “godless” nations, their inhumanity to man, and the ultimate failure of their systems while tracing the move to eradicate God from the educational system in the U.S., intimidating professors and scientists who even suggest that creative design is not only possible, but a reality. As interesting as it is to track the desperation of god-denying apologists, it is more interesting to read their rantings in response to the very simple supposition in the film that creationism should at least be allowed to be discussed as a viable alternative to . . . well . . . to what? It reminds me of the joke where man claims he is God and can do anything God can do and better, so God says, cool, make a man like I did, out of dust. ... The great thing about this discussion, is the blatant hypocrisy when you consider the fact that this film is being vilified by the very open-minded left, who will argue to the death that alternative lifestyles should be celebrated, embraced and encouraged. Yet the alternative lifestyle of believing in a creator, who made each of us in His own image, is not only reviled and marginalized, but those who express this belief are condemned as not being smart enough to even engage in the discussion.

You can access the complete columns on-line here:

Ben Stein Versus The Sputtering Atheists
Brent Bozell III
TownHall.com
April 18, 2008

Response to Movie "Expelled" Proves Its Point: Man Has Not Evolved
Nina May
TownHall.com
April 22, 2008

The Ice Age Cometh, Muslims Want McCain To Be PC And Rick Santorum Supports McCain

Whew! It's been a week since I last posted? Well, that will happen sometimes. As I have mentioned many times before, I do have a real life outside of blogging and that life takes a higher priority than trying to keep up with and make sense of current event issues.

So, what do I have today? A little more debunking of the Human Induced Global Warming Theory, some PC madness from the Muslims and a strong case for supporting John McCain for President.

Let's start with Global Warming. Our first item comes from Down Under. Why is that significant? Because the author, Phil Chapman, was the first Aussie to become an astronaut for NASA. Pretty solid credentials there. He has a few things to say about the objective scientific view of what is really going on with our climate and why.

From his column:

The scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Note that. Sunspots. They are very important in determining the climate of the Earth.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

The crux of the column is that Global Warming Theory maintains that an increase in atmospheric CO₂ will lead to increased temperatures. But that is not what has been happening over the past ten years. In fact, the exact opposite has been occuring. This is a set of facts and circumstances that people like Al Gore refuse to allow debate on.

But let's read more about sunspots:

The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

Who says that science can't help us understand history? In fact, you can relate the sinking of the Titanic to the sunspot cycle. (Artic pack ice flows further south at certain times of the cycle than at other times. Captain Smith was unfortunate enough to sail Titanic through one of those flows.)

So what does all of this mean for us today?

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Sorry, Al Gore. But your incovenient truth is becoming an incovenient fantasy.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Sorry To Ruin The Fun, But An Ice Age Cometh
Phil Chapman
The Australian
April 23, 2008

---

Fox News is reporting this about Muslim groups here in the United States:

A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain stop using the word "Islamic" to describe terrorists. The Washington Times reports Islamic Society of North America's secretary general wants McCain to use something he calls "more acceptable to the Muslim community." "You want to call them terrorist criminals, fine. But adding the word 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' certainly doesn't help our cause as Americans... It paints an entire community of believers, 1.2 billion in total, in a very negative way." But McCain strategist Steve Schmidt says there will be no changes. "The reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is."

They are demanding. Not asking but demanding that John McCain stop using the words "Islamic" and "terrorist" in the same sentence. As if they have some special sort of status which precludes them from the scrutiny of the general public.

The Islamic ideology of Wahabbism is probably the main engine for exporting Islamic extremism and terrorism throughout the world. Why don't these so-called peace loving Muslim groups speak out against that?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Muslim Groups Take Issue With McCain's Vocabulary
Brit Hume
FoxNews.com
April 21, 2008

---

And fianlly, Rick Santorum (R-PA) gives us more good reasons why Conservatives should support John McCain for President:

