Obama Turning The Corner On The Gulf Oil Spill?

After all the rhetoric Obama and his cronies spewed last week, they apparently seem to think the crisis is over since their attention is no longer focused on the spill.

According to Michael D. Shear of the Washington Post:

Has the president turned the corner on the oil drilling crisis? This week's schedule for President Obama suggests that the White House believes he has. After dominating the conversation in Washington all last week, the environmental crisis in the Gulf of Mexico does not appear front and center on the White House calendar. Not that the West Wing can afford to take their eye off the ball, as chief of staff Rahm Emanuel acknowledged yesterday during a rare Sunday morning television appearance. "What's important is, are we capping the well?," he told ABC's Jake Tapper on the network's "This Week" program. "Are we capturing the oil? Are we containing the clean-up? Are we filing the claims? Are we also cleaning up the mess? That's what's important." But the administration is clearly expecting -- maybe hoping -- that the intense public attention on the spill fades a bit, starting with this week, giving them a chance to turn to other subjects.

Wait a minute! We are entering Summer vacation time and a large segment of America's vacation region is being threatened by a massive oil spill and the White House actually believes that our attention can be directed elsewhere? This is just another attempt by Obama to cover-up his own incompetence at handling the situation.

Here is what Obama has planned as a diversion:

For the rest of the week, Obama and his aides hope they can focus on Afghanistan, health insurance reform, relations with Russia (whose president arrives for a visit on Thursday) and the global economy. Obama departs Thursday for Canada for the G-20 gathering of the world's largest economies. Ahead of the meeting, the president warned the group last week that members must redouble their prior commitments or risk allowing the global economy to sink once again. Tuesday's meeting with state health care commissioners is another chance for Obama to remind the public of the benefits he predicts will come from the massive overhaul of the nation's health-care system. And Tuesday night's White House celebration of gay and lesbian pride month should be an upbeat event for Obama. That constituency -- which has been angry about the slow pace of some changes -- is likely to be happier at this year's version of the annual event, as Congress is on the verge of ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Yes! God forbid that the worst environmental disaster in the Gulf take any time away from pandering to the radical agenda of gays and lesbians! Clearly listening to the complaints of the gay community is more important than solving the problem that is putting thousands of people in the Gulf region out of work and destroying the livelihood of thousands more!

Whatever complaints the Dems had about the way George W. Bush handled Katrina, Obama has proven to be at least twice as bad.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Turning The Corner On The Gulf Oil Spill?
Michael D. Shear
Washington Post
June 21, 2010

James Carville Asks Obama: "What Took You So Long?"

Yes, Carville really said that.

FACT CHECK: Obama Left Blanks In Oil Spill Speech

Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press looks into Obama's speech from last night and how certain claims stacked up against reality:

OBAMA: "We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused and we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. ... Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party." THE FACTS: An independent arbiter is no more bound to the government's wishes than an oil company's. In that sense, there is no certainty BP will be forced to make the Gulf economy whole again or that taxpayers are off the hook for the myriad costs associated with the spill or cleanup. The government can certainly press for that, using legislative and legal tools. But there are no guarantees and the past is not reassuring. It took 20 years to sort through liability after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, and in the end, punitive damages were slashed by the courts to about $500 million from $2.5 billion. Many people who had lost their livelihoods in the spill died without ever seeing a check. ___ OBAMA: "In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well." THE FACTS: BP and the administration contend that if all goes as planned, they should be able to contain nearly 90 percent of the worst-case oil flow. But that's a big "if." So far, little has gone as planned in the various remedies attempted to shut off or contain the flow. Possibly as much as 60,000 barrels a day is escaping. BP would need to nearly triple its recovery rate to reach the target. ___ OBAMA: Temporary measures will capture leaking oil "until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely." THE FACTS: That's the hope, but experts say the relief well runs the same risks that caused the original well to blow out. It potentially could create a worse spill if engineers were to accidentally damage the existing well or tear a hole in the undersea oil reservoir. ___ OBAMA: "From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation's history." THE FACTS: Early on, the government established a command center and put Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen in charge of coordinating the overall spill response. But officials also repeatedly have emphasized that BP was "responsible" and they have relied heavily on BP in making decisions from hiring cleanup workers to what oil dispersing chemicals to use. Local officials in the Gulf region have complained that often they don't know who's in charge _ the government or BP. ___ OBAMA: "We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore." THE FACTS: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and local officials pleaded for weeks with the Army Corps of Engineers and the spill response command for permission to build about 40 miles of sand berms along the barrier islands. State officials applied for an emergency permit to build the berms May 11, but as days went by Jindal became increasingly angry at federal inaction. The White House finally agreed to a portion of the berm plan on June 2. BP then agreed to pay for the project. The corps was worried that in some cases such a move would alter tides and drive oil into new areas and produce more harm than good. ___ OBAMA: "Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue." THE FACTS: Obama issued a six-month moratorium on new permits for deepwater drilling but production continues from existing deepwater wells.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

FACT CHECK: Obama Left Blanks In Oil Spill Speech
Calvin Woodward
AP via TownHall.com
June 16, 2010

Nancy Pelosi's Delusional Stance On "Trying To Save The Planet"

I swear, the Dems never cease to amaze me with how incredibly naive they are in their own beliefs and with their sadly mistaken idea that we will beleive anything they say. Nancy Pelosi's comments to the Politco about why she refuses to allow a vote on domestic production of energy is proof positive of that.

When asked why she was blocking a vote on a bill that is overwhemlingly supported by the American people, she said: "I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet."

Well, Charles Krauthammer over at TownHall looks into that and finds that by forcing Americans to buy foreign oil, she is doing more harm to the environment than if we were producing oil here at home.

From his column:

Places like Nigeria where chronic corruption, environmental neglect and resulting unrest and instability lead to pipeline explosions, oil spills and illegal siphoning by the poverty-stricken population -- which leads to more spills and explosions. Just this week, two Royal Dutch Shell pipelines had to be shut down because bombings by local militants were causing leaks into the ground. Compare the Niger Delta to the Gulf of Mexico where deep-sea U.S. oil rigs withstood Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single undersea well suffering a significant spill. The United States has the highest technology to ensure the safest drilling. Today, directional drilling -- essentially drilling down, then sideways -- allows access to oil that in 1970 would have required a surface footprint more than three times as large. Additionally, the U.S. has one of the most extensive and least corrupt regulatory systems on the planet.

So, what is Pelosi and company trying to save us from? A healthy economy? Lower energy costs? She certainly isn't trying to protect the environment, not by a long-shot.

More:

Does Pelosi imagine that with so much of America declared off-limits, the planet is less injured as drilling shifts to Kazakhstan and Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea? That Russia will be more environmentally scrupulous than we in drilling in its Arctic? The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is negative. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world -- thereby increasing net planetary damage.

But Pelosi would never let facts get in her way. She apparently believes that she knows best despite the fact that doesn't even know what the facts are. One of her party's favorite lines to parrot is "We can't drill our way out of this!"

But apprently, the Saudis can drill for us.

