Where Are The Jobs? Why Are So Few Hiring?

I've seen alot of squawking on the Internet about how corporations and businesses are sitting on $8 trillion in assets but won't hire new workers. As the husband of a woman who owns a small business, I have yet to see any of that $8 trillion in my wife's bookkeeping.

But, even if that $8 trillion really existed, the question of so few hirings would have nothing to do with that money and have everything to do with government constantly intervening in economic matters, usually at the expense of the economy in general.

John Stossel has this to say about why there are so few new hires right now:

The problem today is that the economy is not being left alone. Instead, it is haunted by uncertainty on a hundred fronts. When rules are unintelligible and unpredictable, when new workers are potential threats because of Labor Department regulations, businesses have little confidence to hire. President Obama's vaunted legislative record not only left entrepreneurs with the burden of bigger government, it also makes it impossible for them to accurately estimate the new burden. In at least three big areas — health insurance, financial regulation, and taxes — no one can know what will happen. New intrusive rules for health insurance are yet to be written, and those rules will affect hiring, since most health insurance is provided by employers. Thanks to the new 2,300 page Dodd-Frank finance regulatory act, The Wall Street Journal reports, there will be "no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies." These as-yet unknown rules will govern lending to business and other key financial activity. The George W. Bush tax cuts might be allowed to expire. But maybe not. Social Security and Medicare are dangerously shaky. Will Congress raise the payroll tax? A "distinguished" deficit commission is meeting. What will it do? Recommend a value-added tax? Who knows? But few employers will commit to a big investment with those clouds hanging over our heads.

It wouldn't matter if the assets totaled more than $8 quadrillion or $8 quintillion. With uncertainty like this coming out of the Obama White House and the Pelosi-Reid Congress, hiring on the scale we need to boost the economy is not going to happen anytime soon.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Big Government Policies Aren't Creating New Jobs
John Stossel
NewsMax.com
August 24, 2010

NRA To Endorse Anti-Gun Harry Reid In Nevada?

I guess no organization is safe from committing political suicide. What has gotten into Wayne LePierre? Why is he playing footsie with politicians who want to trample on the 2nd Amendment?

Erick Erickson over at RedState.com is wondering why the NRA would even consider endorsing leftist Harry Reid (who endorsed every single anti-gun judicial nominee) over the pro-gun Sharron Angle? Here is Reid's record on gun-control votes:

June 28, 1991. Vote No. 115. Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases. October 21, 1993. Vote 325. Voted to eliminate the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. Only the most fringe anti-gun Senators voted for the amendment. November 19, 1993. Vote 385. Allow states to impose waiting periods over and above the 5 days waiting period required under the Brady Bill. November 19, 1993. Vote 386. Voted to eliminate he 5-year sunset in the Brady Bill. November 19, 1993. Vote 387. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill. November 19, 1993. Vote 390. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill. November 20, 1993. Vote 394. Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-business-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun. August 25, 1994. Vote 294. Voted to close off debate on the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.” August 25, 1994. Vote 295. Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.” April 17, 1996. Vote 64. Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years. June 27, 1996. Vote 178. Voting to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of 30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program. September 12, 1996. Vote 287. Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting “taggants” in black and smokeless gunpowder. September 12, 1996. Vote 290. Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 yards of a school. May 12, 1999. Vote 111. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. May 13, 1999. Vote 116. Voted to ban the importation of ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 rounds. May 14, 1999. Vote 119. Voted to criminalize internet advertisements to sell legal firearms in a legal manner. May 18, 1999. Vote 122. Voted to for Mandatory triggerlocks. May 20, 1999. Vote 133. Voted to create new Federal regulation of pawn shops handling of guns. May 20, 1999. Vote 134. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. The vote was 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote. May 20, 1999. Vote 140. Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures. July 29, 1999. Vote 224. Voted to close debate on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures. February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats including Bryan of Nevada. March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings. March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27). March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements. April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows. April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates. May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures. May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Vote to overturn the ruling of the chair that the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order. May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.” May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures. February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks. March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows. July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks. March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms.