Of all the issues confronting the United States today, none is more important than our nation's security. Although these issues don't dominate our news as they once did, we cannot forget that without a safe and secure country, all other issues don't matter. McCain is clearly the candidate with the capacity, judgment, experience and will to confront America's enemies. He's served our country honorably - heroically - in war. I served eight years with him on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I can assure you he knows our military. Importantly, he also knows our enemies. He understands their capabilities and their aims. He will not sugarcoat the human or financial commitment and cost needed to defeat this enemy. The most important social issue is life. Yes, I often wished McCain would have joined me on the Senate floor in debating Barbara Boxer on issues like the partial-birth-abortion ban. In the end, with the exception of embryonic stem-cell funding, he always voted for life and stood for the culture of life. In short, he's been a reliable vote on life issues, which are critical to conservatives. Many conservatives have given McCain poor marks for his involvement in the Gang of 14. I was in leadership pushing hard for a showdown with the Democrats on using the "Constitutional Option" to end their filibuster of judicial nominations. The Gang of 14 broke the impasse, and it probably was for the best. I was the one counting votes on that issue, and I was much less certain of success than others. In the end, the Gang deal resulted in numerous confirmations of qualified conservative jurists. On judges, McCain has repeatedly made clear that he will, as his Web site states, "only nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat." Sounds good to me. Yes, I disagreed with McCain's opposition to President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. But I give him credit that he now thinks we must make those tax cuts permanent to boost our now-struggling economy. And, yes, McCain has been a thorn in the side of many of us who supported important appropriations earmarks for our states. But he's always objected with principled consistency. This is but one example of McCain's character - the kind of character I want in the person who answers 3 a.m. phone calls at the White House.

Of course, I shouldn't have to mention what the two possible alternatives to John McCain are.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Elephant In The Room: Why Conservatives Should Support McCain
Rick Santorum
The Philadelphia Enquirer
April 21, 2008

Jimmy Carter Provides A Major Public Relations Coup To Terrorists

I honestly don't see how any rationally thinking human being can view this as anything other than idiotic, disrespectful to the innocent vitims of terrorism and just plain evil. From Al-Jazeera:

Jimmy Carter, the former US president, has laid a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian leader, further defying Israeli leaders already critical of his plans to meet Hamas.

Yes, you read that right. A former U.S. President, the same one who looked like a spineless jellyfish in the face of a terrorist take-over of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran back in 1979, has rendered honors to a known murdering terrorist: the monster Yassar Arafat.

How much damage has he done to us now? How long will it be before the Islamics see his act as a sign of weakness and attack again? Does Carter realize how disrespectful he is being to all the innocent victims of Palestinian terrorism? If so, does he even care?

More importantly, where are the Democrats on this? Why are they not speaking out against Carter for putting the Dems in such a bad light?

I know the answer to that last question. The Dems honestly don't see Carter as having done anything wrong. And that is probably scarier than Carter actually laying a wreath at the tomb of a terrorist!

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Carter Lays Wreath For Arafat
AlJazeera.net
April 15, 2008

Obama "Troubled" By Working Class

This comes from the Associated Press:

At issue are comments Obama made privately at a fundraising gathering in San Francisco last Sunday. He explained his troubles winning over working class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions: "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I think we have seen one of the sides of the real Barack Obama here. He has no respect for hard-working Americans who believe in God and want the borders to their own nation secured. If Obama has this attitude towards people who care about their second amendment rights, the right to worship according to one's own conscious and about a flood of illegal immigrants coming in and costing the taxpayer billions upon billions in welfare handouts, then exactly who does he have a good attitude towards?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama Hit For Saying Some Voters 'Bitter'
Associated Press via MSN
April 12, 2008

Republicans And Blacks

I know this a topic that some people will find uncomfortable and others may find downright irritating, but it is a topic that will inevitably come up and we must deal with it at some point before November. Better to do it earlier than later.

Dr. Thomas Sowell's most recent column contained the following:

Senator McCain was booed at a recent memorial on the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. In typical Republican fashion, he tried to apologize but the audience was not buying it and let him know it. Why would Senator McCain choose a venue where his rejection was virtually guaranteed? Not only did he not get his message out, the message that came out through the media is that this black audience rejected him, which is readily portrayed as if blacks in general rejected him. The Republican strategy for making inroads into the black vote has failed consistently for more than a quarter of a century. Yet it never seems to occur to them to change their approach.

As I implied above, this is not very flattering towards Senator McCain, but Dr. Sowell is right on the mark. Why would Republicans simply make the same offer to blacks that the Democrats are already making? It certainly stands to reason that the black community would not trust the Republican offer since it goes counter to the Republican Party's Core Principles.

