How Ethanol Helps Al Gore Get Rich Off Of Starving People

I remember back only a few years ago when the left-wing liberals were all about helping those in need, especially those who did not have enough to eat. Well, the tables have turned these days. Today, the libs are causing starvation, not aiding those who are afflicted by it.

How did this happen? One word: ethanol. Ethanol has been driving up food prices here at home and around the world. Additionally, it has also driven up the price of gasoline and in a year or two, we will see ethanol drive up the cost of maintaining an automobile. But let's look at the food angle right now.

Jerry Bowyer gives some excellent insights about how food prices are going up and people like Al Gore are getting rich off of seeing other people starve. From TownHall.com:

Foods seem to be rising in price in direct proportion to their proximity to ethanol subsidies. Feed grain is up an amazing 41% in the past year. Fruit and nuts are down 3% over the same period. Why? Because we turn corn into ethanol, but we don’t do the same with walnuts or bananas.

And of course, their are certain politicians who, in order to cover their own rear-ends, come up with some interesting spin as to why this is happening. Actually, "spin" is not the correct word. Upon viewing the data and evidence, "lies" would be a more appropriate word:

They say that very little of the jump in food prices comes from ethanol, that it’s mostly energy prices, or a weak dollar, or general inflation. ... Why would general inflation cause corn to a rate of doubling every two years, and yet leave meat, fruit, nut and some vegetable prices dropping? How could high energy prices do that? Don’t vegetable farmers use tractors? Don’t sugar farmers fuel their tractors with the same diesel? Don’t the trucks and trains which deliver almonds run on the same kinds of fuel as the ones which deliver grains?

Does anyone really believe that energy prices could affect one agricultural commodity while at the same time having no effect at all on other agricultural commodities in the same exact market? I don't. I suspect that the politicians making these arguments don't believe it either. They are merely trying to deflect attention away from the true culprit here: ethanol subsidies.

Read on:

It’s not a general inflation problem; it’s a problem of political corruption. America’s first presidential primary happens to be in Iowa. That gives ethanol first dibs at the pork barrel. Add Republican farm voters to Democratic environmentalists, shake vigorously and you get a brew called ethanol. The farmers get rich on taxpayer subsidies, the venture capitalists who focus on alternative fuels (I’m looking in your direction, Mr. Gore) get fat on profits.

We need to end this ethanol hoax now, before people here in the U.S. begin to starve as a result.

Jerry's parting shot:

Foreigners are not starving because the dollar lost value. In fact, the drop in the dollar helps them. ... The problem isn’t the dollar – the problem is that we’re burning food. We’re taking carbohydrates which would have gone into someone’s stomach, chemically altering them and putting them into our gas tanks instead. One SUV fill-up is roughly the same amount of calories as it takes to sustain a man, woman or a child – for a year. I believe that future generations will look back in history at the hungry of this world, and the preening self-satisfaction of the ethanol lobby and call it what it is, a crime against humanity.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

How Al Gore Is Getting Fat Off Of A Starving World
Jerry Bowyer
TownHall.com
May 31, 2008

Morsal Obeidi, 16, Stabbed By Her Brother, Ahmed, 23, In Hamburg, Germany Honor Killing

How many more deaths of innocent young girls will it take before Old Media and the public in general learn the truth about the Islamic religion? How much more violence will the unprotected have to endure before we come to the conclusion that a religion that is based on hating those who believe otherwise cannot be truly called a religion?

From Front Page Magazine:

Morsal Obeidi, barely 16, arrived in Hamburg from the war-torn country of Afghanistan when she was three, probably barely remembering her country of origin in her new homeland. The German Muslim student, who had won a prize in her multicultural school for tolerance and peaceful co-existence with others, was stabbed 20 times by her 23-year old brother, Ahmed, who ambushed her at a commuter train station. The reason for Morsal’s murder is a common one for female Muslim victims of honor killings who emigrate to the West with their families and grow up between two cultures: she was living too western a lifestyle. “She had a different life than the family wished,” admitted Ahmed, who assaulted his sister so severely that he wounded himself and had to be treated in hospital.

Notice what is missing from this story? Other Muslims speaking out against such an evil atrocity. Where are the moderate Muslims who claim to be so tolerant and peaceful? Why are they being silent about this and other "honor" killings being perpetrated in the name of Islam?