Check this out:

Democrats want no oil from the American OCS or ANWR. But of course they do want more oil. From OPEC. From where Americans don't vote. From places Democratic legislators can't see. On May 13, Sen. Chuck Schumer -- deeply committed to saving just those pieces of the planet that might have huge reserves of American oil -- demanded that the Saudis increase production by a million barrels a day. It doesn't occur to him that by eschewing the slightest disturbance of the mating habits of the Arctic caribou, he is calling for the further exploitation of the pristine deserts of Arabia. In the name of the planet, mind you.

Not only are the Dems completely out of touch on the energy issue, they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes as well.

It won't work. Too many of us can see right through it. They offered us bio-fuels and we got higher food and gas prices as a result. Is this the "common sense approach" to lower energy costs that Pelosi promised back in 2006? That promise was nothing more than a bold-faced lie.

Here's more:

The other panacea, yesterday's rage, is biofuels: We can't drill our way out of the crisis, it seems, but we can greenly grow our way out. By now, however, it is blindingly obvious even to Democrats that biofuels are a devastating force for environmental degradation. It has led to the rape of "lungs of the world" rainforests in Indonesia and Brazil as huge tracts have been destroyed to make room for palm oil and sugar plantations. Here in the U.S., one out of every three ears of corn is stuffed into a gas tank (by way of ethanol), causing not just food shortages abroad and high prices at home, but intensive increases in farming with all of the attendant environmental problems (soil erosion, insecticide pollution, water consumption, etc.). This to prevent drilling on an area in the Arctic one-sixth the size of Dulles Airport that leaves untouched a refuge one-third the size of Britain. There are a dizzying number of economic and national security arguments for drilling at home: a $700 billion oil balance-of-payment deficit, a gas tax (equivalent) levied on the paychecks of American workers and poured into the treasuries of enemy and terror-supporting regimes, growing dependence on unstable states of the Persian Gulf and Caspian basin. Pelosi and the Democrats stand athwart shouting: We don't care. We come to save the planet!

Clearly, the Dems are caught up in their own delusions and expect us to blindly follow them. No, thanks. I'll stick with the facts of reality.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Drilling And Blissful Ignorance
Charles Krauthammer
TownHall.com
August 1, 2008

Running On Empty: Democrat Energy Policies Ignore Reality

How much longer will they cling to the fantasy that alternative energy will get us off of foreign oil? What are these new technologies that will lead to some sort of prosperity?

We've already seen what a disastrous failure ethanol has been. The ethanol plan has a) caused us to use more oil than ever before b) caused an increase in gasoline prices and c) has lead to higher food prices. And ethanol was supposedly our best hope for an alternative energy source. What are the others? The truth is, they don't exist. Most of the ideas being vaguely alluded to by Barack Obama aren't even off of the planning boards and are not, in any way shape or form, proven to be a more efficient energy supply than petroleum.

So, why are the Dems so dead set on continuing these failed policies?

Fred Barnes, writing for the Weekly Standard notes a few things:

Advances in oil technology--which Obama either doesn't know about or chooses to ignore--allow drilling to go far deeper beneath the sea and thus farther from the coast. Some oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are nearly 200 miles from land. Serious spills from drilling offshore have become practically non-existent. More than 100 rigs in the Gulf were damaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single spill. So Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, was wrong. Now, like other Democrats, he's in a politically awkward position. He opposes new drilling for oil and natural gas at a time when drilling in areas currently off limits has become popular. Three-fourths of likely voters in a new Zogby poll said they favor it, and Republicans have made it their top issue against Democrats. Democrats appear wary of saying they oppose any boost in domestic oil production, which happens to be the position of a powerful interest group, the environmental lobby. But despite soaring gasoline prices, Democrats are against opening new areas of federal land or offshore for exploitation of oil and natural gas reserves.

Perhaps that is the answer. The Dems are beholden to the radical environmental lobby and are willing to toss Joe and Jane Average American under the bus in order to placate the environmentalists. In other words, they want Joe and Jane Average American to pay for the failed policies of the liberal-leftists.

More:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last week that the Democratic Congress is "moving America in a new direction for energy independence." But preserving the ban on offshore drilling isn't new. The ban has been in effect since 1981, but Pelosi said it's not responsible for high gasoline prices. Who's really to blame? The Bush administration and the oil companies, she said. Pelosi's most implausible claim is that energy companies are hoarding oil. If so, they're doing this as gasoline prices have reached a record high price. And these companies are the same ones that Democrats accuse of being greedy and reaping "obscene profits." Hoarding oil--keeping it off the market--certainly makes no economic sense, which is why oil companies aren't doing it. As supposed evidence, Democrats cite the absence of drilling in 68 million acres of federal oil reserves leased by oil companies. In truth, these areas are under active exploration that may lead to drilling. Drilling, of course, is the last step in oil production. Whatever Democrats may think, oil companies don't drill first, then explore later to find if drilling is actually worthwhile. Oil companies pay billions to the federal government each year for oil leases, most of which expire after 10 years. They pay an annual fee as well. In 2007, they paid $7 billion for oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico alone. Would they spend so much for leases and fail to follow up and look for oil? Not likely. Pelosi also made this boast: "The New Direction Congress has enacted into law the first new fuel efficiency standards for vehicles in 32 years." The law would boost vehicle fuel standards to 35 miles a gallon--in 2020. But this legislation was entirely unnecessary. The free market is already increasing fuel efficiency. Car buyers are rushing to trade in gas guzzlers for vehicles with better mileage. And auto companies are closing plants that manufacture low mileage cars as fast as they can as they switch to building more efficient cars.

In other words, the Dems are all talk and no action. They will work their rear-ends off to satisfy a leftist lobby group, but will merely turn a cold shoulder to honest, hard-working, tax-paying Americans.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Running On Empty
Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard
June 23, 2008

Gas Prices Emerging As The #1 Issue, But Is Senator McCain Listening?

We now have an issue we can lock onto and really draw a direct comparison between the Free Market Republicans and the Socialist Democrats. Gasoline price and domestic energy production. And, if the Republicans and Senator McCain play their cards right, it could go a long way towards bringing some sanity back to the halls of Congress this November.

From Dr. Bobby Eberle at GOPUSA:

It was easy for Democrats to blame the "big" oil companies. They would bring oil executives before Congress, lambast them, and feel good about themselves. However, public opinion is changing. The American people are seeing through the left-wing effort to cloud the issue. The price of gasoline is driven by supply and demand. The proper approach is to address both aspects. We should conserve and look for energy alternatives to hit the "demand" side. We should also look at the "supply" side and see how ridiculous it is to leave the fate of America in the hands of unstable Middle-Eastern countries when we have huge supplies of untapped domestic oil. Americans want to drill at home, and Sen. McCain has a golden opportunity to seize upon this issue. Is he listening? In a recent survey by Rasmussen Reports, Scott Rasmussen notes that "most voters favor the resumption of offshore drilling in the United States and expect it to lower prices at the pump."

According to the Rasmussen poll, 67% of voters now believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California and Florida compared to 18% who are opposed.

Heck, even China plans on drilling off the coast of Florida and they plan on drilling directionally to tap mineral reserves that lie within U.S. waters! Why shouldn't we drill there instead?