If LaPierre does end up endorsing the gun-grabbing Harry Reid, then I and hundreds of thousands of others will immediately cancel our memberships and the NRA will cease to exist. If that happens, look for me to join Gun Owners of America instead.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

NRA Now Leans Toward Endorsing Harry Reid
Erick Erickson
RedState.com
July 1, 2010

20 Ways Obamacare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

So, Obama, Pelosi and Reid said that Congress needs to pass the Health Care Bill so that America can see what's really in it? Well, let's get started! Below are 20 items in HR3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee. You will also read how it affects us Americans.

From Investor's Business Daily:

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501) 2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701). 3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711). 4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712). 5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714). 6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care. You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302). 7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A)) 8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A). 9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513). 10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)). 11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i)) 12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)) 13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)). 14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003) 15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)). 16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)). The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405). 17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).) 18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014). 19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015). That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402). 20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Now, who are those idiots claiming that this isn't socialized medicine?

There's more in this bill that gives the government more power to regulate your lives and spending. But items #2 and #6 are particularly galling since they essentially amount to a welfare system for people who live unhealthy lifestyles. Items #12 and #13 will eventually lead to the same shortage of services that are being experienced in Canada and Great Britain.

And here's a real kicker: Item 14# is designed only to put insurance companies out of business thereby giving the Socialists in the Democrat Party an excuse to go to the disastrous "single payer system."

This bill needs to get tossed out by the courts or repealed by Congress after we toss the Socialist bums out in 2010 and elect a Constitutional Conservative in 2012.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

20 Ways Obamacare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
David Hogberg
Investor's Business Daily
March 21, 2010

The New Tax Rebellion Has Begun

So, how have you benefitted from the 67,500 word document known as the U.S. Tax Code? Probably not at all. In fact, just having a job and living here in the U.S. means that it has touched you in multiple negative ways although you may not have realized it. Do you think that the prices you pay for goods and services are not artificially inflated by that tax code? If so, you think wrong.

But there is good news coming from middle America. People everywhere are starting to wake up to the fact that our tax code is destructive to everyday taxpayers while only being beneficial to Congress and a few wealthy people who have enough money to make Congress listen to them. That's why the current rebellion is underway. If you wish to become one of the rebels, just go to the following website:

On-Line Tax Revolt

Here is what Micheal Reagan has to say:

Tea Party patriots, FairTaxers, Flat Taxers, and most Americans of every political persuasion understand that the federal tax system fuels unchecked government spending, hides the cost of government from the American taxpayer and has become corrupted into indecipherability by Congressional profits and power. Citizens are coming together from across the political spectrum and across the nation to wake Washington up to the voice of the American people. Citizens are rejecting the idea that huge government borrowing and debt has been secured by pledging the future earnings of generations of Americans not yet born.

That is where Obama, Pelosi and Reid made their mistake and where charlatans like Jim Webb and Mark Warner exposed themselves for what they really are: Socialists who think nothing of stealing the futures of our children and grandchildren.

I do not recall one single person during the last election cycle who said that they wanted to pass along trillions of dollars worth of debt to succeeding generations. But somewhere in there, the Dems have convinced themselves that this is what they heard.

This November, we need to send a message back to D.C. that our children and granchildren are worht fighting for, and if Congress won't fight for them, then we will replace our Representatives and Senators with people who will.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Next American Tax Rebbellion Has Begun
Michael Reagan
TownHall.com
March 1, 2010

Democrats In Denial About Iraq, MS-13 Strikes Again And Supreme Court Looks At Lethal Injections

Ever since MoveOn.org completely embarrassed the Democrats with their slanderous ad about General Patreus, the Dems have been very mum and quiet about the War on Terror, in particular, the pacifying of Iraq.

