"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

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Democrat-Controlled Congress Still A Do-Nothing On Energy Prices, Obama's 'Post-Racial Reparations' And How Networks Use Blacks

Okay, some good stuff to look at and chew on today as you go through your daily life. We have a Do-Nothing, Dem-Controlled Congress doing everything in its power to ensure that gas prices remain high. Sean Lengell of the Washington Times has written a pretty comprehensive article about this.


Lawmakers failed again Wednesday to reach a compromise on how to address the rising cost of gasoline, with no deal in sight before Congress adjourns for its five-week summer break on Friday.

The impasse centers on Republican demands that any energy plan include a provision to expand domestic oil drilling to areas currently off-limits, including a wildlife reserve in northern Alaska and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Democrats oppose the idea, saying oil companies already have millions of available drilling acres on land they're not using.

But the Dems seem to be completely incapable of grasping the fact the reason the oil companies are not drilling on the lands they're not using is because ... (hang on to your seats) ... there is no oil under those lands! The Dems and libs are actually complaining that there is no drilling on lands under which there is no oil!

But this gets better:

Senate Republicans Wednesday blocked a wide-ranging Democratic measure that would extend tax breaks to an array of renewable-energy entrepreneurs. The measure, which also called for tax breaks for teachers, businesses and parents, failed to proceed on a vote of 51-43, with 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.

Another concept that the Dems are completely incapable of grasping is that alternative energy is not a viable solution to the problem we have now. If you look at what energy sources compose what percentage of our energy supply, you will see that alternative sources are less than eight percent of the total. Getting that percentage over even twenty percent is not feasible at our present level of technology. Further, there are no prospects for any massive breakthroughs in research on these alternative technologies to make a large increase feasible. The Dems are literally trying to fund a pipe-dream while simultaneously punishing energy suppliers who have proven track records of supplying the energy we need.

But really, the problem is that Democrats Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are worshipping at the alter of environmental extremists and are constantly maneuvering to in order to satisfy that small minority to the detriment of the majority.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, had earlier this week offered Republicans four amendments after Republicans requested dozens. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, on Wednesday said he agreed to the offer, but Mr. Reid denied a compromise had been reached.

"We've tried so hard to do something on energy. We've been trying for months," said Mr. Reid. "But Republicans have basically rejected everything."

Republicans said Democrats balked after calling their bluff, adding that Democratic leaders are afraid to allow a vote on any Republican proposal to increase domestic oil production because they fear many of their members would cross party lines and support such a measure.

"Democrats keep moving the goal posts," said McConnell spokesman Don Stewart. "They can't take 'yes' for an answer."

Given Reid's questionable ethics and Pelosi's antics over in the House, I am more inclined to believe Senator McConnell.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Energy Compromise Elusive As Recess Looms
Sean Lengell
The Washington Times
July 31, 2008

Barack Obama claims to be "post-racial." But is he? Will his actions equal his words? Not according to James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal.

Here is what he writes:

One of the most appealing features of the Barack Obama candidacy is the idea that Obama is "postracial"--that he is a candidate who is black and does not practice the adversarial politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.


But a story in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin raises serious questions about Obama's postracialism. The paper describes an Obama appearance at Unity '08, "a convention of four minority journalism associations":

"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said.

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

That sounds to me exactly like the politics of race used by Jesse "Love Child" Jackson and Al Sharpton. Taranto takes it even further:

Exactly what Obama is advocating here cannot be determined, but it seems to be something of an endorsement of the idea of "reparations for slavery," which is usually taken to mean cash payments. In this view, the following deeds are insufficient to balance the ledger between America and the descendants of slaves: the Civil War, the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the continuing practice of racial preferences.

The idea of reparations is highly unpopular, and with good reason. Unlike the Japanese-Americans who in 1988 received compensation for their internment by a Democratic administration in the grips of wartime hysteria, no one alive today has ever been a slave. The idea of the government cutting checks to compensate people for a wrong that they did not personally suffer is unlikely to appeal to anyone except perhaps those who stand to receive those checks.

That's it. It's all about buying votes from the black community. Too bad. It shows that King's dream of "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" may have been completely thrown under the bus by a black candidate.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Check, Please
James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
July 30, 2008

And what does Old Media think about race-relations? Larry Elder exposes that very nicely with a letter he received from a friend who participated in one of those racial "specials." From Larry's TownHall column:

Dear Larry,

OK, Larry, I grew up a bit last night. Those (unflattering descriptive deleted) at that news network on cable used me like a two-dollar whore! I interviewed with them for almost 10 hours, and all that talk was whittled down into five-second sound bites that put me in a rather negative light. Part of our talk was about the crack epidemic. I spoke about the way we are fighting this drug war, which we should approach as a health issue as opposed to a law enforcement problem. I talked about the impact single parenthood has on crime rates. … I talked and talked. They edited it all down to, "If you don't want to go to jail, don't sell crack." I am really angry.

The "wretched blackness" slant was so clear. I was on live for the half-hour preceding the beginning of the program. They ran a long segment with a black comedian/actor, talking about how he tells his son each and every day about how to talk to the police and how black men must be wary of cops. They cut to me, and I said that I was certainly in agreement that we need to talk to our children about respecting authority, but I also wondered if the comedian/actor talked to his son about the proper color shirt to wear in case some knuckleheads have a dislike of the color red or blue. The truth is that his son has more to fear from other young black men than he does from the police. I then quoted a homicide statistic: 94 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other black people. It was dismissed by the moderator so we could focus instead on how racist the cops are. Unbelievable.

It should not surprise me, then, that producers and editors would give liberal, hypersensitive blacks room to make their points -- even if they were factually untrue. They spoke to a professor from Columbia, who was droning on about how the legacy of slavery is to account for blacks' out-of-wedlock birthrate. Slavery?! This nonsense was seconded by another panelist. When I corrected them and said that the out-of-wedlock rate was lower during Jim Crow … eyes began rolling, and my point was ignored in order to move on. And I was reduced to sound bites.

Had to vent a bit.

--Your friend.

If anyone here is the least bit surprised, please leave a comment and tell us why.

But Larry gives the real reasons for what is happening in the black community:

The problems of the "black community" have to do with the welfare-state-induced breakdown (or, more accurately, non-formation) of the family. This causes a disinterest in education, and leads to poor values, reckless and irresponsible breeding, as well as a lack of the job skills necessary in an information-age society. We also have grievance groups -- black "leaders"; the oh-so-sympathetic media; fear- and guilt-laden whites who refuse to say (as they do to their own children) work hard and play by the rules; and many reluctant blacks who refuse to preach the message of "no excuses, hard work" for fear of being labeled "Uncle Toms."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

A Black Conservative Lament
Larry Elder
July 31, 2008

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Obamanomics Is A Recipe For Recession And John McCain Backs Off His 'No-New-Taxes' Pledge

I understand what Barack Obama wants to do. He is a leftist, a collectivist Marxist if you will, and his plan is to confiscate money from those who earned it and then turn around and give that money to those who did not earn it. His message is very clear on that point. Further, he is pledging a trillion dollars in new spending over the next four years.