Dr. Eberle goes on:

In his speech, McCain says: "But the stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy. And with gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians. We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. "We can do this in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection. And in states that choose to permit exploration, there must be an appropriate sharing of benefits between federal and state governments. But as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production." Here, the senator is right on target. We must increase domestic production to address the "supply" side of the equation. Congress is standing in the way, and the American people must make their voices heard on this issue. Just as we stopped their attempts at amnesty, if we join together, we can demand more domestic oil production. Make no mistake... through legislation and regulations, Congress is responsible for our vast dependence on the Middle East for oil. This is where the left is so out of touch. People like New York Sen. Chuck Schumer stand up and demand that President Bush pressure countries like Saudi Arabia to increase production, but he won't allow production at home? The president gets criticized by the liberals for being a "bully," but that's exactly what Schumer wants the president to be when it comes to increasing oil production. Rather than increasing our national security and driving prices down by producing more oil at home, the only thing Schumer wants America to do is to actually increase our dependence on foreign oil by demanding OPEC supply more.

Yes, Congress is part of the problem here. Since the Democrats took control, the price of gasoline has almost doubled and rather than actually doing something sensible (like increasing production here at home) they have falsely accused oil companies of price gouging, blocked efforts to bring prices down, and actually driven the price of gasoline up with those idiotic ethanol requirements. Further, those ethanol requirements resulted in us using more oil than ever before so it didn't do anything to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

The Dems haven't done one thing to ease the consumer's pain at the pump. Despite Democrat claims to the contrary, they do not care one whit about the problems faced by Joe and Jane Average American.

The next time you see someone who voted Democrat, thank them for the high energy prices.

Finally:

Sen. McCain is on the right track in calling for lifting the ban on offshore drilling. He is right that we need more domestic production. He needs to step up and lead on this issue. We can't cower to the left and be afraid of angering some environmentalist. McCain needs to stop the global warming chatter, and show the American people that the best way to ensure America's national security interests are to take our fate out of the hands of the Middle East. I certainly hope he can do it.

Senator McCain needs to come out swinging on this issue. Is he listening to us? I don't know yet. But it is clear the American voter is watching closely now to see who promises what before November.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Gas Prices Emerging As #1 Issue - Are You Listening Sen. McCain?
Dr. Bobby Eberle
GOPUSA.com
June 18, 2008

Right Solution To Lower Gas Prices - By John Cornyn

Here is a Senator who gets it. John Cornyn (R-TX) has the right ideas. We need to get behind him and get our Reps behind him as well.

Read what he has to say:

I like to describe Washington as 68 square miles of logic-free environment surrounded by reality. But the antics of Congress this month make that appear an understatement. Gas prices are now hovering near $4 per gallon. High fuel costs are causing disruption in our society, prompting layoffs in some industries. Yet Congress is doing virtually nothing to address the problem. In fact, it’s talking about ways to make the problem worse. In my view, the solution is straightforward. We need more energy. Government should get out of the way, let the free market work and allow more domestic energy production. This would reduce gas prices even in the near-term, expand job opportunities in Texas—a world energy leader—and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But earlier this month, the Senate actually considered a massive climate tax bill that headed in the exact opposite direction. This massive $6.7 trillion Rube Goldberg scheme proposed by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., would undermine our economy and likely lead to $10 per gallon gasoline. It could well eliminate some 330,000 Texas jobs, sending them to places with limited regulation like China and India. How can this be explained? After blocking American energy production and oil independence, Congress pursues bigger government, added taxes and higher energy costs—with no guarantee of actually improving the world’s climate. It is vital that we be the best possible stewards of the environment. Fortunately, improved technology has enabled us to take advantage of America’s own abundant natural resources in an environmentally sensitive way. Yet the U.S. remains the only country in the world that refuses to develop many of its natural resources. America is aggressively moving from fossil fuels to more diverse energy sources, including wind, nuclear, solar and clean coal. We need all of this supply. The government and private industry are both investing to promote and expedite this transition, and using steps such as increasing vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. In the short term, however, oil, gas and coal will remain our dominant sources of energy. The free market could provide significant additional supplies—but Congress continues to prevent that. Some of my colleagues are pushing a novel plan to address the energy crisis. They want to tax, sue and investigate our way out of it. But boosting taxes on American companies and pursuing phony price gouging inquiries are proven losing strategies—and might even make the situation worse. These approaches would not produce a single drop of additional oil and would actually increase our dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. As demand for energy increases, prices go up. Congress cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. But it can repeal the unnecessary government restrictions that prevent exploring additional American energy supplies. I will continue advocating for removal of government barriers to increasing the supply of energy, from traditional to alternative sources. There is no instant solution to the problem we’ve helped create. But we should not wait any longer to take the first steps to provide Texans relief at the gas pump.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Right Solution To Lower Gas Prices
U. S. Senator John Cornyn
June 6, 2008

'Grave' Drug Wars On The Border, Impotent U.N. Still Going And Joe Kennedy Still Hawking For A Brutal Dictator

They say that Nero fiddled while rome burned. Actually, he was plucking a harp and spouting some very bad poetry. So what is President Bush and the Democrat controlled Congress doing while our border remains unsecure with our citizens getting attacked by illegal aliens and our border patrol agents getting murdered by drug-smugglers?

I can tell you for certain that our government is not doing anything worthwhile. At least Nero was out and visible during the fire.

Case in point. The current situation along the U.S.-Mexico border has become intolerable and soon, the citizens (that is, the legitimate citizens) of the United States will boil over their anger as a result. What do we hear from the President or Congressional leaders about it? Nothing. It is without a doubt the worst case of mass dereliction of duty in the history of the U.S. Government.

Twenty years ago, we heard about the Columbian Medellin Drug Cartel and how badly their drug-smuggling efforts were affecting the United States. And Columbia doesn't even border the U.S. Today, the threat has landed closer to home. In fact, for some, it has come home.

A story in yesterday's Washington Times illustrates exactly how bad our government has allowed the situation to get:

"What we face is more of a challenge than law enforcement can be expected to cope with," said Kent Lundgren, chairman of the 800-member National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO). "The best solution is for the U.S. military to assume armed positions along the border ... and use whatever force is necessary to control the border zone." On Jan. 12, Mexican Brig. Gen. Rigoberto Garcia Cortez said the Mexican military and other personnel had surrounded five border cities in the lower Rio Grande Valley — Matamoros, Reynosa, Rio Bravo, Miguel Aleman and Nuevo Laredo — in response to gunfights between Mexican police, military forces and heavily armed drug smugglers.

That's right, the Mexicans brought their military in to bear on the situation. Now, here in the U.S., that may not be an option since such use of the military may not pass the test of posse comitatus but we may be beyond that threshold entirely.