It is no secret that the surge strategy is working now and has been for several months. Where there used to be headline after headline about more U.S. troop deaths in Iraq, the headlines barely mention it anymore. In other words, "if it isn't bleeding, it isn't leading." Old Media will never make front page news out of a situation that appears to be going good, especially if such news makes a Conservative look good. Old Media will instead sniff out stories to make the Conservative look bad.

But they can no longer do that with Iraq. That's why the Dems are quiet. They don't want to admit that they were wrong and Presdient Bush, under advisement of his military commanders, was right.

According to the Review & Outlook section of the Wall Street Journal:

Across the political spectrum, observers have announced the surge a success. This achievement must be a source of enormous pride to the U.S. soldiers and Marines who have pulled it off. So what we take away from the four Democratic Presidential candidates' stunning display of misinformation and false statements about the surge Saturday evening is that they have simply stopped thinking about Iraq. They seem to have concluded that opposition to the war permits them to literally not know what the U.S. or the Iraqis are doing there. As the nation commences the selection of an American President, this is a phenomenon worth noting.

What Barack Obama said is most noteworthy here:

His first assertion echoed what has become a standard line by the war's opponents, that "we have not made ourselves safer as a consequence." What can this possibly mean? In more than six years there hasn't been one successful terrorist attack on the U.S., even as places elsewhere were hit or actively targeted. Then Senator Obama placidly said that the Sunnis in Anbar Province began to help the U.S. "after the Democrats were elected in 2006." What's more, the Democrats' victory showed them they were "going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias." This obviously means the Democrats would abandon them. But the Sunni Awakening, as it is called, with its fall in bloodshed, occurred only after the Anbar Sunnis were convinced that the U.S. troops would not abandon them to al Qaeda in Iraq. Sunni sheiks have said explicitly it was the new U.S. policy of sustaining the offensive against AQI that made it possible for them to resist the jihadists. The U.S. military has supported the spread of these "awakening councils" in other areas of Iraq. It is navel-gazing in the extreme for Mr. Obama to suggest U.S. Congressional elections caused this turn.

Perhaps someone out there will remind B. Hussein Obama that his own leader in the Senate, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, was all over the national news screaming, "The war is lost!"

If Obama honestly believes that such an attitude caused the changes in Anbar, then surely the Senator will purchase a bridge is Brooklyn that I have for sale.

More:

Governor Bill Richardson, who touts his foreign policy credentials, in the space of a minute made five false statements about Iraq. He asserted "zero" internal reconciliation, "zero" progress on sharing oil revenue, "zero" regional elections, "no" increased effort by the government to train their own security forces and "no" effort to push back against Iran. One can certainly question what the Iraqis have done in all these areas, but to reduce the last year to a nullity isn't worthy of a serious candidate. "If you look at what happened in Iraq," said John Edwards, you'll see that violence fell after the British withdrew from "where those troops were located." This is precisely the opposite of what happened. The Brits were located in southern Basra province, and their drawdown began last month after what U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband at the handover ceremony called a "massive" decline in insurgent activity. Mr. Edwards's view that a troop pullout will reduce Iraq's violence is unique among public figures anywhere. In different ways one can explain the views of these three. Senator Obama seems to be talking his way toward believing that eloquence and credibility are the same thing; Mr. Edwards's campaign is aggressively parochial in its interests; and Bill Richardson used the debate Saturday to blow up the remnants of his campaign.

The Dems need a serious reality check.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats In Denial
Wall Street Journal
January 8, 2008

---

And in a previous blog entry, we saw how Mara Salvatrucha, aka MS-13, defaced a Vietnam Veterans War memorial in Connecticut. It seems as though they have struck again.

From the World Net Daily:

Authorities in New Haven, Conn., have launched an investigation into the establishment of the radically violent MS-13 street gang in their city after a second case of apparently gang-related vandalism within a week. ... "This irks me. This hurts me deep to my heart," Vietnam Army veteran Emery Linton Sr. told the station then. Linton, who served in Vietnam from 1969 to 1972, noted he lost friends there and called the mess on the memorial a slap in the face to veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. "People here respect these names. They gave their lives for everything, for the freedoms they have," Linton said. As WND reported, the El Salvador-based MS-13 operates in 44 U.S. states, according to the FBI. WND reported as early as 1995 the gang reportedly was meeting with representatives of al-Qaida and smuggling operatives into the United States from Mexico.