That is what Marxists do and it always ends up in economic disaster. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Michael J. Boskin, a professor of economics at Stanford University, gives some detailed numbers in describing what would happen under Obama's Marxist plans.

From his column:

First, taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens.

The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!

Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)

On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner or later, would seriously damage the economy.

On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike in the marginal rate with no deductibility of state income taxes. Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more than 40%.


This isn't some scare tactic. It is legitimate analysis by professional economists and those numbers are accurate for Obama's proposed economic policy.

It should give everyone pause to think: Is this really the "change" we want? Is the prospect of a wrecked economy what sent a tingle up Chris Matthews' leg (i.e. his Obamagasm)? Is this what pushed the Obama Girl to sing "I've got a crush on Barack Obama?"

Mr. Boskin's parting shot is especially noteworthy. It shows why we must study history in order to learn from it and not repeat it:

History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession
Michael J. Boskin
Wall Street Journal
July 29, 2008

But on the Republican side, things are not all bright and cheery, especially with some disturbing comments coming from Senator John McCain. Recently, he made overtures to the idea that his "no new taxes" pledge may not be followed. He told the Club for Growth: "I don't want tax increases. but that doesn't mean that any thing is off the table."

It doesn't? Then why did Mr. McCain tell Sean Hannity that there would be no new taxes and no tax increases?

From Charles Babington at TownHall:

At a July 7 town-hall meeting in Denver, he said voters faced a stark choice between him and Democrat Barack Obama.

"Sen. Obama will raise your taxes," McCain said. "I won't."

In a March 16 interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, McCain said he would cut taxes where possible, and not raise them.

"Do you mean none?" Hannity asked.

"None," McCain replied.

But McCain has backed off of those pledges:

McCain's shift has come in stages, catching some Republicans by surprise. Speaking with reporters on his campaign bus on July 9, he cited a need to shore up Social Security. "I cannot tell you what I would do, except to put everything on the table," he said.

He went a step farther Sunday on ABC's "This Week," in response to a question about payroll tax increases.

"There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table," McCain said.

This is one of those times when it becomes very difficult to be a McCain supporter.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain Backs Off His No-New-Tax Pledge
Charles Babington
July 29, 2008


Analysis: McCain Tries To Soothe Tax-Hike Fears
David Espo
July 30, 2008

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Top Ten Things To Expect From An Obama Supreme Court And The Dems Energy Charade

One of the biggest issues facing Americans today is where the Supreme Court will be headed in the next 4 to 8 years. It took over 30 years to undo the Court that back in the 60's and 70's rode roughshod over the American public and forced upon us many ill-advised liberal policies that resulted in the coddling of criminals and walking all over the victims of crimes.

Committee for Justice Executive Director Curt Levey wrote supporters an email which Amanda Carpenter over at TownHall has partially reprinted. Included is a Top Ten list of what we can expect from an Obama Supreme Court. Here they are:

10. Expanding and perpetuating the use of racial preferences

9. Creating new constitutional rights to physician-assisted suicide and human cloning

8. Expanding judicial oversight of military detentions and CIA interrogations

7. Prohibiting tuition vouchers for religious schools

6. Banning the death penalty

5. Requiring taxpayers to fund essentially unlimited abortion rights

4. Creating new constitutional rights to massive government welfare and medical care programs

3. Stripping "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance

2. Eroding property rights

1. Ordering all 50 states to bless gay marriage

Pretty interesting list, especially for those of us who remember how chaotic the 70's were with respect to criminal justice.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Top 10 Things To Expect From Obama Court
Amanda Carpenter
July 28, 2008

And the Democrats still don't get it when it comes to energy. What are they thinking? That we won't see through their smoke and mirror tricks?

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, deconstructs the Dems energy non-policy very nicely and in accurate detail.

From the WSJ:

Consider the details of Drill. It would not have opened new lands to energy exploration. Instead, it would have increased the number of lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve -- the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's (ANWR's) sister territory on Alaska's North Slope -- from one lease sale every two years to one every year. The problem here came in the fine print. The bill would have mandated that leasing be done in an undefined, "environmentally responsible" way.


The Democrats' focus on the National Petroleum Reserve is also striking. While it contains comparable known reserves to ANWR -- 10.6 billion barrels compared to an estimated 10.4 billion barrels in the wildlife refuge -- its fields are spread over 23 million acres. The portion of ANWR territory that should be opened to exploration covers a mere 2,000 acres. The National Petroleum Reserve's fields are a little over 250 miles from the current pipeline infrastructure, while ANWR is only 75 miles away. To top it off, currently there is no production in the National Petroleum Reserve because of ongoing litigation.

By focusing on a patch of Arctic tundra more spread out than ANWR, a greater distance from current pipelines, and subject to lawsuits not addressed by the legislation, the Democrats chose to respond to American cries for expedited drilling in such a way that would have made it harder to produce energy.

There's more. The Drill Act included "use it or lose it" restrictions that prohibit the federal government from issuing new exploration or production leases anywhere, unless the applicant can certify that every lease currently held is being "diligently developed" (again, to be defined later by lawyers) to produce oil or natural gas. Any lease not meeting the yet-to-be-determined standards would have to be relinquished.

Clearly, the Dems are scambling to at least present an illusion that they are doing something about soaring energy prices. But they are insulting our collective intelligence by using these idiotic tricks and thinking that we won't see right through them.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Democrats' Energy Charade
Michele Bachmann
Wall Street Journal
July 29, 2008

Monday, July 28, 2008

Rep. John Linder Statement On the FairTax, July 23, 2008

I repeat these messages every chance I get:

Rep. John Linder July 23, 2008 Statement on the FairTax

Like all the great nations and societies of history the United States is rapidly coming to the end of its existence as a great and powerful country. The shackles of our nearly 70,000 page tax code are making us less and less able to compete in the global economy. Our tax on capital is cutting our businesses off at the knees. Our highest earners have half their income confiscated by the IRS. All of these taxes along with the cost of complying with nearly unfathomable tax regulations put us at a severe disadvantage as competitors in the global economy since these expenses must be added to the price of the goods and services we sell.

Ireland with its business friendly tax laws has experienced a huge economic boom while because of its punitive taxes the United States has experienced an economic slowdown. The Irish are praying that we do not adopt the FairTax. They recognize that the relocation of American companies to Ireland was precipitated by our smothering taxes on capital and labor. Ireland realizes that the establishment of the FairTax would give America the best business climate in the world drawing its American companies back home along with attracting many other foreign businesses.

The passage of the simple, fair, and transparent FairTax Bill, only 132 pages long, will abolish all Federal income taxes, including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, corporate, payroll, and self-employment taxes, and replace them with one simple, visible, personal consumption tax. It would tax what we remove from society by consumption instead of taxing what we contribute to society by production and investment.

Every American household would receive a cash distribution every month to cover the consumption taxes they would spend for their basic nourishment, housing, transportation, and medical needs. There will be zero taxes paid for necessities. Beyond what Americans spend for necessities 23% of what they choose to spend at the retail level for personal use will be forwarded to the treasury. The FairTax will replace dollar for dollar the current revenues confiscated by the IRS.