More:

[Morsal] was tired of living by the rules of the family’s Afghan-Muslim culture that see the daughters confined at home and made to do housework when not at school while the sons have all the freedom they want. Such girls from South Asian and Muslim communities are also monitored very carefully after reaching puberty, as the male members of the family are very concerned that they remain virgins until marriage, since this involves their “honor.” One German Muslim woman wrote that the physical attributes she developed upon turning 13 filled her Turkish father with “deep worry.” This male obsession with virginity is manifested in the expression, common in these traditional cultures, that “…a man’s honor lies between a woman’s legs.” Ahmed was most likely one of those male family members concerned about his sister’s chastity. It was reported he watched Morsal very closely and, when he was not available, he had cousins, uncles and aunts do it for him. Morsal’s rebellion against such strict control included such normal, western behaviour for teenaged girls as wearing “uncovered hair, makeup and jeans” as well as smoking, drinking and staying out late, all of which brought her into conflict with her family. But all in all, it was reported the young schoolgirl simply wanted the same freedoms her German classmates had. Like in many families where honor murders occur, violence was already extensive in Morsal’s. Before her death, the teenager had suffered numerous assaults at the hands of her father, Ahmed and a 13-year-old brother, who had once knocked her tooth out. An older sister is also suspected of mistreating her.

This is yet another result of Europe not fully integrating Muslims into the Western culture.

Count on more of this happening as time goes on. Human beings should be treated with dignity and respect, even if they are members of your family who believe differently than you do.

It's too bad that Muslims can't come out of the 7th century and learn that lesson of modernity.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Honor Killing Horror In Hamburg
Stephen Brown
FrontPageMag.com via CrossAction News
May 30, 2008

Congressional Democrats Come Out Against Free Speech, Especially For Good News Coming Out Of Iraq

Think the Dems are good for free speech? Think again! The party of the left is so heavily vested in our defeat in Iraq that they are now embracing legislation that will silence anyone who comes back from Iraq with good news about us winning and the terrorists losing!

This is no joke. Check out this item from Investor's Business Daily:

House Democrats have passed a bill to stifle the good news that we're winning in Iraq. They are so invested in losing that they apparently fear a popular backlash against them from victory. ... Democrats have decided this election year that American voters can't handle the fact that victory in Iraq is at hand. In its passage last week of the defense policy bill, the House issued a prohibition against the Pentagon's "concerted effort to propagandize" the American public regarding the Iraq War. It came in the form of an amendment authored by Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H., which also would authorize an investigation of the Defense Department's "propaganda" efforts by the Government Accountability Office. Hodes' addition to the bill passed by voice vote and the overall bill passed the House by a large margin. The Senate will wait until after the holiday recess to consider it. It's not as if the Pentagon brass, as they wage a global war on terrorism, don't have better things to do than sit down and answer foolish questions about public relations operations from a bunch of GAO bean-counters. Besides, haven't congressional Democrats insisted all these years that it wasn't the military they had a problem with regarding the Iraq War? Haven't they been saying how much they support those in uniform, that our military leaders really agreed with Democrats that Iraq was unwinnable, and that it was only the civilians who run war policy in the Bush administration they were attacking?

Where was this Congressional concern for "propagandizing" the war when the New York Times exposed one of the most powerful tools we had against the terrorists, the SWIFT program? That was clearly a propaganda effort by a leftist leaning publication, but Hodes had no problem with it.

This bill would effectively mean that the GAO can control all information coming out of Iraq which under a Dem controlled Congress means that the Dems would only allow the bad news out while censoring the good news. That way, the Dems can lie to the American people about how the war is really going.

Anyone else living in fear of a leftist controlled Congress?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Safe From Truth
Investor's Business Daily
May 23, 2008

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm's Tax Hike Fails, Dunkin Donuts Realizes A Mistake With Rachel Ray's Keffiyeh And UK Calls It's Own Flag Racist

Got three really good ones today. They may not be attention grabbing headlines at the Washington Post or New York Times, but they do need some attention since very often it is just as necessary to learn what is going on behind-the-secnes as it is to learn the up-front stories.