But, Dr. Sowell does offer some suggestions of messages that Republicans should be sending out:

A sober presentation of the facts-- "straight talk," if you will-- gives Senator McCain and Republicans their best shot at a larger share of the votes of blacks. There is plenty to talk straight about, including all the things that the Democrats are committed to that work to the disadvantage of blacks, beginning with Democrats' adamant support of teachers' unions in their opposition to parental choice through vouchers. The teachers' unions are just one of the sacred cow constituencies of the Democratic Party whose agendas are very harmful to blacks. Black voters also need to be told about the tens of thousands of blacks who have been forced out of a number of liberal Democratic California counties by skyrocketing housing prices, brought on by Democratic environmentalists' severe restrictions on the building of homes or apartments. The black population of San Francisco, for example, has been cut in half since 1970-- and San Francisco is the very model of a community of liberal Democrats, including green zealots who are heedless of the consequences of their actions on others. Then there are the effects of tort lawyers in raising prices, liberal judges turning criminals loose and other influential Democratic Party constituencies whose effects on blacks are strictly negative.

Dr. Sowell also rightly points out that the "game plan" of constantly catering to blacks via leftist proposals will always be a failure. Telling the truth would be a better option.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Republicans And Blacks
Dr. Thomas Sowell
TownHall.com
April 10, 2008

Islamic Calls Children "Dogs," Brutal Teen Pack Attack And Rockefeller Lies About John McCain

Okay, so maybe it's because today is "hump day" and because I had to come into work on Sunday, it feels later in the week for me. But there are three stories that I feel absolutely must be blogged and made available for everyone to see.

First, this story comes out of Holland. Now, anyone who knows the history of Holland knows that when political and religious strife hit the rest of Europe during the Middle Ages, Holland was a sort of sanctuary for those with differing views. In fact, some of history's greatest scientific minds did their work in Holland free from the persecution they would have suffered had they carried on their research elsewhere. That is why this story is so disturbing and why we need to make sure that it gets disseminated far and wide.

A group of school children in Holland were on a field trip to a mosque. Ostensibly, this field trip was aimed at helping the children increase their understanding of other cultures, which is a long time tradition in Holland. But, these children were told by their Islamic guide that they were "dogs."

From NISNews.nl:

A primary school in Amsterdam wished to provide its pupils with an understanding for other cultures. But during a visit to a mosque, the children were told they were dogs. With a view to developing understanding and respect for other cultures among children, primary school De Horizon regularly organises outings to various religious organisations. The chairman of the El Mouchidine mosque told the children from group 7 (aged 10) and their chaperones however that non-Muslims are dogs. In a letter to the children's parents, the school expresses its regret at the incident: "We are shocked that during the guided tour, the mosque's chairman told the children and chaperoning parents that non believers were dogs. We consider this statement as unacceptable since we allow our children to partake in this project to develop respect for freedom of religious choice". In the meantime, the school's management has addressed the mosque on the undesirable behaviour of the chairman. Both parties will say nothing further on the matter. "We will resolve the matter amongst ourselves and I have no inclination whatsoever to discuss the matter with the media", as newspaper De Telegraaf quoted the school's spokesperson Mariet ten Berge. "We have been to the mosque before and it always went well". Angry parents had sent the letter on to De Telegraaf but were reportedly rapped on the knuckles by the school's management. "The school wishes to play this down. That is precisely the problem", as one mother commented.

Religion of peace? Religion of tolerance? What do you think?

As for the school trying to play this down, who will that help other than the Islamics?

You can access the original article on-line here:

Children Told They Are Dogs During Mosque Visit
NISNews.nl
April 9, 2008

---

Last night, I was watching Nancy Grace on Headline News and saw for the first time the video showing Victoria Lindsay being beaten by six other girls while two teenaged boys stood lookout.

Now, I know that there is some history of Lindsay having anger management issues, but in the video, she was completely defensive and never once raised her hands nor kicked her feet in an offensive way. I don't care what sort of trash-talking may have gone on in MySpace or any other website. There is absolutely no excuse at all for the gang attack that these six young women and two young men conspired to commit against Lindsay.

According to WFTV Channel 9 in Polk County, Florida:

When 16-year-old Victoria Lindsay arrived at her friend's house where she had been staying, six girls were waiting. Immediately, they started yelling and one girl began pummeling the victim. On the video, the girls can be heard encouraging the fight in the background, even taunting Lindsay to fight back, all while one of them held the camera. The victim's family has said it was an elaborate plot to injure and embarrass Victoria Lindsay. Lindsay's parents couldn't believe their daughter had to endure the attack. "That's my Tori. Don't do that to my Tori," said the victim's mother. The 16-year-old suffered a concussion, eye injuries and several bruises. During the attack, two others were outside keeping watch according to the sheriff's office. In fact, the sheriff said, Lindsay was lured into the home for the sole purpose of capturing and posting the video on the Internet. According to the sheriff's office arrest affidavit, Lindsay told deputies they "were going to post the beating on MySpace and YouTube." ... The suspects were identified as 17-year-old Mercades Nichols, 17-year-old Brittini Hardcastle, 14-year-old April Cooper, 16-year-old Cara Murphy, 17-year-old Britney Mayes and 15-year-old Kayla Hassell. Zachary Ashley, 17, and Stephen Schumaker, 18, were identified by deputies as the lookouts.