Politicians have been changing the tax code since 1913 to gain the favor of one voting bloc or another. We have had some 16,000 changes to the code since the mid-eighties and the problems these changes were supposed to help have been exacerbated or replaced with other problems. Therefore, the changes go on and on and on and the power it yields to our politicians corrupts them more and more and more. Our tax code has driven $2 trillion into the underground economy costing us about $50 billion in tax collections. Our tax code has driven $12 trillion into offshore financial centers. These funds should be working in our markets and banks. We are spending between $400 and $500 billion each year just complying with the code. That money is a total and unnecessary loss to the economy.

Everybody complains about the complexity, unfairness, and intrusiveness of the IRS. Our politicians in response to our complaints all claim to be for reforming the tax code but reforming it is not the solution. It does not need reforming. It needs to be replaced by the FairTax. Top American businessmen, tax experts, and economists have devoted years to the development of the simple, fair, and transparent FairTax Bill. These experts spent some 12 years formulating the FairTax Bill. At the pace of our “do nothing” Congress it would take 1200 years to reform our hopelessly complicated Tax Code. Tweaking the Tax Code fixes nothing. Getting rid of the IRS fixes everything.

When John Linder and some of his FairTax supporters presented the FairTax Bill to former Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, he said, “You have just proposed the largest magnet for capital and jobs in history.” It is a good thing for all Americans for the United States to be the outsource destination for jobs. It is a good thing for all Americans for our nation to be the world’s safest and most stable tax haven. The FairTax will give us these results as well as a business climate that will expand freedom.

You can access the original column on-line here:

Rep. John Linder July 23, 2008 Statement On The FairTax
Americans For Fair Taxation
July 25, 2008

Sunday, July 27, 2008

The Press And The Obama Trip, John McCain Fires Back And I Will Be On Sirius Radio This Tuesday

Well, I've been away for a little while and have had very little time to post anything. So, let me get caught up on a few things.

First, this Tuesday, July 29, 2008, at 5:30 p.m., I am going to be on Indie Talk, Sirius Radio Channel 110 during the Blog Bunker Show. They liked my blog and invited me to do an interview with them. Actually, I think it is going to be more like a round-table discussion, but I must say I was surprised (and honored) to be invited. Here is what Sirius Indie Talk is about:

Indie Talk, an exclusive, groundbreaking SIRIUS talk radio channel serves as an uncensored forum for nonpartisan independent thought and opinion. Indie Talk has no agenda: the channel gives an equal voice to individuals from any affiliation or background, targets the blogger generation, and is a platform for listeners across the country to react to breaking news, issues and buzz.

A voice for the common person, Joe and Jane Average American! I'd be pretty foolish to pass this up! So, remember: 5:30 p.m. this Tuesday.

Now, on to some recent issues:

B. Hussein Obama's trip to Iraq and Afghanistan has been shrouded in mystery it seems. Even NBC's Andrea Mitchell is questioning the manner in which the members of the press were treated and how the Obama entourage conducted the media coverage of the whole event.

From NewsBusters:

Andrea Mitchell might be a doyenne of the liberal media, but she has her reporter's pride and principles, which have been trampled by the way the Obama campaign has managed the media during the candidate's current trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitchell let loose on this evening's Hardball, speaking of "fake interviews," and decrying that she was unable to report on pertinent aspects of the trip because the media has been excluded and that the video released is unreliable because it's impossible to know what has been edited out.

Here is what she said:

"Let me just say something about the message management. He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in. You're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews from a journalist. So, there's a real press issue here. Politically it's smart as can be. But we've not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before."

That's pretty scathing coming from a reporter who is known to have a leftist slant. Here's Chris Matthews asking more:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about access to the troops, Andrea. A lot of African-American faces over there, very happy, delighted faces. Is that a representation of the percentage of servicepeople who are African-American, or did they all choose to join someone they like, apparently? What's the story?

MITCHELL: I can't really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations, I just cannot report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines. That's my issue. We don't know what we are seeing.

From Andrea's point of view, this wasn't a fact-finding tour or a visit to get a better understanding of the situation the United States is facing on the world scene. It was nothing more than a dog-and-pony-show photo-op for B. Hussein Obama.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Andrea On Obama Trip: 'What Some Would Call Fake Interviews'
Mark Finkelstein
Junly 21, 2008

And speaking of the campaign trail, the liberal bias of Old Media continues to shine through with George Stephanopoulos and his interview with John McCain at McCain's Arizona ranch on Sunday.

Again, from NewsBusters:

On Sunday's This Week, ABC's George Stephanopoulos condemned John McCain for charging that “Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.” Stephanopoulos, who interviewed McCain on Saturday at his Arizona ranch, declared: “I can't believe you believe that.” McCain insisted “I'm not questioning his patriotism. I'm questioning his actions. I'm questioning his lack, total lack of understanding.”

So, according to Stephanopoulos, questioning someone's judgement or their actions is equivalent to questioning their patriotism? That sounds just like the DNC talking points being repeated rather than a legitimate question by a journalist.

Here is the full exchange. Note how George continues to hammer away the DNC talking points:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You've taken heat this week with your comments saying that Senator Obama would rather lose a war than win a political campaign. I can't believe you believe that.

JOHN McCAIN: Well, I'm not questioning his patriotism. I'm questioning his actions. I'm questioning his lack, total lack of understanding.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that is questioning his patriotism. When you say someone would rather lose a war, a candidate, that's questioning his honor, his decency, his character.

McCAIN: All I'm say something is, and I will repeat, he does not understand. I'm not questioning his patriotism. I am saying that he made the decision which was political in order to help him get the nomination.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So putting lives at risk for a political campaign, you believe he's doing that?

McCAIN: I believe that when he said that we had to leave Iraq and we had to be out by last March and we had to have a date certain, that was in contravention to and still is to the Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General David Petraeus. When he never asked to sit down for a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander on the ground, when he waited 900 days to go back again where young American lives are on the line, I think that's a fundamental lack of understanding and I think the American people will make the appropriate choices.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're questioning his motives.

McCAIN: I say that it was very clear that a decision had to be made, and I made it when it wasn't popular. He made a decision which was popular with his base, and that is a fundamental difference and he does not understand and did not understand and still doesn't understand that the surge was the vital strategy in us not having to lose a war, chaos, genocide, increased influence of Iranians in the region, the consequences of failure would have been severe. Now the benefits are enormous of a stable ally in the region, of a country that is a friend of ours, a break on Iranian influence, certainly a break on al Qaeda and other jihadist organizations. So he made the decision that that was the best way to go to get the nomination of his party.

It's good to see McCain and the Republicans finally getting some backbone into their messages.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Stephanopoulos To McCain: 'I Can't Believe You Believe That'
Brent Baker
July 28, 2008

And according to BlackFive, Senator Obama was colder than an artic wind towards the troops. From an email that came from Afghanistan:

Hello everyone,

As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to ' The War Zone ' . I wanted to share with you what happened.