First, let's take a look at Michigan, particularly their recent tax-hike and how it has faired. Not to well according to the Wall Street Journal:

Officials in Lansing reported this month that the state faces a revenue shortfall between $350 million and $550 million next budget year. This is a major embarrassment for Governor Jennifer Granholm, the second-term Democrat who shut down the state government last year until the Legislature approved Michigan's biggest tax hike in a generation. Her tax plan raised the state income tax rate to 4.35% from 3.9%, and increased the state's tax on gross business receipts by 22%. Ms. Granholm argued that these new taxes would raise some $1.3 billion in new revenue that could be "invested" in social spending and new businesses and lead to a Michigan renaissance. Not quite. Six months later one-third of the expected revenues have vanished as the state's economy continues to struggle. Income tax collections are falling behind estimates, as are property tax receipts and those from the state's transaction tax on home sales. Michigan is now in the 18th month of a state-wide recession, and the unemployment rate of 6.9% remains far above the national rate of 5%. Ms. Granholm blames the nationwide mortgage meltdown and higher energy prices for the job losses and disappearing revenues, but this Great Lakes state is in its own unique hole. Nearby Illinois (5.4% jobless rate) and even Ohio (5.6%) are doing better. Leon Drolet, the head of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, complains that "we are witnessing the Detroit-ification of Michigan." By that he means that the same high tax and spend policies that have hollowed out the Motor City are now infecting many other areas of the state.

This is more evidence that lower taxes increase government revenues while higher taxes decrease government revenues. Yet the liberal Dems still insist on raising taxes to "raise more government revenue." Unfortunately, reality steps in throws things the other way.

Michigan is the example of what will happen to all of America if a Dem gets into the White and has a Dem controlled Congress to rubber stamp all sorts of new economy-crushing tax hikes.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Granholm's Tax Warning
Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook
May 28, 2008

---

Michelle Malkin has a piece about Dunkin Donuts and their spokesperson, Rachel Ray. Apparently, Rachel unwittingly wore a keffiyeh while posing for a Dunkin Donuts ad.

Here is what Michelle had to say at TownHall.com:

[I]t was with some dismay that I learned last week that Dunkin' Donuts spokeswoman Rachael Ray, the ubiquitous TV hostess, posed for one of the company's ads in what appeared to be a black-and-white keffiyeh. The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not so ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities and left-wing icons.

And why is this so bad? Read on:

Three years ago, pop singer Ricky Martin donned a traditional red-checked keffiyeh with the phrase "Jerusalem is ours" inscribed in Arabic. Apologizing for his obliviousness, Martin said: "I had no idea that the keffiyeh scarf presented to me contained language referring to Jerusalem, and I apologize to anyone who might think I was endorsing its message." Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Spain's Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, Hollywood darlings Colin Farrell, Sienna Miller and Kirsten Dunst, and rapper Kanye West have all been photographed in endless variations on the distinctive hate couture. So has Meghan McCain, daughter of the GOP presidential candidate, who really ought to know better given that her dad positions himself as the candidate best equipped to "confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism." The scarves are staples at anti-Israel rallies in San Francisco and Berkeley. Balenciaga made them chic on the runway. British retailer Topshop sold them stamped with skull prints. Urban Outfitters turned the keffiyehs into a youth trend a few years ago and marketed them as "anti-war scarves." Which brings us to Rachael Ray. Ray hawked Urban Outfitters scarves on her website before appearing in the Dunkin' Donuts ad. If she (or whichever stylist is dressing her) wasn't aware of the jihad scarf controversy before she posed for the Dunkin' campaign, she should have been. Urban Outfitters initially pulled the keffiyeh merchandise and apologized when Jewish customers protested, but reintroduced them with different names and colors in several global markets. This is the same company that marketed a bigotry-laced "Everyone loves a Jewish girl" T-shirt stamped with dollar signs and shopping bags. Most recently, the company halted sales of a violence-promoting T-shirt last week depicting a young Palestinian boy in a keffiyeh carrying an AK-47 assault rifle, over the word "Victimized." The T-shirt also featured the Palestinian flag, a map of the Palestinian territories and a small white dove.