Now, I have a 16-year-old son and I will be the first to admit that he is no angel and has had probably more than his share of self-inflicted trouble to deal with, mostly due to poor decision making. But, I know that I was a good enough father that if he ever saw something like this, he would at the very least refuse to join in and at best immediately go for help and report what was happening. None of the eight involved in the beating did that. Some people are blaming YouTube and MySpace for this incident. I have more logical culprits to lay blame on.

Their parents. How bad a job did a parent have to do in order to allow a child to think that on some level, a gang-beating like this was morally acceptable? How bad a job did a parent have to do to allow a child to think that it was perfectly okay to videotape such a horrendously evil act for the purposes of gaining fame and notoriety? A pretty piss-poor job if you ask me.

I honestly hope that Victoria Lindsay's parents sue the pants off of the parents of those eight and also hope that all eight of the perps do time as adults.

As I wrote above, whatever circumstances precipitated the beating are irrelevent. What happened on that video had absolutely no excuse at all.

You can access the original article and pictures of the eight assailents on-line here:

Girls Record Brutal Attack On Teen To Allegedly Post On YouTube
WFTV.com
April 7, 2008

---

And finally, we have Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) talking trash about Senator John McCain. And I really do mean trash. Rockefeller clearly doesn't have enough intelligence to research his own issues before going out and making erroneous statements on those issues.

From the American Thinker

The Charleston Gazette reports: Rockefeller believes McCain has become insensitive to many human issues. "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. "What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues." ... It’s even worse than a ridiculous term applied to a warrior. Rockefeller is tiptoeing into far left nuttiness, the path that leads to the argument that modern weaponry is immoral, and that McCain could be described as a war criminal for dropping bombs that might harm non-combatants. Take note that Rockefeller mentions McCain dropping laser-guided bombs. These were not used in Vietnam. Laser-guided missiles and bombs minimize civilian casualties.

And this:

Perhaps Rockefeller forgot McCain was a POW and was tortured. It would be kind of hard to keep your sensitivity in full flower under the hideous torture to which he was subjected.

Also note that Rockefeller refers to Senator McCain as a "fighter pilot." John McCain drove A-4 Skyhawks during Vietnam. The A-4 is a ground attack aircraft, not a fighter.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Jay Rockefeller Lets The Mask Slip
Thomas Lifson
The American Thinker
April 8, 2008

A Message From Michael Steele

No one can say that the Republican Party has not changed since the Reagan era. Everything changes over time. Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. But like a tree or a tall skyscraper swaying in the wind, it is the core that must hold firm to prevent a collapse. Republicans have core beliefs that must not be deviated from and we have held those beliefs firm over the last thirty years. We must continue to hold them firm.

That is the message from former Maryland Lt. Governer Michael Steele. From his latest column:

Republicans stand on the precipice of conservatism, ready to throw each other off because we feel as if we’ve lost our grip on what conservatism means; indeed, what it means to be a republican. But, we should never lose faith first and foremost in our belief in the power and ingenuity of the individual to create the legacy of a nation through hard work and self-discipline. Conservatives must stand firm once again in our belief that government should be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of the individual. We must reaffirm the principle of lowering taxes so that individuals might keep more of their hard earned wages, and realize the economic power that it generates. Republicans must promote business regulations that encourage entrepreneurs to take risks so that more individuals can enjoy the satisfaction and fruits of self-made success; and our party must always remain steadfast in its defense of a colorblind society, so that each man or woman is treated as an individual and not as a member of some hyphenated class or group.

Do you, as a Republican still believe these things? Then you need to stick with your beliefs and help spread the message.

Are you a Democrat or Independent who believes these things? Then you should come over to the Republicans.