He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.

As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.

So really he was just here to make a showing for the Americans back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.

I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States . I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.

If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.

In service,

Bagram, Afghanistan

And although some are questioning whether or not this email is legitimate, a similar email also came from Afghanistan:

I had a first hand view of Barrack Obama's "fact finding" mission, when he passed through this base.

While I can't name it, it's one of the largest air bases in the region, with up to 8000 troops (depending on influxes and transients in mobilization/demobilization status), mostly Airmen and Soldiers, but some Marines, Sailors, Koreans, Japanese, Aussies, Brits, US Civil Service, contractors including KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, among others in the news. The overwhelming majority of all of these are professional, courteous and disciplined. Problems are rare.

Casualties are also rare. This base has a large hospital for evacuation—twenty plus beds. I have yet to see a casualty in one, though I am told there are about three evacuations a week through this region, of which two on average are things like sports injuries, vehicle accidents or duty related falls and such. You can tell from the news that the war is going well. The ghouls are now focusing on Afghanistan, since there is no blood to type with here.

This oped is of course subjective and limited, but I will try to present the facts as I saw them. I wasn't able to see much, which makes a point all by itself.

When his plane arrived (also containing Senators Reed and Hagel, but the news has hardly mentioned them), there was a "ramp freeze." This means if you are on the flight line, and not directly involved with the event in question, you stay where you are and don't move. For a combat flight arriving or departing, this takes about ten minutes, and involves the active runway and crossing taxiways only. For Obama's flight, this took 90 minutes, during which time a variety of military missions came grinding to a halt. Obviously, this visit was important, right?

95% of base wanted nothing to do with him. I have met three troops who support him, and literally hundreds who regard him as a buffoon, a charlatan, a hindrance to their mission or a flat out enemy of progress. Even when the rumors were publicly admitted, almost no one left their duty sections to try to see him, unless they were officers whose presence was officially required.

Mister Obama's motorcade drove up from the flight line and entered the dining hall toward the end of lunch time. Diners were chased out and told to make other arrangements for food, in the middle of the duty day.

Now, there are close to 8000 troops on the base and its nearby satellites. No one came up from the Army side (except perhaps a few ranking officers). The airbase resumed operation, once he cleared the flightline, as if nothing had happened. The dining hall holds about 300 people and was not full. The troops did not want to meet him and the feeling was apparently mutual. In attendance, besides the Official Entourage, were the base's senior officers, some support personnel, and a very few carefully vetted supporters who'd made special arrangements. No photos were allowed. No question and answer with the troops. No real acknowledgment that the troops existed.

Obama left around 1530, during the Muslim Call to Prayer, so he's not a practicing Muslim. He was in a convoy guarded by (so I'm told) both State Department and Secret Service Personnel.

Less than three hours…

Within 48 hours he was in Afghanistan. It takes most troops longer than that to in-process and get cleared on safety, threats, policies and such. Yet he somehow made a strategic summary by not talking to anyone and not seeing anything.

Twenty-four hours after that, he was in Kuwait, back here, and then home, so fast we didn't even know he arrived the second time at this base.

I can't imagine any officer of the few he met told him anything other than what they tell the troops, and what their own leadership at the Pentagon tell them—we're winning. Our troops are stomping the guts out of the insurgency. The surge worked and is working. If the insurgents have to divert to Afghanistan, it means they can't fight in Iraq anymore. We should not change the rules and retreat with the enemy on the ropes as we did in Vietnam. We should finish kicking their teeth in. The Iraqi government now controls 10 of 18 provinces, with US assistance in the rest. Let us win the war. 90% of the troops I know, even those opposed to the war, say that is the way to win. Victory comes from winning, not from "change." In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on record as opposing Obama's strategic theory.

Since he obviously knew in advance that's what they'd tell him, and since he didn't care to talk to the troops (we're told by the Left that the troops are horrified, shocked, forced to commit atrocities with tears in their eyes, distraught, burned out, fed up with losing, etc) and find out how they feel, and was barely in country long enough to need a shower and a change of clothes, we can only call this for what it is.

A disgraceful PR stunt, using the troops as a platform for his ego and campaign.

In comparison, I've seen four star generals and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this base. They each held an all ranks call, met with and briefed the personnel, and took questions on every subject from tour length to uniform design to rules of engagement to weapon choice to long term policy, from the newest airmen to the senior NCO with TEN 120-180 day tours since Sep 11. It's very clear they want to know what the troops think, and to keep them informed of events. It's equally clear mister Obama does not.

From here we must move to my op part of the oped.

Obama clearly doesn't care about the troops, doesn't care about America, doesn't care about anything except hearing his own voice and the chance to sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…From where he'll bring us the proven Democratic wartime leadership of Bosnia and the Balkans (US forces still there), Somalia (US forces prevailed despite being ill equipped by executive order, and taking heavy casualties), Haiti (what were we doing there again?), Desert One (oops?), Vietnam (where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory), Korea (still there), WWI, and the fluke success of WWII won by such wonderful liberal notions as concentration camps for Japanese Americans, nukes, FBI investigations of waitresses who dated soldiers in case they were "morally corrupt" and the (valid) occupation of and continued presence in Italy, Japan and Germany for 60 years, which they are conveniently pretending won't happen with Iraq.

That's not "change." That's "failure we can do without."

Perhaps Old Media will look into this? Nah. That would go against the Obamamania of the press and prevent more people from having "Obamagasms."

You can access the BlackFive posts here:

From G.I. in Afghanistan - "We got more thanks from the Dallas cowboy Cheerleaders" than from Senator Obama
July 23, 2008

More Witness Email - Senator Obama's PR Tour
July 24, 2008

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

New York Times Casts Off Any Illusion Of Objectivity Over John McCain Editorial

Please tell me that this doesn't surpirse any of you in the least little bit. Less than one week after the New York Times published an editorial by Barack Obama, the NYT embarks on its own little crusade of censorship and refuses the publish a column by John McCain. Their objection? McCain should have "mirrored" Obama. In other words, the NYT has decreed that McCain should be delivering the same misguided, ignorant message that Obama is shilling.

McCain's work was rejected by NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley. In Shipley's own words: "'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece." Not contrasts it, but mirrors it.

Oh, and did I mention that David Shipley served in the Clinton Administration as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter?

Obama's essay was all about getting out of Iraq, even if it means we lose. Senator McCain holds the viewpoint that we should win the war and then end it. Shipley agrees with Obama and refuses to allow McCain' point of view to be made public through the NYT. Apparently, McCain's viewpoint doesn't fit in with the New York Times' agenda of propaganda.

But, you can read a full text of Senator McCain's essay right here:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

You can access the original story on-line here:

NYT Rejects McCain's Editorial; Should 'Mirror' Obama
Drudge Report
July 21, 2008

Friday, July 18, 2008

The Myth Of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

And we have another convert on the Global Warming issue, that is convert from alarmist to skeptic. And it isn't just an individual, it is an entire organization.