More:

"Unfortunately, border violence south of our nation's border is not new," Border Patrol spokesman Michael Friel said, adding that it not only has increased in Mexico but also has directly affected U.S. authorities. The number of assaults against Border Patrol agents on the border rose from 384 in 2005 to 987 in 2007, he said. ... Violence has been the key to long-standing efforts by the Gulf Cartel to control drug smuggling on the U.S.-Mexico border. Mr. Lundgren said NAFBPO, whose membership includes eight former chiefs of the Border Patrol and 14 former INS district directors, thinks the next step for the Mexican military will be to begin closing the "noose on the gangs," but the targeted cities "abut the Rio Grande River, the international boundary and Mexican forces must stop there." "The predictable consequence is that those bandits will retreat across the Rio Grande into the United States — they will not surrender to Mexican authorities," he said. "We need not expect Mexican authorities to inhibit their departures.

Posse comitatus anyone?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

U.S. Faces 'Grave Threat' In Drug Fight
Jerry Seper
The Washington Times
January 22, 2008

---

We all know that Kofi Annan has been one of the worst disasters in history as U.N. Secretary-General and we also hoped that Ban Ki-moon would be an improvement. Well, Ban is certainly an improvement over Kofi, but the rest of the U.N. is just as it was. Incompetent, impotent and scandal-ridden.

From Front Page Magazine:

Especially disappointing is the situation in Darfur, where there was a glimmer of hope last year that a combined UN-African Union peacekeeping force could be put in place which would be large enough to stop the mass killings there. Ban admitted at his first press conference for 2008 that he has only 9000 out of the estimated 26,000 soldiers needed. “That is why we are very much concerned about this ongoing deteriorating situation in Darfur”, he said. Things have not worked out as Ban had hoped because the Sudanese government has thrown up all manner of obstacles and China is still running interference for its ally and major oil supplier. Seventy percent of Sudan's Chinese oil revenues, which now top $1 billion per year, have been reportedly used by the Sudanese government to attack the non-Arab population in the Darfur region. Another Rwanda is unfolding before our eyes. The UN remains impotent to stop the genocide. All it seems that Ban Ki-moon can do right now is to continue begging the Sudanese leader to cooperate, and to make symbolic gestures such as he did last week in designating actor George Clooney as a UN "messenger of peace".

And this:

The UN’s human rights apparatus is still in the clutches of the worst human rights abusers on the planet, who pat each other on the back for their faux commitment to human rights. Meanwhile, millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayers’ money are being squandered by these hypocrites on non-stop investigations and condemnations of Israel. To his credit, Ban Ki-moon has spoken out against this gross one-sidedness. ... Then there are all those alarmist reports that keep streaming from the UN bureaucracy on everything from AIDS to climate change. The UN regularly puts out reports that are full of exaggerated statistics and worst-case assumptions designed to gather political and financial support for more UN personnel, studies and conferences. In November 2007, for example, UNAIDS, the United Nations coordinating organization to combat AIDS, conceded that it had overestimated the size of the world-wide HIV-AIDS epidemic and said that it would have to drastically slash the reported number of people suffering from the disease. Serious flaws have also been discovered in papers used and cited by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) in its own reports. Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC, criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC. Unfortunately, playing on the fears that these exaggerated claims engendered, Ban Ki-moon has added his voice to the hysteria surrounding global warming, which he has called the defining issue of our time. He even went so far as to blame the slaughter in Darfur on climate change!

Can anyone give one single, good reason as to why we still send money to such a fouled-up, incompentent, anti-Democratic and anti-American organization?

I can't come up with one either.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Rearranging The Deck Chairs At The UN
Joseph Klein
FrontPageMag.com
January 23, 2008

---

And finally, we have Joe Kennnedy back in the news hawking his schpiel for Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez. You can view my last blog entry on the topic here:

Joe Kennedy: Bad Politics And Even Worse Judgement
84rules
January 5, 2008

Well, Newsbusters takes a look at him now:

Kennedy is now using the most recent Citgo commercial as a launchpad to blast the U.S. government and "Big Oil" as you can see in this video. After an introduction similar to the previous commercial showing poor people suffering from the cold, Kennedy goes on the attack: ...Yet our own government cut fuel assistance. And the Big Oil companies with oil and money to burn all said "no" when we asked for help. All but one. Citgo. Owned by the Venezuelan people, is donating millions of gallons to non-profit Citizens Action... Actually Citgo is owned by the Chavez run Venezuelan government, not the "people." As for the Venezuelan people themselves, it turns out their plight is getting even worse under the corruption ridden Chavez government.

Joe's politics are certainly bad. How bad? Bad enough that the left-leaning New Republic has taken him to task for his pro-Chavez stance:

This widespread corruption has even been recognized in the the latest issue of the liberal New Republic. Alvaro Vargas Llosa has this to say about life under Chavez in Slum Lord: After an extensive visit to the slums of this capital, I am convinced that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez lost the recent referendum that would have extended the time he could remain in office not because his countrymen value democracy so much, but because his social programs are crumbling. In the barrios of Petare, Catia, Baruta and other places, the nationalist/populist model is collapsing. Through a network of "missions," the government has been using oil revenue to provide food, housing, cars, education and health care for millions of Venezuelans. In theory, Venezuelans are enjoying the "social justice" denied to them during decades of rule by the country's elites. In real life, the missions are plagued with corruption and inefficiency, and are severely hampered by the insecurity and the shortages that have become the hallmark of Venezuelan society. ...Corruption has eroded the prestige of the Habitat mission through which the government supposedly dishes out checks to poor Venezuelans so they can buy a house. It is not unusual for an aspiring homeowner to find out that a mystery person has cashed the check using his or her name. "The same people who hand out the checks cash them for the benefit of their relatives," explains Eladio, who told me a nephew recently suffered such an experience. ..."The government led Venezuelans to believe that they could become a consumer society without producing anything," says Luis Ugalde, the president of Andres Bello University, "and the results are now speaking for themselves." When I asked Beatriz, a social worker who spends her time in Catia, to talk to me about Chavez's missions, she responded, "One cannot speak about that which doesn't exist." That strikes me as an appropriate way to sum up Venezuela's nationalist/populist. model

Newsbusters goes on to suggest that Kennedy should actually visit Venezuela and see the people that Chavez is crushing right now.

Personally, I don't see that happening. Despite the courage shown by John F. Kennedy both as a Naval Officer and President of the United States, the Kennedy's are not noted for having that much integrity.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Joe Kennedy Uses Latest Citgo Commercial To Slam U.S. Government And 'Big Oil'
P.J. Gladnick
Newsbusters.org
January 23, 2008

Oil Prices Down For Fear Of Recession, Rupert Murdoch Against The NY Times, GOP Takes On Earmarks, And Malaysia Goes After Christians

Lots going on today as "Black Tuesday" rolls onward. Markets around the world slid yesterday on fears of a U.S. recession. Our markets were closed due to the MLK holiday but opened to expected losses, until the Fed cut interest rates by three-quarters of a point and now the market is on the rise again. I'm not sure how well that is going to play out since I am not an economist, but do I seem to recall that slashing the rates like that devalues the dollar which in turn leads to higher prices for us abroad.

That means that foreign markets will be losing confidence in the U.S. economy and it is already showing.

Here are the market indices from Asia yesterday:



But we've also found out that the price of oil is going down. Many people will see that as a positive sign, but I think it is a portent of more troubles ahead.