Fortunately, Dunkin Donuts got the message and pulled the ad. It's too bad that other retailers and outlets don't have the integrity that Dunkin Donuts has.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Rachael Ray, Dunkin' Donuts And The Keffiyeh Kerfuffle
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
May 28, 2008

---

And finally, we have more evidence that Mark Steyn was right on the mark with his book America Alone. This little news item comes out of the United Kingdom and should be a little more than eye-opening:

A teenage motorist was told to remove an England flag from his car by a police officer because it could be offensive to immigrants. Ben Smith, 18, was driving back home to Ingram Road in Melksham on Thursday evening after filling up with petrol, when the officer stopped him on a routine patrol. He checked the tax disc and tyres on his Vauxhall Corsa but when he noticed the flag of St George on the parcel shelf he told Mr Smith to take it down. Mr Smith, who works for G Plan Upholsterers on Hampton Park West, said: "He saw the flag and said it was racist towards immigrants and if I refused to take it down I would get a £30 fine. "I laughed because I thought he was joking, but then I realised he was serious so I had to take it down straight away. I thought it was silly - it's my country and I want to show my support for my country."

Anyone still not understand as to why the Islamists are going to win in Europe?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Motorist Told Flag Could Be Racist
Charley Morgan
Wiltshire News
May 23rd, 2008

Senator Domenici Introduces The American Energy Production Act (S. 2958)

It would have been nice if this legislation had been introduced and passed two years ago when the Republicans still controlled the House and Senate. But if nothing else, this bill will definitely show how the Democrats have beholdened themselves to special interest groups, even when such groups push agendas that are not in line with the well-being of the American people.

The Press Release for the American Energy Prodcution Act (S. 2958) can be accessed here:

Summary Of The American Energy Production Act S. 2958
U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
May 1, 2008

Here is the executive summary:

The American Energy Production Act, introduced today by Senator Domenici and Senate Republicans, will address America’s soaring gas prices by focusing on common sense measures that will increase production of oil and gas in America. If enacted, the American Energy Production Act will produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil—enough oil to keep America running for 5 years with no foreign imports. And that doesn’t include billions more barrels of potential fuel from oil shale and coal to liquids in the bill. By expanding production offshore and in Alaska, and removing obstacles to domestic production in the West, this bill will help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

That sounds really good to me and if you are concerned about rising gas prices and the fact that we send $40 billion annually to nations that have anti-American agendas, then it should sound good to you too.

As such, I have written my Senators to express my support for this bill. I encourage all who are reading this blog to do likewise. Just copy and paste the following, then print it out and mail it to your Senators:

Dear [Senator's name], I am writing this letter to ask you to support and/or co-sponsor the American Energy Production Act (S. 2958) introduced by Senator Domenici (R-NM) on May 1st, 2008. This bill would provide the American people with a potential 24 billion barrels of oil which we can sell to ourselves much more cheaply rather than paying an annual $40 billion to buy oil from overseas. The benefits of this bill are many-fold. Not only will it help ease the price at the pump by increasing supply, it will also help reduce the amount of money we send overseas to buy oil, much of that money going to fill the coffers of governments that actively pursue an anti-American agenda (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.). Additionally, the money saved by supplying ourselves with our own oil can go into research for truly viable alternative energy supplies. The price of gasoline has gone up for many reasons, most of which can be attributed to the policies enacted into law by this very Congress. For example, the mandate of using ethanol, despite its supporters’ promise of bringing down gas prices, actually drove the price of gasoline up as it also drove up the price of food. The end result: people now have to pay more at the pump in order to get to the store to pay more for food. This has also had a worldwide impact as food prices have gone up globally resulting in food riots in Mexico and Egypt and people starving as close to home as Haiti. Further, there was also a promise of lower carbon emissions, but since it requires the burning of 1.5 gallons of petro-chemicals to produce a single gallon of ethanol, that promise was nothing more than fantasy as well. The main reason for the high price of oil is simple supply and demand. Nations that have been aggressively developing the industrial sectors of their economies (India and China) have been using more and more oil which means demand has gone up. As any first year economics student knows, when demand goes up, so do prices. But, when demand goes up and supply does not keep pace, or even goes down, prices rise even faster. Evidence of this can be seen every time OPEC announces there will be reduced production. Prices are pushed up. Domestically producing oil would help ease the supply issues that we now face and would help ease the burden on the American consumer. That is one of the best actions Congress can take to help bring us out of recession. Please support S. 2958 so that we can get our economy back on track and stop funding those who would do us harm. Thank you.