The American Physical Society which once proclaimed Global Warming evidence to be "incontrovertible" is now saying that many of it's members "disbelieve human induced gloabl warming."

That's quite a statement given Al Gore's claim that there was supposedly a "concensus" of scientists on the issue. But why the change?

From DailyTech.com:

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

Why would the IPCC do this? And why would so many scientists come along and support them for doing it? To answer the first question: Because the IPCC is a body of politicians, not scientists. For the second: Those sicentists wanted money and going along with the flawed research of the IPCC was the only way for them to get the money.


In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Yet more turths that Al Gore and his psuedo-scientific followers are finding to be "inconvenient."

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Myth Of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher
Daily Tech
July 16, 208

Nancy Pelosi's Delusional Comments, Breaks Yet Another Promise From 2006

9%. That's all. 9%. That's how many people think the Democrat controlled Congress has been doing a good job. But if you look at their record, the only thing they've done is said, "No."

"No" to lower gas prices. "No" to new refineries. "No" to new nuclear power plants. "No" to keeping taxes low. In fact, they haven't been able to keep a single promise they made back in 2006 in order to get themselves elected to power.

Nancy Peolsi recently gave and interview to CNN and clearly, she has deluded herself into believing that she and the other libs who now control Congress are doing something good. She is doing this in the context of the criticisms that President Bush rightly leveled at Congress, but mostly she is doing it to try and deflect the fact that the President's criticisms are right on the mark.

From CNN:

"God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States -- a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an exclusive interview.

The comments came two days after the president sharply criticized Congress over what he described as relative inaction over the course of the legislative term. At the White House on Wednesday, Bush noted that there were only 26 legislative days left in the fiscal year and said Congress would need to pass a spending bill every other day to "get their fundamental job done."

And what President Bush said was absolutely correct. Despite promises of bi-partisanship (a promise that was broken in less than a week after assuming power), the libs and Dems have absolutely nothing to show for their time in office while the American people languish under high energy costs and a looming economic disaster when the 2001 tax cuts expire and billions of dollars get sucked out of the economy.


"For him to be challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again -- at the end of the day, Congress will have passed its responsibility to pass legislation," she said.

But Pelosi's comments come as a new Gallup poll registers the lowest level of congressional approval among Americans in the polling organization's 30-year history of conducting that survey.

That poll showed that its approval rating had reached an anemic 14 percent, while more than 70 percent of those polled said they disapproved of the job Congress is doing.

The House speaker said she doesn't consider those numbers a negative referendum on the Democrats in charge, saying she thinks they stem largely from Congress' failure to end the war in Iraq.

But, what Pelosi fails to see here is that we are winning the war in Iraq and it is no longer a major concern to us mainstream Americans. The big concern to us is energy costs and gasoline prices which have skyrocketed under the Democrat-controlled Congress. This is what makes her comments delusional. She cannot accept reality and must instead fabricate her own rationalizations.

Check this out:

In the wide-ranging interview, the entirety of which will air Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," Pelosi also reiterated her longtime opposition to lifting a congressional ban on offshore drilling as well as opening up areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil exploration. Bush and congressional Republicans have pushed for those two policy changes.

Pelosi has long opposed drilling offshore, a popular policy position among Californians, many of whom fear its environmental consequences along the state's coastline.

But a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll showed that more than 73 percent of Americans polled approved of lifting the 1981 ban, and the move holds support among many in Pelosi's own party, whose constituents are growing increasingly angry over rising gas prices.

Yet again, a reality that Nancy Pelosi cannot see since she and the libs have completely fallen out of touch with the American people. Like other Dems, she has been parroting the line that oil companies should be drilling on lands that are already leased out. The disconnect with reality here is that the reason the oil companies are not drilling on those lands is because there is no oil underneath them. I wonder if Wolf Blitzer pointed that out to her during the interview? Probably not.

We need to get her and her delusional friends out of office. Her detachment from reality is causing nothing but harm to the American people. But all she can say is: "Bush is a total failure."

She truly is the worst Speaker of the House in history.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pelosi: Bush 'A Total Failure'
Alexander Mooney
July 17, 2008

Thursday, July 17, 2008

A Glimpse Into How Gas Prices Are Affecting Local Economies (Harry Reid Territory, No Less) And The EPA Makes A Power Grab

It's kind of ironic when Dems who are deliberately keeping energy costs high are causing so much damage to their own constituents. Such is the case of Harry Reid (D-NV), the current majority leader of the Senate. Check this out from the Las Vegas Sun:

Southern California gamblers who regularly drive to Las Vegas have cut back their visits by a third because of record gas prices, and those who still come say they’ve cut their gambling back by 29 percent, a new poll has found.

The findings indicate that gas prices are having a greater impact on tourism than can be gleaned from statistics generated by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. They compile key figures such as the number of visitors who drive or fly to Las Vegas, hotel occupancy and room rates, but don’t try to quantify how gas prices affect tourism.


Medick said he wasn’t attempting to quantify the drop in tourism, but rather to identify why some gamblers have stopped coming and at what point they are priced out of Vegas because of gas prices.

The survey follows one he conducted in 2005 gauging the response of Southern California gamblers to gas prices that had risen to more than $3 a gallon at the time.

About 48 percent of the polled Southern California gamblers in 2005 said gas prices had affected their decision to drive to Las Vegas casinos, but the survey didn’t ask motorists to explain what the impact was.

The tourism industry is huge in Las Vegas as well as other major resort destination such as Orlando, Florida and Honolulu, Hawaii. All tourism will take a hit as a result of skyrocketing energy costs and the economy as a whole will take a major downturn unless Congress joins President Bush in calling for more domestic energy production.

It almost seems like justice that Harry Reid's home state should be among the first to begin feeling the pinch of inflated gas prices as brought on by the Democrat-controlled Congress.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Survey: Gas Prices Deter Southern Californians
Liz Benston
Las Vegas Sun
July 8, 2008

And the Heartland Institute has issued a warning about a new set of rules that the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to impose on us. These new rules really amount to an attempted power grab by a group of people who have no accountability whatsoever.

Here are some key points:

Two weeks ago, EPA staff leaked a draft of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on "Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act," which was published in Energy Washington. This document and the policy direction it takes pose a major concern for consumers.

The White House deserves credit for recognizing and opposing the huge economic costs and proposed government restructuring of the recently defeated Boxer-Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, but this draft ANPR is even worse policy than that flawed and rejected bill.

1. The leaked ANPR provides a roadmap to economy-wide regulation of greenhouse gases; it is not a solicitation of comments for a proposed rule.

Normally, federal agencies release Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking to obtain preliminary information prior to issuing a proposed rule or to decide whether to propose a rule. This document goes far beyond that first step. EPA is not requesting preliminary information, but instead is providing a roadmap to economy-wide greenhouse gas regulation.