From the Associated Press:

Oil futures dropped sharply Tuesday on mounting concerns that the U.S. economy may be heading toward a recession that would dampen demand for crude. While the Federal Reserve’s interest rate cut helped crude futures recover some of their earlier losses, many investors doubt the move will stave off a serious slowdown. “Whenever you see a rate cut of that magnitude between (Fed) meetings ... it conjures up images of desperation,” said Jim Ritterbusch, president of Ritterbusch and Associates in Galena, Ill. ... High energy prices also have been cited as a force pushing the economy toward recession. If oil prices continue to fall, as many analysts now expect, that could relieve some pressure on the economy. At the pump, gas prices have mostly fallen in recent weeks after rising sharply earlier in the month as oil set a new record above $100 a barrel. Overnight, the average national price of a gallon of gas held steady at $3.01 a gallon, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. But prices have fallen 2.3 cents a gallon since Friday. Other energy futures also fell Tuesday. February heating oil futures dropped 4.74 cents to $2.46 a gallon on the Nymex, while February gasoline futures fell 4.59 cents to $2.2575 a gallon. February natural gas futures dropped 17.6 cents to $7.817 per 1,000 cubic feet. In London, Brent crude futures for March delivery fell 4 cents to $87.47 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange.

Did you get all that? Although it looks like prices are trying to stabilize themselves in the free market, the truth is that this is a sign of decreased spending potential and decreased amounts of capital in the overall economy. That will lead to higher unemployment and then to a recession.

Get ready. It's coming. (But, I really do hope I am wrong.)

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Oil Prices Sink On Fears Of A Recession
Associated Press via MSNBC
January 22, 2008

---

Ed Lasky at the American Thinker gives us some great scoop on Rupert Murdoch and his plan to unseat the New York Times as the nations' "newspaper of record." Given how poorly the Times has been managed over the last few years, it shouldn't be hard for Mr. Murdoch to accomplish.

From Mr. Lasky's column:

Legendary media baron Rupert Murdoch has just completed his purchase of the Wall Street Journal - a paper that also enjoys nationwide reach, but one that has heretofore focused on the world of business. Change is afoot. Murdoch is a man who makes no "small plans"; he makes "big plans". ... Murdoch's goal is to transform the Journal into a rival of the Times, and then surpass it, making the Journal the nation's preeminent general interest newspaper. Given Murdoch's history, zeal, resources and talents -- all qualities sadly lacking in the fourth generation of Sulzbergers, as symbolized by Pinch -- the Times will be toppled. The downfall of the Times was almost pre-ordained once family members placed Pinch Sulzberger in control of the paper. He had no real world experience to prepare him to lead the Times. He had two brief sinecures working for other companies (he was a reporter with the Raleigh Times and the London correspondent for the Associated Press) before joining the family paper. Once he was "promoted" to be both the publisher and Chairman of the Board (duties that many believe should be divided between two people for ethical as well as business reasons), he was uniquely positioned to do double the damage to the paper. And damage he has done. Indeed, his greatest "accomplishment" seems to be his ability to drive the paper and his extended family fortune into the ground. ... One can envision something of what the future will bring when the Wall Street Journal enjoys all the benefits that other parts of News Corporation will provide. As it is transformed into a paper geared toward all the American people, features that are developed at other Murdoch properties can be easily "parachuted" into the printed pages of the Journal. Entertainment news? No problem. News Corporation has wonderful connections via its Twentieth Century Fox operations. More religious coverage for an increasingly religious America? News Corporation recently purchased Belief.Net, a key website for people who want to better understand their faith (an acquisition that would be unlikely to pass muster at the religiously secular New York Times). More local news, more international news? Easy access with ownership of over 100 newspapers around the world and Fox radio and TV outlets throughout America. The News Corporation can be its own in-house Associated Press combining the people in place with the wherewithal to put even more of them in place) to report from outposts around the world.

In short, look for the Wall Street Journal to supplant the NYT in the years ahead.

Think it can't happen? Notice that the New York Post, also owned by Murdoch, already has a larger circulation in New York City than the Times has.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Toppling The Times: Rupert Takes On Pinch
Ed Lasky
The American Thinker
January 21, 2008

---

During the 2006 Congressional midterm campaigns, the Dems loudly proclaimed that they would put and end to Congressional earmarks. But alas, they've done no such thing. According the Jed Babbin at Human Events:

The process of earmarking -- despite conservatives’ efforts this year and Democratic leadership promises to the contrary -- was kept concealed from the public’s view last year. Congressmen such as John Murtha (D.-Pa.) -- the uncrowned king of earmarks -- have fought successfully against disclosure because they do not want any accountability for what most observers agree is the waste of billions of tax dollars. Now, a small group of Republican House conservatives is planning a move that could force reform on House Democrats and the Senate. These conservative members -- including Representatives Jeb Hensarling (Tex.), Mike Pence (Ind.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.) -- are planning a major initiative against congressional earmarks on which they will try to get conference-wide agreement at the Republican retreat scheduled for Wednesday through Friday of this week at the Greenbrier Resort. According to a congressional source, the conservatives plan to ask the entire Republican House Conference to agree to a yearlong moratorium on earmarks.

Will this plan work? Jed goes on:

The impact of this moratorium could be significant. First, it would demonstrate the commitment of House Republicans to real reform of how the peoples’ money is spent. Second, if it is followed by the appointment of Flake to the Appropriations Committee, it would be, in the words of our source, “putting our fox in the henhouse.” The source also said that the House GOP meeting at which committee members will be chosen was, only last Thursday, postponed until after the retreat, which opens the window of opportunity wider for the conservatives’ move. If the conservatives succeed in obtaining agreement to the moratorium and then in getting Flake on the Appropriations Committee, the Democrats will be under enormous pressure. They will be Flake’s only targets.

Sounds good to me! Looks like someone on the GOP side of the ailse finally got some brains and a backbone to go with them. I, for one, will be very anxious to see how the Dems respond if the GOP can actually get this plan into place.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

House GOP Prepares One-Two Punch On Earmarks
Jed Babbin
Human Events Online
January 22, 2008

---

And finally, we have more disturbing news coming out of an Islamic dominated nation. (Are you really surprised by this?) Malaysia is confiscating Christian Children's books because they violate Sharia Law. From the Washington Times:

Malaysian authorities confiscated Christian children's books, claiming the illustrations of prophets such as Moses and Abraham violate Islamic Shariah law. The independent news agency Malaysakini reported the Internal Security Ministry confiscated the literature from bookstores in two cities and one small town in mid-December. ... The Rev. Hermen Shastri, general secretary of the Malaysian Council of Churches, confirmed the report and accused the government of persecuting Christians. "The officials have offended the sensitivities of Christians because their publications and depictions of their Biblical personalities have now become targets of unscrupulous Muslim officials bent on curtailing religious freedom in the country," Mr. Shastri said. "Immediate steps should be taken to amend administrative rules and regulations, especially in the Internal Security Ministry, that give a free hand to enforcement officials to act on their whim and fancies," he said. Christians, Hindus and other religious groups in Malaysia say they are increasingly being targeted as the nation gradually cedes jurisdiction to Shariah courts.