And Mr. Steele's most important message:

The Party of Lincoln is the Party of ideas and leadership that have made and will continue to make this nation great. Republicans must now gather strength from within as we enter a critical period in America's history. We must work to restore faith in our Party by standing on those principles that not only unite us as Republicans, but as Americans. Republicans need to stop looking for Reagan and start acting like Republicans.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Uniting The Republican Party
Michael Steele
TownHall.com
April 8, 2008

Do As the Dems Say, Not As The Dems Do

How much did the Clintons pull in last year? And the year before that? And the year before that? Alot. They finally released some of their financial records.

Now, no one should take them to task for making so much money ($109 million over the last 8 years) but there are some questions about conflict-of-interest and some some sheer hypocrisy concerning their personal finances.

The Wall Street Journal has a very good editorial about this. Some excerpts:

We can also now understand why the couple took so long to release their returns, and are still reluctant to release other information. Their political status has given them access to wealthy folks who've helped make them rich. For example, Mr. Clinton raked in as much as $15 million working as an adviser and rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle's Yucaipa firm. We're not sure what advice Mr. Clinton gave but it must have been fabulous. The former President also took in $3.3 million in consulting fees from InfoUSA CEO Vinod Gupta, who has also helped fund Mrs. Clinton's White House bid. These are not opportunities that fall into every American's lap. Meanwhile, the Clintons also made liberal use of the charitable deduction, claiming $10.2 million in charitable giving over the eight years. Intriguingly, nearly all the donations went to the Clinton Family Foundation, which has disbursed only half the money. The Clintons can thus use the foundation for, er, strategic giving, such as the $100,000 it donated last year to a local South Carolina library – the day after Mrs. Clinton debated in that key primary state. There are other examples of such politically targeted philanthropy, and it's worth noting that most of the foundation's disbursements came only after Mrs. Clinton announced her Presidential run. Similar conflict-of-interest questions apply to the separate William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, for which the couple has so far refused to release a list of donors.

That's the conflict-of-interest part. Now, let's look at the hypocrisy of their personal finances:

Like other Americans during this tax season, the Clintons have also had to endure the complexity of the tax code. Their 2006 return alone totaled 67 pages. While they can afford a smart accountant to sift through all those forms, would it be too optimistic to think Mrs. Clinton might be inspired by her tax experience to promote tax reform? Alas, yes. Senator Clinton's main tax proposal is to repeal the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, raising rates to the levels of the Clinton Presidency. "We didn't ask for George Bush's tax cuts. We didn't want them, and we didn't need them," Mrs. Clinton explained. With friends like Mr. Burkle, clearly they didn't. But her higher tax rates wouldn't merely hit those who make $109 million; they'd soak middle-class families that make $100,000 or $200,000 a year and hardly feel "rich." If the former first lady feels so strongly that she should pay more taxes, we suggest she lay off the middle class and instead write a personal check to the U.S. Treasury for the difference between the Clinton and Bush tax rates. She and her husband can afford it.

The WSJ hit that particular nail right on the head. Those who claim to oppose tax cuts nevertheless take advantage of them and when they call for higher taxes, they never set an example by voluntarily paying the higher rates.

The Clintons are no different on that score. We are simply to do as they say, not as they do.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Clinton Tax Lessons
Wall Street Journal Editorial
April 7, 2008

Old Media Lies About Basra

We've all heard about the recent uprising in Iraq by forces under Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr. All seemed to be doom and gloom for the Iraqi government if you believed the reports coming from Old Media. But, if you are anything like me, you don't have alot of faith in Old Media and therefore took the reports with at least a few grains of salt.

I was right to salt down those reports. The truth eventually comes out and since Old Media refuses to report it, it is up to those of us on the Internet to bring the truth to the masses. The truth about the recent in-fighting in Iraq has come out and we can fianlly see what really happened. Despite reports that the Iraqi security forces were heading for complete failure and the Maliki government was suffering a major embarrassment, the Iraqi government has actually won the battle.

From Daveed Gartenstein-Ross & Bill Roggio writing for The Weekly Standard:

Virtually every media outlet declared the Basra operations a military failure before a week had passed. A New York Times headline blared that the "Iraqi Army's Assault on Militias in Basra Stalls" on March 27, two days after the launch of operations. Two days later--just four days after operations began--Britain's Independent noted that "the Iraqi army and police have failed to oust the Mahdi Army from any of its strongholds in the capital and in southern Iraq." And six days after the onset of operations, the Guardian was reporting that "the Iraqi army had made little headway in Basra and large swaths of the city remain under the Mahdi Army's control." To be sure, the Iraqi security forces' performance in Basra is best described as mixed. However, they did not run into a wall. The Iraqi military was able to clear one Mahdi Army-controlled neighborhood in Basra and was in the process of clearing another when Sadr issued his ceasefire. The ceasefire came on March 30, after six days of fighting, and was seemingly unilateral in the sense that the Iraqi government made no apparent concessions in return. By that time, 571 Mahdi Army fighters had been killed, 881 wounded, 490 captured, and 30 had surrendered countrywide, according to numbers tabulated by The Long War Journal. Thus, an estimated 95 Mahdi Army fighters were killed per day during the six days of fighting.