This is the reality we live in now. We need to bring our Congressional representatives out into this same reality.

Essay By Tim Inwood: How A Democrat Controlled Congress Is Making Our Energy Crisis Worse

This is a little gem from The Cincinnatus Standard. Pulling no punches, this essay hit right to the point on all the energy issues facing us and why Congress refuses to act and do the right thing to alleviate the situation.

Read on:

I get rather frustrated listening to the politicians moaning about the oil crisis we are having at the moment, especially since they are the biggest part of the problem on the domestic front. Since most of the Democrats are in the pockets of the extreme environmentalist groups—and their party is in the majority—we are making no progress in fixing our problems by domestic drilling. The other night I had to sit and listen to Senator Charles Schumer lecture us that getting oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is not the solution to our problems. He said even if we were to start drilling today it would not reach our supply system for ten years. He then blatantly lied and claimed that even if oil were flowing from ANWR to the U.S. market it would only drop the price at the pump by a penny a gallon. What he did not say is that the only reason we are not drilling in ANWR is that Democrats have been blocking drilling for oil there since Bill Clinton vetoed the bill to open the Artic National Wildlife Refuge back in 1995. Do the math: had he not done that, crude oil would indeed be flowing from there, helping with the shortages we currently face. ANWR is just the tip of the iceberg. There are other huge oil reserves that we should be going after that the Federal Government has prevented us from collecting. Off the coast of Florida, there are billions of gallons of oil under the ocean floor. We could go as far out as 75 miles where no one would see a single boom, but the politicians won’t let us go out there and get it. They say they fear soiling the beaches in doing so and are worried about tourism. This is pure idiocy. As I am typing this, Communist China, along with Cuba, are going after those oil deposits. Now, you tell me who is going to be more careful about the environment getting that oil: the United States or two communist governments who have trashed their own environments? I think we all know the answer. I would like a dollar for every news story I have seen fretting over the health of athletes as they compete in the Beijing Summer Olympic Games. The air is toxic in that city.

Yeah, the environmentalists only want to stop U.S. exploration for oil. But nations like Cuba and China, whose records on environmental protection are nothing short of disastrous, can drill right off the coast of the U.S. and not a single environmentalist will raise his or her voice in protest. The environmentalists seem not to think very rationally.

More:

On top of this we see the political pressure to create biofuels. Friends, I live in Ohio and what I am about to say may cause farmers to march on my home or burn me in effigy. I am truly about to say something heretical, but it is true. Turning corn into fuel has been a huge mistake. First, it takes more energy to convert the corn to fuel than you get out of it. Second, it has tied the cost of corn to the oil market. In the Orient, they have used rice in the same way that we have converted corn. The end result is that food costs are rising, and there are food shortages worldwide. Overseas there have been food riots and people have been killed. Also, if you own an older car you might discover your vehicle will not run well—If at all—with ethanol in the tank. A friend of mine bought my old 1993 Range Rover County. He has fully restored the vehicle and it is in show room condition. But he has discovered he must be careful of where he refills the fuel tank. If he puts ethanol in there it will not start. The other issue is the alcohol in ethanol dries out rubber gaskets and hoses at an accelerated rate, meaning additional wear and tear as well as maintenance costs for your vehicle. We cannot afford to sit and wait for foreign sources to solve our problems. OPEC is clearly not motivated to open up the spigot. The population of the world is growing, as is the number of countries using more oil. In recent years, China and India have begun using huge quantities of oil. Both nations now have a rapidly growing middle class and with that affluence comes the desire for automobiles. India has a car company building a vehicle for the equivalent of $2500 called the Tata and they are selling quite well. The population of India is over a billion people —1,132,446,000 to be exact. The People’s Republic of China now stands at well over a billion people, with a census saying they had 1,321,851,888 last year. So it is clear, with those nations consuming more oil the situation will become more dire for us if no domestic action is taken in the United States as soon as possible. Sadly, there seems to be no rush in Washington D.C. They seem to satisfy themselves with arguing about the concept of a summer suspension of the federal gas tax, hardly a serious solution to this serious problem. Their fear of the environmental groups seems to be the biggest impediment to getting something done. We the people must rise in one voice and demand they do something and do it now. Congress is not sharing our pain at the pump either. Many are unaware that you and I—via our tax dollars—are funding a special program to provide lease vehicles to members of Congress. Congress has members who think of themselves as royalty. Sheila Jackson Lee is famous for saying she expected to be treated like a queen. A chauffer picks her up every day and drives her less than 100 yards to her offices. I suppose I should be happy she is not taking advantage of the lease program, but I am sure the chauffer cost more. Democrat Congressman Greg Meeks tools around in a Lexus, which sets us back $1,062 a month—not including gas. Charles Rangel (D-NY), best remembered recently for his self-aggrandizing pork of a 2 million dollar education center named after himself, drives a leased Cadillac DeVille that is setting us back a mere $998 a month. When asked about his Caddy the pompous Rangel said his constituents expected him to ride in style. Notably, some members of Congress do not take advantage of the taxpayer. Steve Chabot (R-OH) still drives his personal 1993 Buick with 161,000 miles on it—and he pays for his own gasoline. Frankly, I think Congress should be more like the character of Colonel Hessler, played by the late Robert Shaw in the old movie, Battle of the Bulge. He refused special meals and demanded to eat as his troops did so he knew how much strength and energy they had. Only then could he understand what his men needed. Perhaps if our Congressional overlords lived without all the perks and were more like us serfs they would better understand our plight. Then maybe they would get up off their rather sizable posteriors and clear the way for drilling where we know the oil is, loosen up regulations so we can build a new refinery or five, and get our energy crisis behind us. For this to happen, we must make contact with those in Washington at all levels of government. So please use the link at the bottom of this article and demand action now. Acting in unison we can get things moving, but your inaction will surely result in failure. So I hope you will join this effort to get those who can lift these restrictions to do so.

Therein lies the problem. Members of Congress don't have to pay their way like we working Americans do. Congress is so full of perks and bennies that they have forgotten what it means to actually have to roll up their sleeves for a living. As such, we can no longer trust them to fight for America's principles nor to fight for the benefit of the American people.

The Democrats promised to change all of that when they took power in 2006 but they have simply taken more benefits for themselves and have basically said, "To Hell with the rest of us."

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Oil Is Plentiful, But Idiots Stand In The Way
Tim Inwood
The Cincinnatus Standard
May 8, 2008

Robert Menendez, Luis Gutierrez And Hilda Solis Had No Idea About Trouble At The U.S.-Mexico Border

Okay, say whatever you want about the trouble the Republican Party is in, but this goes beyond pathetic. Three Democrats admit that they did not know there was trouble brewing on the U.S. border with Mexico.

From Dr. Bobby Eberle at GOPUSA:

Three Democrat legislators spoke to reporters about what they claim is "anti-immigrant coverage" by conservative media outlets. Apparently, they think floods of illegal aliens crossing into America and the crime and violence at the border are just overblown incidents developed by conservatives to attack our neighbor to the South. After they spoke, the Democrats were asked if they realized that the State Department had issued a "travel alert warning Americans about military-like 'combat' along the southern U.S. border in Mexico, where Americans are being kidnapped and murdered." None of the legislators knew about it. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) said, "I haven't heard about the report specifically." Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Hilda Solis (D-CA) also spoke to Cybercast News Service and said "they had no knowledge of the travel alert but were aware of the volatility along the U.S. southern border." Volatility? Americans are being killed and yet all these liberals want to do is pander! The State Department alert states that "violent criminal activity fueled by a war between criminal organizations struggling for control of the lucrative narcotics trade continues along the U.S.-Mexico border." Although the alert states that the attacks are primarily aimed at "members of drug trafficking organizations, Mexican police forces, criminal justice officials, and journalists," the alert goes on to state that "foreign visitors and residents, including Americans, have been among the victims of homicides and kidnappings in the border region."

And these three claim that they weren't aware of it.