Tolerance? Diversity? Religion of peace? Hello?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Malaysia Seizes Christian Books
Elizabeth Eldridge
The Washington Times
January 22, 2008

Environmentalists And Oil Prices, Massive Gas Field Detected And More Calls For Border Agent Pardons

Michael Reagan takes a look at what environmentalists and the Democrats have forced upon us in the way of energy policy and how we have been 1) paying for it and 2) forced into a very humiliating position with OPEC as a result.

From his column:

Here we have the humiliating spectacle of a president of the United States begging an Arab potentate to increase our supply of oil while Democrats, who bear the major responsibility for the problem, scoff at him as a mendicant groveling at the feet of a foreign monarch. As humiliating as it is for the United States to be put in a position where our economy is held hostage to foreign oil producers who can make or break our nation simply by limiting their petroleum production, thus causing the price of oil to skyrocket, it is even more shameful that we have allowed the so-called environmental movement to escape the blame for our predicament. Make no mistake about it, you are paying exorbitant prices at the gas pump solely because the environmental terrorists and their Democrat allies in Congress have all but shut down our domestic oil production while refusing to allow the exploration and creation of new sources of this resource so vital to our economic health.

Michael pulls no punches here. Those are the facts and realities we are facing today. How many years have we Conservatives been warning people about this? Too many.

More:

George Bush should have stood on his bully pulpit and pointed his finger at Capitol Hill and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and said, “How dare you not give the nation an energy policy? Because you won’t give us an energy policy I have been forced to go the Saudi Arabia, get down on my knees and beg them to give us what you refuse to give us – an adequate supply of reasonably priced oil.” George Bush should point the finger of blame at Mrs. Pelosi and Sen. Reid and their environmentalist co-conspirators for refusing to enact an energy policy that dictates drilling in ANWR and the Florida Gulf -- where the Chinese and Cubans are drilling for the huge plentiful supply of oil beneath the seas to their heart’s content. We should also be harnessing nuclear power, and mining clean coal now locked up for alleged environmental reasons in well over a million acres of land in southwest Utah in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which contains at least 7 billion tons of coal worth over $1 trillion.

The problem is not that we don't have enough energy resources to fuel our needs. The problem is that we have these enviro-whackos who have bought off the leaders of the Democratic Party who in turn have forced us into the untenable position we are in right now.

We need to get rid of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and anyone else who smugly and arrogantly forces such unnecessary hardships on the American people.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Environmental Terrorism And The Price Of Oil
Michael Reagan
Human Events Online
January 18, 2008

---

And while we are talking about energy, check out this new discovery in the northeast United States:

A deep reservoir of long-hidden natural gas, stretching from New York through Pennsylvania and into West Virginia, could pump more than $400 billion into the Mid- Atlantic economy and push the U.S. toward energy independence, a Penn State researcher has found. Geosciences professor Terry Engelder, collaborating with Gary Lash at the State University of New York, recently completed the analysis after spending 30 years and an estimated $3 million on research. Penn State released overall findings on Thursday. State and industry experts said some companies already have begun to explore the prospects — with some early success within the past year or so. Engelder said the gas, lodged 6,000 to 7,000 feet underground, promises the U.S. “a certain amount of energy security down the line.”

As I wrote above, it's not that we don't have energy sources available.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Massive Gas Field Detected
Adam Smeltz
Centre Daily Times
January 18, 2008

---

And finally, we have more calls for the pardons of wrongly convicted Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. The calls came from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Rep. Duncan Hunter, both Republicans from California.

From the Washington Times:

Two California Republican congressmen yesterday called on President Bush to pardon two former U.S. Border patrol agents sent to prison a year ago this week for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect in the buttocks as he fled back into Mexico. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher accused Mr. Bush of being "arrogant and heartless" for refusing to pardon or commute the sentences of former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who were ordered last January to serve 11- and 12-year prison sentences, respectively. He said they had spent the past year in solitary confinement "suffering conditions worse than detainees at Guantanamo Bay. "It has been a year since Border Agents Ramos and Compean entered prison," Mr. Rohrabacher said. "This marks a year of shame for President Bush, who has been fully aware of the details of this blatant miscarriage of justice and chosen to do absolutely nothing about it. "The president has shown us his arrogant and heartless side by permitting the wrongful incarceration of Ramos and Compean to continue," he said.

At least the Dems can point to something that President Bush has done/is doing and say, "Hey! We aren't the only ones who are heartless and arrogant!"

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Rohrabacher, Hunter Call For Agents' Pardon
Jerry Seper
The Washington Times
January 18, 2008

Joe Kennedy: Bad Politics And Even Worse Judgement

Have you seen the TV commercials where Joe Kennedy is touting "free" heating oil from the "people" of Venezuela? I have, and they are an insult to the intelligence of anyone who knows the first thing about Latin American politics. In the middle of the ad, Kennedy says, "Some people would call this bad politics." Well, Joe, I am one of those who calls it bad politics and I will go one step further and call it even worse judgement on his part.

And I am not alone in my assessment. Writing for TownHall.com, Mona Charen has the following to say:

So let's see, the poor should accept charity from a would-be dictator who has formed an alliance with Iran and Cuba, who has denounced the United States as the greatest threat to peace and security in the world and called the U.S. president "the devil" and "a genocidal murderer." They should permit themselves to be used by a man who attempted to subvert his country's constitution, proclaimed his goal as "socialism or death," and launched the most comprehensive assault on freedom of the press in Latin America this side of Castro? "Our good [friend] in Venezuela" just last month suffered a key rebuke from his own people when he attempted to amend the constitution. Chavez's proposed "reforms" would have permitted him to serve for life, ended the autonomy of the central bank, permitted the president to rule by decree, and given him broad powers to suspend civil liberties and seize private property under indefinite states of emergency. A broad spectrum of Venezuelan society united to oppose this "constitutional coup" and narrowly defeated the measure. With his characteristic good grace, Chavez called it a "s---t victory."

And that's not even the worst part. Read this:

How can Mr. Kennedy reconcile the fact that Chavez has in the past pushed OPEC to reduce output to increase prices which affects all Americans, but the poor most of all -- with his pose as Mr. Bountiful? Gosh, is that the act of someone who truly cares about the world's poor?

That's right. Chavez pushed to market price of oil upward so that the poor could afford it even less, and then turns around and offers free oil to those same poor? I remember reading something like that in 1984 by George Orwell where the chocolate ration was reduced by several ounces but the Party put out a story that it had actually been increased. Only the most weak-minded fools believed the story. Here in the real world, what would that make Joe Kennedy?

That I why I call his judgement worse than his politics.

Mona goes on the highlight some other "achievements" of Mr. Chavez that Joe is turning a blind eye to:

It isn't as if Chavez has improved life so much in Venezuela that he can now look abroad for charitable opportunities. According to the Associated Press, Venezuela's inflation rate has now topped 22 percent, Latin America's highest. The government has imposed price controls in a bid to control inflation, which has led to shortages of basic items like milk, eggs and sugar. Consumers are also having trouble finding chickens, cooking oil and black beans in supermarkets. One can understand Mr. Kennedy's desire to help the poor heat their homes in the winter. But to shill for a figure like Chavez? There are other options, including federal programs. Doesn't Kennedy cringe when he reads accounts like this from CNN last May? "Venezuela's most-watched television station -- and outlet for the political opposition -- went off the air after the government refused to renew its broadcast license . . . Police on Sunday used water cannons and what appeared to be tear gas to break up thousands of demonstrators protesting the government's decision to close the country's most-watched television station . . . Inside the studios of Radio Caracas Television, employees cried and chanted 'Freedom!' on camera."