2. EPA's ANPR supports "all pain, no gain" regulation.

Reducing emissions is painful. An analysis of a carbon "cap-and-trade" proposal considered by the U.S. Senate in 2008 -- the Lieberman-Warner Act -- found it would destroy between 1.2 and 1.8 million jobs in 2020 and between 3 and 4 million jobs in 2030; impose a financial cost of $739 to $2,927 per year by 2020 on national households, rising to $4,022 to $6,752 by 2030; and would increase the price of gasoline between 60 percent and 144 percent by 2030 and the price of electricity by 77 percent to 129 percent. (National Association of Manufacturers / American Council for Capital Formation, "Study of the Economic Impact from the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act," 2008.)


3. The science underpinning ANPR is lacking.

Policymakers should be appalled by the lack of sound scientific analysis in the leaked ANPR. The science is important because the point of the document is to help the EPA Administrator determine whether greenhouse gases "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare or to explain why the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it prevents making a reasoned judgment on such a determination." This is the entire point of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.


4. Apparently EPA has not independently assessed the science; it defers to the United Nations.

EPA apparently has not independently assessed the science of global warming. Instead it seems to rely exclusively on the global warming reports from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is disturbing because the IPCC's reports are not peer-reviewed and they do not include the latest science. The IPCC cut-off for science papers was May 2006. (For a critique of the IPCC's latest report, along with more recent research and data on issues ignored by the IPCC, see Singer, S. Fred, ed., Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate, Summary for Policymakers of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Science and Environmental Policy Project, April 2008; http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22835)


5. Congress, not EPA, should be the principal in developing energy and climate change policy.

The proposed ANPR is an attempt by a rogue agency within the executive branch of government to establish new regulation under the Clean Air Act without the consent of Congress. This type of regulation is the prerogative of elected officials, who are accountable to the electorate and must authorize such activity, not unelected bureaucrats.

The regulatory changes envisioned in the ANPR are sweeping, even breath-taking. If such a vast expansion of the regulatory state is to be brought about, it must be a legislative effort, not a purely regulatory effort. This effort by EPA appears to be designed to force Congress to enact greenhouse gas regulations that would redistribute wealth rather than address climate change or energy policy. Congress should not be forced to act at regulatory gunpoint.

The Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill was an attempt by members of Congress to address the issue of climate change. The bill failed because constituents, labor unions, and special-interest groups contacted their representatives -- elected officials -- and indicated their strong displeasure with the economic costs, the reorganization of government, and the impact on domestic energy supplies. Because it is accountable to voters, Congress defeated the bill. EPA must not be allowed to circumvent this democratic procedure.

This needs to die before it goes any further. The EPA has stepped way out of bounds here.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

EPA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR): Alert 1
Heartland Institute
July 9, 2008

Diplomas For The Jihadis? Hasn't Worked Before And It Won't Work Now.

You can always count of Michelle Malkin to find that one little nugget of news, that one little tidbit of information that the lesser jounalists of Old Media will always miss. She found this one during the political firestorm over a front-page cartoon ran by the New Yorker. Michelle notes:

The magazine piece quotes Obama's recommendations for how to stop jihad, which he had previously published in a local Chicago newspaper eight days after 9/11. It's a self-parody of blind, deaf and dumb Kumbaya liberalism:

"We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."

Well, Michelle gives us some pretty good examples as to why this policy is a failure since we have already tried it and it returned to bite us in the collective rear-end:

Author and National Review Online blogger Mark Steyn's sharp rejoinder to McCain then applies to Obama now: "There's plenty of evidence out there that the most extreme 'extremists' are those who've been most exposed to the west -- and western education: from Osama bin Laden (summer school at Oxford, punting on the Thames) and Mohammed Atta (Hamburg University urban planning student) to the London School of Economics graduate responsible for the beheading of Daniel Pearl. The idea that handing out college scholarships to young Saudi males and getting them hooked on Starbucks and car-chase movies will make this stuff go away is ridiculous -- and unworthy of a serious presidential candidate."

Ayman al-Zawahiri didn't need more education or wealth to steer him away from Islamic imperialism and working toward a worldwide caliphate. He has a medical degree. So does former Hamas biggie Abdel al-Rantissi. Seven upper-middle-class jihadi doctors were implicated in the 2007 London/Glasgow bombings. Suspected al-Qaida scientist Aafia Siddiqui, still wanted by the FBI for questioning, is a Pakistani who studied microbiology at MIT and did graduate work in neurology at Brandeis.

And as I've reported before and must reiterate for the hard of hearing in Washington, lowering academic standards at American colleges helped al-Qaida mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed further the jihadi cause. In the early 1980s, he enrolled at tiny Chowan College in Murfreesboro, N.C., which had dropped its English requirements to attract -- ahem -- wealthy Middle Easterners.

This policy of giving Western educations to those who hate the West has been shown to be nothing but a failure. It shouldn't be surprising that Barack Obama would embrace it since he is also embracing the disastrously failed Socialist economic policies of the Carter Administration.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Diplomas Won't Make Jihadis Go Away, Barack
Michelle Malkin
July 16, 2008

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Congress Fiddles While The Economy Burns

Got this in my email from FairTax.org. Read it. It's good:

Dear FairTax supporters,

Our cause continues to gather steam in hometown America—while, with smoke in the air, Congress fiddles.

Could it be more obvious that we will have to save the nation from our own elected officials and candidates?

Retirement investments, savings and college education accounts are evaporating as the stock market falls—while at the same time leading economists predict that trillions of dollars can and will flow into the United States economy after enactment of the FairTax.

Candidate Obama signals a desire to raise the amount of money the government takes from the growth of savings and investments while the country has the lowest savings rate since the Great Depression.

With gasoline, food prices and inflation rapidly escalating and housing values falling, former Senator and John McCain economic adviser, Phil Gramm, says we’re all just a nation of “whiners” and the economy is really just fine.

Candidate McCain has changed his earlier Iowa tune and now tells audiences that the FairTax is not the answer.

Congress and the White House borrow $165 billion from other nations to finance taxpayer rebate checks to stimulate the American economy and ignore the wasted $265 billion annual cost of citizens and businesses preparing income tax returns.

Meanwhile, the powerful Chairman of the House Committee on Ways & Means, Charles Rangel, practices politics as usual and solicits big business for big contributions to his Charles Rangel Center in New York City—and with a wink and a nod Washington adds more loopholes and tax gimmicks for favored interests.

The United Nations concluded this week that three-quarters of the reason for higher food prices can be traced back to turning agriculture to bio-fuel production—here in the U.S. it is another recent ham-handed tax break by the meddling Ways & Means Committee.

While leaders ignore the crisis, citizens work for a FairTax solution

While "leaders" turn a deaf ear to our destructive tax system or offer medicine that will worsen the economic downturn, hometown America is quietly and steadily moving us toward the FairTax.

Hundreds of people recently turned out for a FairTax seminar in Georgia designed to equip average citizens with the means to spread the word to fellow Americans and wake up elected officials.

The Postal Workers Union is considering embracing the FairTax at its national convention.

In Oklahoma, all but one member of the Congressional delegation have co-sponsored FairTax legislation because of the determined and relentless work of local advocates.

A documentary team from Georgia is traveling the nation recording the determined but under-financed FairTax movement.