Don't you find it interesting that Old Media outlets like AP, Reuters and The New York Times completely missed these little facts about the operation? Why would they paint such a skewed picture rather than report the truth?

More:

The Iraqi security forces were at their best in the smaller cities in Iraq's south. The Mahdi Army suffered major setbacks in Hillah, Najaf, Karbala, Diwaniyah, Amarah, Kut, and Nasiriyah. The security forces drove the Mahdi Army off the streets in those cities within days. The casualties taken by the Mahdi Army in Baghdad, Basra, and the wider south surely played a role in Sadr's tactical decision to call a ceasefire.

That's another thing that didn't get reported. Sadr called for the cease-fire. The Iraqi government did not offer it.

The press was equally insistent that Maliki's move to secure Basra was a political embarrassment for him, with Sadr emerging the victor. The day after Sadr issued his ceasefire, Time claimed that "the very fact of the cease-fire flies in the face of Maliki's proclamation that there would be no negotiations. It is Maliki, and not Sadr, who now appears militarily weak and unable to control elements of his own political coalition." The Associated Press portrayed Maliki as "humbled within his own Shi'ite power base." And a second Associated Press report stated that "a strict curfew is ending in Baghdad, U.S. diplomats are holed up in their green zone offices, al-Maliki is resented and the private army of Muqtada al-Sadr is intact." But the fact is that the Maliki government did not agree to the nine-point terms for a truce that Sadr issued, nor did it sue for peace or promise that operations would cease. Instead the Iraqi government called Sadr's order for his fighters to pull off the streets a "positive step," and insisted that operations would continue. "The armed groups who refuse al Sadr's announcement and the pardon we offered will be targets, especially those in possession of heavy weapons," Maliki said, referring to the ten-day amnesty period for militias to turn in heavy and medium weapons. "Security operations in Basra will continue to stop all the terrorist and criminal activities along with the organized gangs targeting people." Subsequent to the ceasefire, the Iraqi military announced it was moving reinforcements to Basra, and the next day pushed forces into the ports of Khour al Zubair and Umm Qasr. Iraqi special operations forces and special police units have conducted several raids inside Basra since then, while an Iraqi brigade marched into the heart of a Mahdi-controlled Basra neighborhood on April 2. And two days after Sadr called for a ceasefire, the government maintained a curfew in Sadr City and other Shia neighborhoods in Baghdad. None of this would be happening had Maliki simply caved to Sadr.

Old Media seriously screwed the pooch on this story. Is it any wonder why we don't trust them?

And to answer our question from above:

It isn't entirely clear why the media leapt to the conclusions that it did about the Basra operations. Perhaps impatience coupled with a lack of knowledge about military affairs was the biggest factor. Perhaps, tired of six months of generally positive reporting about the surge, journalists were gleeful to announce that the situation on the ground was deteriorating. Or perhaps a negative angle was irresistible in light of General David Petraeus's upcoming congressional testimony. Whatever the reason, the press has done a major disservice to readers by misreporting the events in Basra.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Press Botches Basra
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross & Bill Roggio
The Weekly Standard
April 4, 2008

Congressional Hypocrisy On Oil Prices

So, you've probably heard about the "hearings" certain members of Congress put a few of the Oil Executives through last week. Apparently, the Dems are playing a game of "how hypocritical can we be?"

Check out what Investor's Business Daily has to say:

A hypocritical Congress drills oil executives for high gas prices while driving up food prices by subsidizing ethanol.

That's really the entire story right there. Ethanol has driven up the prices of not just food, but it has driven up the price of gasoline as well! Remember all those storage tanks that had to be re-engineered because of the corrosive properies of ethanol?