And this:

Does it not cause Kennedy to question his association when he reads accounts like this mid-2007 report from the State Department and the Organization of American States? ... "The OAS report on Venezuela said it was concerned about the administration of justice in that country, the problem of sicariato (paid killings) and the 'impunity that surrounds reports of extrajudicial executions at the hands of agents' of the Venezuelan government. "Extrajudicial killings are a particular concern in Venezuela. More than 6,370 people were victims of homicides committed between 2000 and 2005 by the 'agents' of Venezuelan state security forces . . ."

Joe Kennedy's politics are most definitely in the "bad" zone. But his sense of good judgement is totally MIA.

You can access the complete colum on-line here:

Joe Kennedy, Hugo Chavez And That Free Heating Oil
Mona Charen
TownHall.com
January 4, 2008

Iowa Caucuses, Abusive Power Of The IRS And Oil Prices

There is alot going on in the world right now and only a limited amount of space to write about it. Of course, the big news is news that should be mostly irrelevent to anyone but an Iowan, but the caucuses that were held yesterday are headlines everywhere and we need to pay at least some token attention to it.

Why?

I don't know. It is not as if Iowa and Hew Hampshire are the only states that will determine who will be the Presidential candidates for each party. But it is entertaining and it does allow certain issues to come to the front that otherwise would not have been given any attention at all.

In her most recent column in the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan touches on this with her explanation of why Mike Huckabee won:

What we have learned about Mr. Huckabee the past few months is that he's an ace entertainer with a warm, witty and compelling persona. He won with no money and little formal organization, with an evangelical network, with a folksy manner, and with the best guileless pose in modern politics. From the mail I have received the past month after criticizing him in this space, I would say his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture. They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools' squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don't admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don't need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs. They believe that Mr. Huckabee, the minister who speaks their language, shares, down to the bone, their anxieties, concerns and beliefs. They fear that the other Republican candidates are caught up in a million smaller issues--taxing, spending, the global economy, Sunnis and Shia--and missing the central issue: again, our culture. They are populists who vote Republican, and as I have read their letters, I have felt nothing but respect.

Mike Huckabee is not who I would have voted for, but at least his victory in Iowa will bring the social issues back into the Republican Party, and the GOP will greatly benefit as a result.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Out With The Old, In With The New
Peggy Noonan
OpinionJournal.com
January 4, 2008

---

Oh! And this is a big one! You have got to read this story. I don't even know where to begin in describing it, so I will just let the excerpts speak for themselves.

From the World Net Daily:

A lawyer who was acquitted by a federal court trial jury of Internal Revenue Service accusations he failed to filed income tax returns for two years now is suing several IRS agents over their alleged improper disclosure of his personal information in the case. A spokeswoman in the office of lawyer Tom Cryer told WND the case was assembled and filed by Cryer between Christmas Day and the end of 2007 and is expected to be placed on the docket in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Last summer in federal court a jury voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of the IRS allegations. He had been indicted on 2006 on government claims he failed to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. His successful defense was based on a challenge to the IRS to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax.

You did read that last sentence, right? Read on:

Now his claim against the government's agents, according to a report in the Shreveport Times, explains four IRS criminal investigation division workers tried to destroy his reputation during the course of their investigation in the case. The lawsuit alleges IRS agents Jimmy H. Sandefur, Darrin A. Heusel and Judge Armand, and a trainee, Patrick Potter "entered into a smear and fear campaign to destroy Plaintiff's good reputation and law practice." Cryer alleges the federal workers repeatedly violated federal laws that restrict the disclosure of tax information, release of information about an investigation and publicizing information about a grand jury investigation.

This case will highlight the fact that the IRS possesses an abusive power that they never should have been given in the first place. More:

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples' property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," Cryer said after his acquittal. He said he is dedicated to the truth, and has launched a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States.

We, as a people, need to research the case of Tom Cryer and his fight against a Federal Government entity that can only be described as "invasive" and "abusive."

His website can be accessed here:

Truth Attack

And the complete article can be accessed on-line here:

Lawyer Who Beat IRS Sues Agents
World Net Daily
January 4, 2008

This is yet another reason why I am a supporter of the Fair Tax

UPDATE: For those who wish to research this issue further and gather background information on the original case, I found links to certain documents. After Mr. Cryer filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 3rd of 2007:

The Government's Response
Mr. Cryer's Reply
Mr. Cryer's Trial Brief
Proposed Jury Instructions
Proposed Voir Dire Questions

---

And finally, the Wall Street Journal has an interesting expose about the price of oil and its relationship to the strength/weakness of the dollar.

From the Review & Outlook section:

Since 2001 the dollar price of oil and gold have run in almost perfect tandem (see nearby chart). The gold price has risen 239% since 2001, while the oil price has risen 267%. This means that if the dollar had remained "as good as gold" since 2001, oil today would be selling at about $30 a barrel, not $99. Gold has traditionally been a rough proxy for the price level, so the decline of the dollar against gold and oil suggests a U.S. monetary that is supplying too many dollars. We would add that the dollar price of nearly all commodities -- from wheat to corn to copper to silver -- are also surging, a further sign of a weakening currency. On Wednesday alone the price of wheat and soybeans increased 3.4% and 2.8%, respectively. That follows a 75% increase in their price in 2007 -- which ran ahead of the oil price, which gained a mere 57% for the year. Neither OPEC nor China caused food commodity prices to rise like this. The main culprit here is a global loss of confidence in Federal Reserve policy and the dollar.

And this interesting tidbit:

A weak dollar has been trumpeted in the business media and especially among manufacturers as a strategy to lower the trade deficit. But this strategy makes imported oil a lot more expensive. The trade figures reveal that a major contributor to the rising trade deficit over this decade has been the high cost of oil imports. We don't worry about the trade deficit -- except in so far as it inspires protectionism -- but those who do might want to consider that the weak dollar policy they are cheering is making fuel very expensive. ... Rising oil prices act like a tax on American consumers. With the economy slowing, the Fed is now under intense pressure to cut interest rates to stimulate the economy and provide liquidity to the banking industry. But if this causes the dollar to continue to weaken, the tax of higher commodity prices will offset much of the "stimulus" from looser money. The Fed will get a lot less bang for its easier buck. The larger danger here, as we've been warning for some time, is that the U.S. seems to be returning to the Carter-era economic policy mix of tight fiscal policy (tax increases) and easy money. Add barriers to oil and natural gas production and you have a recipe for higher oil prices and slower growth. In a word, for stagflation. The Reagan-Volcker policy mix of the 1980s changed all that, but maybe we have to relearn the hard way every generation or so what works -- and what produces $100 oil.