It should be especially noted here that New Haven, Connecticut is a sanctuary city that provides illegal aliens with driver's licenses so they can access public services at the taxpayer's expense.

And exactly how long will we continue turning our heads in the opposite direction?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

MS-13 Hits Vietnam Vets' Memorial Again
World Net Daily
January 8, 2008

---

Finally, we have the Supreme Court looking into the issue of whether or not execution by lethal injection causes pain for the condemned. Check this out:

Several justices indicated a willingness to preserve the three-drug cocktail that is authorized by three dozen states that allow executions. Such a decision would allow lethal injections, on hold since late September, to resume quickly. Justice Antonin Scalia said states have been careful to adopt procedures that do not seek to inflict pain and should not be barred from carrying out executions even if prison officials sometimes make mistakes in administering drugs. "There is no painless requirement" in the Constitution, Scalia said. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito also indicated their support for the states' procedures. Other members of the court, who have raised questions about lethal injection in the past, said they are bothered by the procedures used in Kentucky and elsewhere in which three drugs are administered in succession to knock out, paralyze and kill prisoners. The argument against the three-drug protocol is that if the initial anesthetic does not take hold, a third drug that stops the heart can cause excruciating pain. The second drug, meanwhile, paralyzes the prisoner, rendering him unable to express his discomfort. "I'm terribly troubled by the fact that the second drug is what seems to cause all the risk of excruciating pain, and seems to be almost totally unnecessary," said Justice John Paul Stevens.

I'm terribly troubled by the fact that these murderers caused excrutiating pain to their victims and the victims' families but libs only have feelings for the murderers, not the murdered.

I thought libs were supposed to be sensitive people.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Justices Divided Over Lethal Injections
Mark Sherman
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
January 8, 2008

So True

Dems Work To Protect Terrorists And Global Cooling At Work?

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

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

After they failed on Monday to block Republican efforts to retroactively bar lawsuits against telephone companies that helped the government monitor suspected jihadist communications after September 11, Mr. Reid pulled from the floor legislation to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the primary law governing the monitoring of electronic communications. Unless Congress acts, on Feb. 1 U.S. intelligence agencies will lose the ability to monitor at least some overseas terrorist telecommunications without first obtaining court approval. Some special-interest groups would be very happy to see FISA expire. With the support of groups like People For the American Way, the ACLU and the blog DailyKos, Messrs. Feingold and Dodd have been working feverishly to deny the telephone companies protection from lawsuits over their participation in terrorist surveillance efforts. ... No case on the public record better illustrates the heightened dangers Americans will face than the case of three soldiers from the Army's 10th Mountain Division who were ambushed May 12 south of Baghdad, apparently by al Qaeda. One soldier was found dead on May 23, while the other two remain missing. As coalition forces searched for the missing soldiers on May 13 and May 14, intelligence officials learned about insurgent communications they believed to be related to the ambush. On May 14, a special court overseeing FISA issued an order permitting some suspected terrorist communications to be monitored. The following day, lawyers and intelligence officials spent more than nine hours discussing the need for a FISA order to monitor these communications before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales authorized monitoring. Critics attribute the delays in the search to bureaucratic "bungling" — an intellectually dishonest argument, because it overlooks the fact that the FISA court had issued several rulings earlier this year that called into question the government's authority to act without prior court approval. Mr. Reid this week was faced with a choice between fixing the problems and pandering to special-interest groups who want to make it impossible for the military to do its job. Once again, he made the wrong choice.

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

You can access the complete article on-line here:

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

---

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

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

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S. South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency. Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered. Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

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

Deming goes on:

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years. ... Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

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

You can access the complete column on-line here:

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