More:

The executives were asked, in essence, are you now or have you ever been profitable? "These companies are defending billions of federal subsidies . . . while reaping over a hundred billion dollars in profits in just the last year alone," fumed Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. At least these profits are poured into a useful product that fuels the American economy. They take their profits from oil production and put them to work finding more oil. Congress is more concerned with pork-barrel spending than oil-barrel production. Markey, et al., hide the fact that when oil companies "profit," so does Uncle Sam. In 2006, Exxon alone paid federal income taxes of $27.9 billion, leaving it with $39.5 million in after-tax income. Gas prices go up, but they also go down. Gas taxes never go down. According to Tax Foundation data, U.S. oil companies cleared $630 billion after taxes while paying $518 billion in federal and state corporate taxes at an average rate of 45%. Over the same period, an additional $1.34 trillion in gas taxes was paid by consumers to state and local governments and the feds.

So, the question should never have been "How much are the Oil Companies making?" It should be "What is Congress doing with all the taxes they have been collecting from Oil Companies?"

Imagine how low the price of gasoline would be if those taxes didn't exist.

But look what else Congress is doing to make the price of gas go even higher:

Global demand is in large part responsible for rising fuel prices. Prices rise in world markets, not in corporate boardrooms. It is easier, however, to blame Exxon and Chevron than China and India. At least China is looking for more oil — just 45 miles off the Florida coast with its Cuban friends. The U.S. Geological Survey says the North Cuban Basin contains 4.6 billion barrels. That, Rep. Markey, will fuel cars in Beijing when it should be fueling cars in Boston. Our own growing economy will need 28% more oil by 2030, according to the Department of Energy, and 19% more natural gas than was consumed in 2005. Yet we are cut off from 10 billion barrels of oil in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska in addition to another 10 billion in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

If knowledge is power, the Dems in Congress don't have enough power to light a single light bulb.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Congress' Oil Barons
Investor's Business Daily
April 4, 2008

Obama Is Still Truthfully Challenged

Let's see. He claims that after attending the same church for 20 years that he had no idea that his pastor was a race-baiting hate-monger. Now, he goes on TV and tells even more lies despite the fact that his lies can be checked.

B. Hussein Obama has a problem. His problem is that he cannot tell the truth.

From Jake Tapper at ABC News:

When my family back in Pennsylvania turns on the TV these days, they may see this Barack Obama TV ad where he's standing in a gas station saying the following: "Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas. I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them."

But, as Jake notes, checks can be made on these claims:

Factcheck.org today takes a look at Obama's claim to not take money from oil companies and concludes that the statement "misleading" since according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics Obama has taken more than $213,000 from individuals (and their spouses) who work for companies in the oil and gas industry -- not to mention that two of Obama's top fundraisers are top executives at oil companies"

Apparently, B. Hussein Obama did feel it necessary to reveal these little facts that show his attempt at hiding the truth.

One other thing I noted in B. Hussein's statement. "They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits." Now, we all know that the leftist Old Media will never ask a hardball question about that part of the ad. But we need someone on the National to scene ask B. Hussein exactly how he thinks making the oil companies pay more in taxes is going to lower the price of gas for us real-world working folks who need to put gas in our cars in order to get to our jobs.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama's Oil Slick
Jake Tapper
ABC News
April 1, 2008

This Is Very Close To Reality

Homeschooling Case Exposes Liberal Left

Leftists are becoming bolder about what they really stand for. That is actually an amazing fact since left-wing policies were shown to be such dismal failures, especially in Eastern Europe and most third-world countries.

This time, the left has come out and stated in unambiguous terms their goal with our children through public education. It came out in a case in California where an appellate court ruled that parents have no right to homeschool.

According to John Stossel at TownHall.com:

The cat is finally out of the bag. A California appellate court, ruling that parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children, pinned its decision on this ominous quotation from a 47-year-old case, "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train schoolchildren in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare." There you have it; a primary purpose of government schools is to train schoolchildren "in loyalty to the state." Somehow that protects "the public welfare" more than allowing parents to homeschool their children, even though homeschooled kids routinely outperform government-schooled kids academically. In 2006, homeschooled students had an average ACT composite score of 22.4. The national average was 21.1.

Yes, I too noticed the phrases "primary purpose of the educational system" and "lotalty to the state." It immediately reminded me of what Albert J. Nock wrote in his classic essay, Our Enemy, The State. But that will be a topic for another post.

What should be scaring the living bejeezus out of you right now is that little phrase "loyalty to the state." It means that our public education system is no longer committed to educating our children, rather that it is now in place to indoctrinate them the same way Soviet-style Communist regimes indoctrinated their children. It is there to teach kids to become dependent on the paternalistic government rather than be self-reliant and self-determinating.