Please read this article and take it to heart.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Oil And The Dollar
The Wall Street Journal
January 4, 2008

Disturbing Idea For The United Nations

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

Mr. Salvato writes:

That the United Nations is a corrupt and ineffective institution is an understatement. The list of illegal activities and instances of institutionalized bigotry are so numerable that they weave a tapestry of embarrassment that would incite any governmental body with integrity to disband. Truth be told, they can’t even agree on a definition for “terrorism.” As they say, absolute power corrupts, absolutely. An example of the UN’s corrupt leadership can be seen in the Oil-for-Food scandal, one of the larger blemishes on the face of the organization. Alas, it is a blemish that the secular-progressive press failed to expose in detail. You see, a few corrupt world leaders – we’ll cite Jacque Chirac as a prime example – were utilizing their seats on the UN Security Council to hold the United States and aligned coalition countries at bay while they violated the resolutions put in place by that very organization. Their actions defrauded the Oil-for-Food program of millions if not billions of dollars and enriched Saddam Hussein in the process.

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

More:

And while many of those who support the charitable efforts of the UN tout their humanitarian missions, i.e., their efforts to feed the starving and treat the diseased, the fact is that most often the food and medicine provided by the UN literally serves to empower the oppressive elements of those affected regions. Food and medicine routinely sit idle at the drop-off locations only to be used by warlords and militias as leverage against the very people the supplies were meant to benefit. Today, with all these many failures to show for its tenure, the United Nations is now attempting to expand its potency in an effort to create authority beyond its chartered mission statement: “The stated aims of the United Nations are to maintain international peace and security, to safeguard human rights, to provide a mechanism for international law, and to promote social and economic progress, improve living standards, and fight diseases.” Nowhere in the UN charter does it give the international body the authority to impose any kind of tax on its member nations or the citizens thereof. Additionally, its charter does not give the body the authority to redefine – especially in a time of peace – the sovereign borders of any nation, regardless of the economic benefit. Yet two initiatives championed by the United Nations establish these authorities.

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

Mr. Salvato goes on:

To declare that the scientific debate on mans role in the global warming and cooling cycle is over, a consensus reached, is to promote a blatant lie. The only consensus that exists is entered into by those politicians and scientists who believe man is a major element in the current global warming cycle. Those who agree that man is a significant cause of global warming have formed a consensus. Responsible scientists, devoid of political pressure and eco-agenda, have been feverishly attempting to bring forth information that debunks mans influence on the naturally reoccurring global warming and cooling cycles. They have been thwarted every step of the way by not only the Green movement, environmentalists and that entrepreneurial opportunist, Al Gore, they have been rendered voiceless by the counter-culture eco-generation of the 1960s, now in control of mainstream media and the United Nations hierarchy itself. A shadow of doubt is cast over the legitimacy of the science presented by the UN and its manmade global warming proponents by basic scientific dogma. A scientist is taught to systematically “rule out” detractor arguments and possibilities in their quest for a theory’s validation. In essence, a consensus should never be reached unless it is a consensus that a group of scientists cannot disprove a theory. In the case of manmade global warming there is a sizable contingent of scientists who can disprove manmade global warming but they are being silenced by the eco-community, even to the extent of being banned from the most recent climate conference in Bali.

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

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

You can access the complete column on-line here:

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

---

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

Writing for Cybercast News Service, Susan Jones has this:

Millions of Americans are expected to face delays in getting their tax refunds because the Internal Revenue Service must scramble to revise and print tax forms -- and change its computer programs -- to reflect the changes. The New York Times reported on Dec. 5 that the delay in passing the AMT fix was already endangering a "smooth start" to the tax filing season. According to that Dec. 5 report, the main problem is reprogramming I.R.S. computers: "The agency's protocol calls for seven weeks to analyze changes in tax law, write the software code and test it, as well as notify all the tax professionals and others affected," the New York Times reported. But Pelosi and Reid said the IRS should have anticipated what Congress would end up doing. "On October 30, 2007, the bipartisan leadership of the Congressional tax-writing committees wrote to Acting Internal Revenue Service [Director] Linda E. Stiff to notify her that Congress would soon act on our AMT legislation," Pelosi and Reid wrote to Bush on Thursday. "This letter also provided specific details about this legislation so the IRS could prepare to process 2007 returns." The tax-writing committees urged the IRs "to take all steps necessary to plan for changes that would be made by this legislation," Pelosi and Reid said. At a White House press conference on Thursday, President Bush noted that Congress had passed an AMT patch. : But, he added, "unfortunately Congress passed this legislation after a lengthy delay, and the delay is going to add time it takes to process tens of millions of dollars in refunds." Bush said his administration would "work hard to minimize the impact of the congressional delay so that Americans can get their refund checks as soon as possible."

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

You can access the article on-line here:

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

Global Warming Lies Create A Climate Of Crisis

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

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

The United Nations conference in Bali, attended by some 10,000 participants and observers, is likely to make future generations conclude that ours was deranged to be discussing how humans could have any affect whatever on the climate. They will, in retrospect, agree that the global warming theory was a lie whose agenda was to retard anything that might extend and enhance life on earth. The Protocol is based entirely on a lie that predicts dramatic and imminent global warming. Global warmers insist that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced, but carbon dioxide does not cause climate change. Climatologists will tell you that any rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not precede, but follows warming cycles.

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

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

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

A November 30 Bloomberg News article by Kristian Rix and Mathew Carr reported that Japan, Spain, and Italy face as much as $33 billion in fines as the result of having agreed to reduce so-called “greenhouse gas” emissions and failed. These three nations are deemed the “worst performers among 36 nations that agreed to curb carbon dioxide gases that cause climate change.” Among the nations exempt from the Kyoto Protocol are China and India, both of whom represent two of the six billion people on planet Earth. The idea that limits on carbon dioxide emissions could be achieved without their participation is idiotic. ... Consider now how many schools, hospitals, bridges, roads, and other benefits to their citizens that $33 billion represents to Japan, Spain, and Italy. Such fines will be transferred to the coffers of the United Nations for having failed to curb CO2 emissions that are actually a benefit to the Earth! An entirely bogus system of “carbon credits” has been created to transfer huge amounts of money from industrialized nations accused of producing too much CO2 to those nations that, for lack of development—failed economies—will garner funding as they “sell” their excess credits. The same system would allow various industries to sell the same worthless credits to those—primarily producers and users of energy—deemed to be major CO2 “polluters.” Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has fallen prey to the lie that CO2 represents a form of “pollution” and should be regulated, the known science renders this decision an egregious juridical error The Earth, over billions of years, has gone through cycles of warming and cooling that are well established. It has gone through periods when the CO2 content in the atmosphere was far higher than today. The latest cooling period is called the mini-ice age and lasted from around 1300 to 1850. The Earth has been warming naturally since then. There is no dramatic warming occurring. Predictions of this are based on totally flawed computer models, none of which can begin to approximate the sheer chaos and complexity of the Earth’s weather system.

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

You can access the complete article on-line here:

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

Pelosi Proposal Would Send American Economy Into A Depression

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

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

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

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

You can access the original article on-line here:

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