XM Satellite Radio just featured FairTax.org on "Open Road," Channel 171, heard across the country and a favorite of long-haul truckers. Host Dave Nemo enthusiastically added the FairTax web link to his home page. Other radio hosts from Michigan, Virginia, California, Florida, Arizona, Colorado and elsewhere and the always popular Neal Boortz and Herman Cain continue to support the issue with their audiences.

Candidates for Congress in West Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Colorado, Arizona and elsewhere have embraced the FairTax.

At kitchen tables across the country FairTaxers are finding their own ways to push the movement--from YouTube and MySpace videos to letters to the editor to friendly conversations with neighbors.

Keep the faith—and keep the FairTax movement growing!

It's our nation and we'll have to save it from the original bad idea of an income tax that just keeps getting worse at the hands of tax lobbyists and the corrupted Congressional tax writing process.

Now is the time for all citizens to band together and make the case for the FairTax. Tell your newspaper editor, tell your elected officials and tell your friends, neighbors and colleagues. Our country, our children and our future depend on this common sense solution—and it could not be more needed than right now.

For every FairTaxer who writes a letter to Congress, goes to a Town Hall meeting, talks with a candidate, writes to the local newspaper, wears the FairTax cap or proudly displays the FairTax window sticker—thank you!

For those who feel that someone else will get it done—wake up and smell the coffee because this lifeboat needs your oar.

Our progress is slow but steady. Recruit one more FairTaxer and move us forward one more step at a time. Together we can make it come true.


Ken Hoagland
Communications Director

McCain Discusses Bill For Illegal Immigrants

Although Sen. McCain is still pushing for "comprehensive" reform, here is a little something about his current stance on border security. This comes from the speech event he recently attended with La Raza:

McCain continued to field questions even after La Raza organizers tried to wrap up the session. After organizers took the audience microphone, McCain tossed his own wireless microphone to Enrique Morones, a controversial leader of the Border Angels group.

Morones, whose group provides water and other help for those who have crossed the border illegally, challenged McCain to end the "militarization of the border."

McCain responded without hesitation that drugs flowing across the border were a serious problem and that there was little room for negotiation when it came to border security.

"The United States of America has to have secure borders, but we can address the issue in a humane fashion," he said.

Still not perfect but light years ahead of Sen. Obama and the other Dems on this issue.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain Discusses Bill For Illegal Immigrants
Martin Wisckol
Orange County Register
July 14, 2008

Will To Drill Is Strong And A New Political Cliche

Two items today that go right to the heart of our energy crisis. The first is from Investor's Business Daily. Just the first paragraph alone sets a very telling tone:

Contrary to claims by Al Gore and others that global warming is the greatest challenge of our time, Americans by better than 3-to-1 say the price of gasoline is a bigger problem now, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll.

Moreover, they stand willing to do something about it, including and especially drilling for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and in federal shale reserves in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

Even drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is backed by a plurality of Americans.


Only 23% say climate change is more important.

The sentiment prevails across the board — among men and women, old and young, rich and poor, and Republicans, independents and Democrats, two-thirds of whom say gas prices are more important.

That really says it all. So, when is Congress going to do something about it? More importantly, when are we Americans going to get rid of the do-nothing members and vote in people who will get things done?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Will To Drill Is Strong, Poll Finds; Climate Change Pales As Concern
Investor's Business Daily
July, 14, 2008

And why should we boot out the Congress we elected in 2006? Hugh Hewitt gives us the answer, once again right from the very first paragraph:

The economic mess the country confronts can be laid at the feet of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The Don’t Drill Democrats are forcing deindustrialization through depression brought about by soaring energy costs. This is a man-made meltdown, and make no mistake: The Democrats could halt and reverse the skyrocketing cost of oil, but they are choosing not to.

The results of their inaction/choice not to act have been staggering and will only get worse:

The impact of the massive oil shock brought about by the rise of oil to more than $140 a barrel has just begun to be felt. The airline industry has gotten organized to alert everyone it can that it cannot continue to stagger along at this price. Eight airlines are completely gone that flew a year ago, and many others are on the brink. Layoffs and new charges to battle soaring costs are hardly worth noting they arrive so frequently.

Tremors continue to course through Wall Street as investors shunned mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and yesterday worried Congressmen throw questions at the Fed Chairman and the secretary of the Treasury: How bad can it get?

Very bad. As I noted in another blog posting, oil is not our lifeblood; it is our energy. We need it like the human body needs food. To repeat the idiotic mantra that we need to "wean ourselves off of oil" is like saying that we humans need to "wean ourselves off of food." Only an idiot would believe such a claim.


The environmental lobby owns Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and Barack Obama –the brave new leader—doesn’t dare take it or them on. That lobby is applauding the deindustrialization underway, and their attitude is that a depression wouldn’t be such a bad thing as a lesson in learning how to live within our environmental means. Their jobs aren’t on the line, after all, and their disdain for the impacted industries is complete.

What they and the Triple D Democrats hasn’t counted on, though, was America making the connection between the deteriorating economy and their anti-energy agenda.

Energy is freedom. Energy is prosperity. Every Democrat on the fall ballot is part of the anti-energy party which is wrecking havoc on the economy and every family’s budget. A vote for any Democrat is a vote for shortages, rising gas prices, rising unemployment, and falling production.

I don't like political cliches, but the one for 2008 is "It's the oil, stupid!"

You can access the complete column on-line here:

It's The Oil, Stupid
Hugh Hewitt
July 11, 2008

Friday, July 11, 2008

Hawking A Sports Fiction Novel For The Olympic Year (Themes: Running, Swimming, Pole-Vaulting)

The Olympics will be upon us on August 8, 2008 and the U.S. roster has been filling fast in recent weeks. Of particular interest to me were the Swimming and Track & Field trials. Those two sports figure prominently in the sports-fiction novel A Reason To Try by Tom LaLumiere.

Here is a synopsis:

Coming from a troubled home and a problematic childhood, Brian Coulombe was the last person anyone thought would achieve anything at Cavalcade High School back in 1981. After a near-death experience jolts him back to reality and he discovers his affections for one of his female teammates, he finds within himself a desire to strive higher and work harder. Beginning as a sophomore and all the way through his senior year, Brian learns how to do the most difficult event in track and field: the pole-vault. In his efforts to reach his goals, he learns that working inside the rules is what allows him to soar. But when his dream girl finally tells him "no," he slips back outside the rules and must work to rebuild his world. With the help of his friends and his desire to become the best, he learns that there is always a reason to try.

And here is an excerpt from the book.

In this scene, Brian is competing in the pole-vault at the Stanton Invitational Track & Field Meet being held at Mount St. Mary's College in Emmitsburg, Maryland. The bar is set at fouteen feet and six inches, a hieght that seventeen-year-old Brian Coulombe had never cleared before. Not only is he dealing with the pressure of this being a personal best, he is also dealing with the fact that if he clears the bar, he wins, but if he misses, he goes home in second place.

Brian walked over to the edge of the track to have a talk with his coach.

“Mr. Hoskins. Do you have any last second advice?”