But dependency on the State worked so well in the old Soviet bloc, didn't it? Leftists and libs are completely ignorant of history. And they seem to want to make everyone else ignorant of it too. Hence, the ruling by the California appellate court.

Stossel also notes something else:

The court finds no constitutional right to homeschool one's children. But in a free country, people are free to do anything not expressly prohibited by law.

Yep. If libs think that parents shouldn't be allowed to homeschool because that right is not specifically listed in the Constitution, then all libs should be required to change their beliefs from pro-abortion to pro-life since the right to an abortion also does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

But then, hypocrisy is a garment the left has always worn with pride.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Threat To Homeschooling
John Stossel
TownHall.com
April 2, 2008

Illegal Alien Sues, Saying NYPD Called In Feds

One thing that the Muslims have learned from the left-wing libs here in the West is how to be a victim. Victimology 101; that is the big lesson libs teach everyone. There is no more requirement to stand on your own. Now you simply rely on the Government to provide you with everything that you are too lazy to get for yourself.

Well, that's one end result. Another end result is that it allows criminals and lawbreakers to claim victimhood when they engage in crimes and actively break the law. We have a story from the New York Sun to vividly illustrate this.

But this post is not just about the victimhood angle. It is also about the law, New York City's Executive Order 41 and the idiocy of the judge who allowed this case to move forward when it should have been quashed from the outset.

First, the case:

The case of the cab driver, Waheed Saleh of Jenin in the West Bank, indicates that a New York City police lieutenant casually tipped off a federal immigration officer about Mr. Saleh's immigration status, court documents in the case show. Mr. Saleh's civil trial against the lieutenant and another police officer is expected to begin tomorrow. It may be the first time that the city has been called to account in connection with Mr. Bloomberg's Executive Order 41. Issued in 2003, that order was intended to encourage illegal immigrants to seek out help from the police department and other agencies and allay fears that the city would turn their names over to federal immigration officials.

It turns out that Saleh illegally over-stayed his Visa, the same way the 19 9/11 hijackers did. Apparently, Mayor Bloomberg has forgotten the devestation those 19 caused his own city back in 2001. Executive Order 41 essentially makes New York City a "sanctuary city" in which illegal aliens can come in and get all sorts of hand-outs and goodies for free, at tax-payer expense.

But what kind of person is Mr. Saleh?

Court records show that police officers considered Mr. Saleh to be a troublemaker who could turn violent when confronted by the minor annoyances of big-city life, such as a dispute over a parking spot or the high price of cigarettes. In one instance, officers responded to a 911 call from a bodega employee who claimed Mr. Saleh threw a pack of cigarettes at him after a dispute over its price, according to court documents. In another instance, police officers broke up a fistfight between Mr. Saleh and another man over a parking spot, according to depositions. Police believed that Mr. Saleh, earlier in the fight, had tried to use his vehicle to ram a person standing in the street, the documents say.

So, what is wrong with having this guy deported? Nothing really. The law was very clear on that subject:

The city's policy for not sharing information with the federal government about illegal immigrants contains an exception for immigrants suspected of crimes. Given Mr. Saleh's trouble with the law, he appears to fall under that exception. Police policy in effect at the time, but no longer, required communications between the NYPD and federal immigration officials to begin with a written report that went through the NYPD's Intelligence Division. A police Internal Affairs Bureau report concluded that Captain Nicholson did violate the procedures on alerting the federal immigration officials in Mr. Saleh's case. But the report, which was filed in federal court, found that Mr. Saleh's claim that Captain Nicholson was acting in response to the complaints against Officer Hickman was unsubstantiated.

Right there, this whole thing should have been dropped and Mr. Saleh sent back to the West Bank for good. But here is what happened:

"It may be sound practice for NYPD officers to alert ICE when they encounter unlawful aliens under normal circumstances, but when they do so for retaliatory purposes, they run afoul of the Constitution," the judge handling the case, Sidney Stein of U.S. District Court in Manhattan, wrote in a ruling allowing the case to go forward last year. ICE stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Judge Stein is one of the leftist types who believes in spreading the idea of victimhood, even if it means jeopardizing the safety and security of an entire city.

Sanctuary cities should be completely cut-off from Federal funding and told to provide for illegal aliens out of their own pockets rather than forcing the rest of us honest tax-payers to cough-up the money that gets wasted on illegals each year. Further, the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP should be investigated to see exactly where the money for representing Saleh is originating from.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Illegal Alien Sues, Saying NYPD Called In Feds
Joseph GoldStein
New York Sun
March 31, 2008