Someone please remind me, which party is out of touch?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

'Trouble At The Border? I Had No Idea!'
Dr. Bobby Eberle
GOPUSA.com
May 23, 2008

Letters To Senator John Warner And Senator James Webb Concerning The OPEC Accountability Act

The Senate will soon be voting on a resolution to file a lawsuit against OPEC. The bill is called the "OPEC Accountability Act" and it is without a doubt one of the most idiotic pieces of legislation to ever come out of this Dem controlled Congress.

As such, I have written my Senators (John Warner and James Webb) asking them to vote against this foolishness. The following is a copy of my letter. Feel free to copy it, paste it to a word document and send it to your own Senators.

Dear [Senator], I am writing this letter to ask you to vote “Nay” on an upcoming bill (S. 2976 IS) that was introduced by Senator Lautenberg and co-sponsored by Senators Dorgan, Casey, Levin, Sanders and Clinton. This bill is known as the “OPEC Accountability Act.” The co-sponsors of this bill claim that launching a lawsuit against OPEC will somehow bring down the price of crude oil and in turn reduce the price of gasoline. I’m sorry, but only a fool would believe such claims. The price of gasoline has gone up for many reasons, most of which can be attributed to the policies enacted into law by this very Congress. For example, the mandate of using ethanol, despite its supporters’ promise of bringing down gas prices, actually drove the price of gasoline up as it also drove up the price of food. The end result: people now have to pay more at the pump in order to get to the store to pay more for food. Further, there was also a promise of lower carbon emissions, but since it requires the burning of 1.5 gallons of petro-chemicals to produce a single gallon of ethanol, that promise was nothing more than fantasy as well. But I digress. The main reason for the high price of oil is simple supply and demand. Nations that have been aggressively developing the industrial sectors of their economies (India and China) have been using more and more oil which means demand has gone up. As any first year economics student knows, when demand goes up, so do prices. But, when demand goes up and supply does not keep pace, or even goes down, prices rise even faster. Many of your peers are trying to blame the oil companies for the situation in the world market, a few of them ignorantly throwing out the charge of “price gouging.” However, the oil companies’ profit margin is well under the average profit margin for other commodities, the market traders of which are not being accused of price gouging. This means that no price gouging is taking place. As such, if Congress carries out its threat to raise taxes on the oil companies in response to this mythical price gouging, the price at the pump will sky-rocket even further. As you can clearly see, Senator, it is the Congress that has been hurting the American people at the gas pump, not OPEC or any of the oil companies. And finally, I need to ask the obvious. Why would members of this Congress actively try to damage our relations with OPEC nations by filing a lawsuit when those same members of Congress are criticizing the President for damaging our relations with these OPEC nations? Wouldn’t you consider that to be hypocritical? When S. 2976 IS reaches the Senate floor for a vote, please do the right thing and vote “Nay.” Thank you. Sincerely, [Your name here]

CBS Found Obama Rule: 'Whatever Michelle Says Is The Message'

So, exactly how out of touch is Barack Obama? Well, his grasp of reality is so tenuous that he doesn't even remember the statements he made to his own headquarters staff.

Tim Graham over at NewsBusters has this:

In all the fuss over Barack Obama going on ABC and telling his opponents to "lay off my wife," some might have assumed that Obama was implying that Michelle Obama wasn't a major player in the Obama campaign. Read the transcript again, and you'll notice he never says that. (Michelle, however, felt compelled in that interview to deny Robert Novak's buzz that she axed Hillary from the ticket.) All this reminded me of an April 24 CBS Evening News story where Katie Couric spent some gummy-grinned giggle time inside the Obama campaign HQ. As she surveyed the press shop, a camera found this sheet of paper with a Barack declaration of policy: "Whatever Michelle Says Is The Message."

Think this is all made up? Here's the sign that CBS videotaped:



And here is what Katie Couric said during her tour of Obama HQ:

Then there's the press operation, answering questions from reporters, trying to tamp down any controversy, in constant contact with the road while trying to make sure the message of the day survives.

So, exactly why are we supposed to lay off his wife?

CBS Found Obama Rule: 'Whatever Michelle Says Is The Message'
Tim Graham
NewsBusters.org
May 21, 2008

McCain And Obama Differ On Supreme Court Appointees, Global Warming Innocent Of Hurricanes And Doctors Head To Texas

Three really good stories today. Let's start with McCain vs. Obama on Supreme Court Justices. McCain has promised to appoint strict Constitutionalists in the mold of Justices Alito and Roberts. Obama is promising activist Justices who are more emotional rather than rational.