“I have a last second question. How many misses do you have compared to him?”

“I have one more miss than he does. I would lose on the tie-breaker if I miss this one.”

“Well, then. The only advice I can give you is ‘don’t miss.’ Brian, sometimes you have to stand out on your own and bear the full brunt of a situation completely by yourself. This is one of those times.”

As Brian was making his way back to the pole-vault area, Ellen, who had been doing a warm-up jog with the two-mile relay team, stopped him. He was a little surprised at this and wondered what she planned on saying to him.

“How are you doing in there?” she asked.

“Well, if I make this jump, then I win. If I miss it, then it’s second place.”

Brian tried to keep his eyes on her but kept darting them in different directions.

Ellen smiled, looked directly into Brian’s eyes and said, “Hey, Brian. How bad do you want it?”

Brian returned the smile and walked back to the pole-vault runway and picked up his pole. After Ellen spoke to him, a calm washed completely over him. He felt no pressure at all. On the runway, he knelt down for a minute and then, for the first time ever as a pole-vaulter, did the “Sign of the Cross” in traditional Roman Catholic style and said to himself, if God is willing then so am I. He stood up on the runway and stared down at the box. Like that of his competitor, his own pole came up and down several times as the waiting for the most perfect moment continued. When that moment came, Brian lifted his pole and began his sprint. At the seventh step, his right hand thrust the pole directly over his head as he made the plant and then went airborne. His rock-back and kick-through inverted him as he could feel himself being shot skyward. He could feel no mistakes, no anomalies in the motion. As he crossed his right foot over his left, he knew that he would clear the bar. With less than half an inch to spare, he passed over the bar and began his descent into the soft pits below and his biggest victory yet.

Brian stood up in the pits and began his celebration dance by doing a standing back-flip. He then exited the pit and began jumping up and down and rolling his clenched fists towards the sky. Never in his life had he felt such a feeling. He calmed down enough to receive congratulations from the referee and the other vaulters and then looked over into the team area where he was being given a standing ovation. That made him feel even better. Ellen was applauding and cheering along with everyone else. What more could he have asked for on this day?

The awards ceremony was quick, but notable. For the first time at a major track meet, Brian was standing on the Gold Medal platform. At least five photographers were there to snap pictures of the top three placing pole-vaulters. Then he went back to the team area to relax and wait until it was time to leave. Everyone on the team offered personal congratulations and added comments like: “Awesome!” or “Fantastic!” or “That was amazing!”

A few hours later, even though the meet was still going on, all of the Cavalcade athletes had completed their events, so the team packed up and headed home. The bus ride back to Temple Hills was as quiet as the ride out. Just as he did after the State Indoor Meet, Brian slowly caressed the medal hanging around his neck. He looked up towards the front and saw Ellen with her head leaning against the bus seat and her eyes closed. Around her neck she wore the gold medal for the Girl’s mile. They were the only two gold medals for Cavalcade that day.

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 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

Holding Democrats Accountable For Our Energy Crisis

This is one column that holds back nothing. It is clear, concise and unambiguous about what is happening with regards to energy production, the world market and how the Democrat controlled Congress is actively working to make the problem worse thereby "sticking it" to the American middle class.

It is no secret that the Dems have been laboring feverishly to ensure that we Americans cannot produce lower-cost energy here at home. They have blocked drilling in ANWR, off-shore and they've blocked the construction of new nuclear power plants. Additionally, they have blocked the construction or upgrade of oil refineries.

Chris Adamo, writing for GOPUSA, notes that the American public is getting wise to the Democrats and also explains what the public is becoming aware of. From his latest column:

Simple economics, the principles of which are becoming painfully apparent to every American who stops to fill up the family sedan, dictate that when disproportionate multitudes of customers have to compete for a limited supply of fossil fuels, prices will rise. Thus all of the liberal/environmentalist efforts to curtail the availability of the world's oil, specifically by hamstringing America's ability to exploit its own natural resources, have only succeeded in driving up the cost of those resources for all who want or need them.

Yes. And I feel the need to once again bring up the promise that Nancy Pelosi made back in 2006 about the Dems having a "commonsense" plan for bringing gas and energy prices down. They have done nothing but drive prices up since they took over Congress. But it isn't just their policy of constantly saying "no" to domestic energy production. There is much more to it than that:

From a worldwide perspective, the "free market" would currently yield a much lower price for a barrel of oil than recent numbers which exceed one hundred forty dollars. This fact being well understood among oil producing nations, particularly in the Middle East, where major oil producers banded together to form the infamous "Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries" or OPEC.


In essence, an artificial "monopoly" has been created among the member nations, whereby they can unilaterally determine what the rest of the world will pay for its energy needs. But for this monopoly to survive and thrive, it requires the defacto cooperation of all other parties involved. Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of this situation is that such "cooperation" is effectively coming from the Democrat controlled Congress of the United States.

By stubbornly refusing any consideration of exploring, drilling, and thus expanding American oil production, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) and Senate Majority Harry Reid (D.-NV) along with their Democrat political machine in Washington, are effectively forcing the entire American oil industry into the role of collaborating OPEC members. In a sinister sense, America is officially refusing to increase the world production of oil, thus strengthening the OPEC monopoly and its ability to deliberately inflate the price of crude oil.

So, the Dems are not just screwing us here at home. They are actively allowing oil producing nations to screw us from abroad as well. Why isn't Old Media or even the rank-and-file Democrats holding Nancy Pelosi's feet to the fire for breaking her 2006 promise?


It makes no difference when paying the bill at the gas pump that Pelosi, Reid, and their liberal political cohorts are claiming to do their deed for the sake of the planet, as opposed to the Arab nations who simply want to maximize profits. The end product is the same. Americans are senselessly forced to crunch their personal budgets in order to keep the family car rolling.

Elsewhere around the world, the predictable fallout from liberal policy making hits much harder. Food prices are soaring, both as a result of higher costs to grow and transport edible crops, along with the insane practice of sapping food supplies in order to use basic grains for the production of ethanol in a dubious scheme to supplement gas supplies.

Meanwhile, those most responsible for the current energy calamity offer only environmental sanctimony, entwined in the hoax of "global warming," as their justification.

And let's not forget that Congressional approval ratings have fallen to single digits for the first time in history. Also keep in mind that this happened less than two years after the Dems took control and began their assault on our economy. But the Dems are hoping to deflect from these issues by bringing out smoke-and-mirror tactics such as fabricating an impeachment of the President. This will only hurt them.

America's families suffer a loss of buying power, and American workers are barred from gainful employment among the abundant natural resources that exist across this land and just off its shores. In response, Representative Maxine Waters (D.-CA) expresses her desire for the government to nationalize the oil industry, and Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama reveals his contempt for middle America, which he believes is excessively lavish in its lifestyles and use of energy resources.

Those are the real issues. Socialists don't want to confront the disaster they would inflict on everyone else. They simply try to dodge the issue by falsely claiming that the blame lies elsewhere. The American voting public isn't buying it.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Holding Liberals Accountable For Energy Woes
Christopher G. Adamo
July 10, 2008