From the L.A. Times:

Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), in a speech two weeks ago, echoed the views of conservatives who say "judicial activism" is the central problem facing the judiciary. He called it the "common and systematic abuse . . . by an elite group . . . we entrust with judicial power." On Thursday, he criticized the California Supreme Court for giving gays and lesbians the right to marry, saying he doesn't "believe judges should be making these decisions." Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) said he was most concerned about a conservative court that tilted to the side of "the powerful against the powerless," and to corporations and the government against individuals. "What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," he said in response to McCain. ... Obama has also praised current Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. "I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through," Obama said.

Remember, it was "empathy" and "feeling" that brought about the socialist policies that have universally been disasters wherever they have been adopted.

It is not just a theoretical policy debate. Whoever is elected in November will probably have the chance to appoint at least one justice in the next presidential term. The court's two most liberal justices are its oldest: John Paul Stevens turned 88 last month, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75. McCain promised that, if elected, he would follow President Bush's model in choosing Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Right now, they way things are going for us Conservatives, John McCain represents our last, best hope for keeping the Judiciary in the hands of Justices who truly respect the Constitution and all of the principles our Founding Fathers wisely wrote into it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

John McCain And Barack Obama: Two Visions Of The Supreme Court
David Savage
Los Angeles Times
May 19, 2008

---

A new study coming out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is showing evidence of what many of us already knew: Global Warming is not responsible for hurricanes, despite Al Gore's screeching claim that the hurricane season of 2006 was going to be twice as bad as 2005. (The truth is that 2006 was notable for it lack of storms.)

According to Fox News:

Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, hurricanes have often been seen as a symbol of global warming's wrath. Many climate change experts have tied the rise of hurricanes in recent years to global warming and hotter waters that fuel them. Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle. What makes this study different is [Tom] Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J. He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming. He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming." The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent. The number of hurricanes making landfall in the United States and its neighbors — anywhere west of Puerto Rico — will drop by 30 percent because of wind factors. The biggest storms — those with winds of more than 110 mph — would only decrease in frequency by 8 percent. Tropical storms, those with winds between 39 and 73 mph, would decrease by 27 percent.

I know the libs just hate it when they are confronted with real facts and data rather than the emotionalistic rhetoric of a man who is making millions of dollars off of his eco-pandering. (BTW, someone should ask Al Gore how much profit he makes every time he sells a carbon credit. If it is higher than the 6% margin that the oil companies make, someone should investigate Al for price gouging.)

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Study: Hurricane Spike Not Caused By Global Warming
Associated Press via Fox News
May 19, 2008

---

And finally, we note that doctors are headed for Texas. Why? Tort reform. It is once again economical in Texas to open new practices withour having to worry about ambulance chasers like John Edwards using you and your insurance company to make themselves rich while at the same time driving health care prices so high that the lower class can no longer afford it.

From the Wall Street Journal:

In 2003 and in 2005, Texas enacted a series of reforms to the state's civil justice system. They are stunning in their success. Texas Medical Liability Trust, one of the largest malpractice insurance companies in the state, has slashed its premiums by 35%, saving doctors some $217 million over four years. There is also a competitive malpractice insurance industry in Texas, with over 30 companies competing for business. This is driving rates down. The result is an influx of doctors so great that recently the State Board of Medical Examiners couldn't process all the new medical-license applications quickly enough. The board faced a backlog of 3,000 applications. To handle the extra workload, the legislature rushed through an emergency appropriation last year.

And this is a really good idea, one that might have stopped John Edwards from doing so much damage in North Carolina:

One judge now makes all pretrial discovery and evidence rulings, including the validity of expert doctor reports, for all cases. This creates legal consistency and virtually eliminates "venue shopping" – a process by which trial lawyers file briefs in districts that they know will be friendly to frivolous suits. Trials still occur in plaintiffs' home counties.

I know, I know. The libs will still blame the "greedy" insurance companies in the rest of the U.S. But it is clear that liberal trial lawyers who seek their fortunes at the expense of insurance companies are the true culprits.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Why Doctors Are Heading For Texas
Joseph Nixon
The Wall Street Journal
May 17, 2008