Side Tracking on Obama: Conservatives, Keep Your Eye on the Prize

"Obama's a Muslim."
"Obama's not a Muslim."
"Obama hasn't released his
birth certificate."
"Obama has released his birth certificate."
"Michelle Obama hates America and 'Whities'."
"Michelle Obama is a
patriotic American."

On and on it goes.

People, my fellow Conservatives and Republicans of all persuasions, it's a distraction. All of these side issues are distractions designed to prevent a discussion of the real dangers of an Obama-nation.

Keep your eyes on the prize.

Obama, whatever he may or may not be by birth, is a hardcore socialist who wants to take this nation down the path of other failed socialist experiments in Europe and other parts of the world.
We must not forget this!

What Obama believes in his spiritual life, is between him and whatever deity he chooses to worship or not worship. What matters are his plans, or the plans of those who are his handlers, to destroy this nation, culturally, fiscally, and socially.

He criticizes McCain's proposal for a summer "gasoline tax vacation" because it won't save people very much money. He does this while virtually admitting that he likes the high gasoline prices. Why, because like all Liberals, he promotes the concept of forced reduction in consumption.

High gas prices means people will be forced to drive less. This is an old Democrat/Liberal concept. One that has been promoted by Al Gore and other Leftist extremists within the Democrat Party.

Obama is a devout Marxist and as such, he believes that the end justifies the means, no matter what the cost to the his fellow citizens, just as his fellow Democrats in the House and Senate believe...if they actually were concerned about the stresses high gas prices place on the average citizen, they would be advocating increased domestic exploration rather than preventing it.

Obama believes in socialized medicine. He may call it by some other name, but his goals are the same as every other socialist who has raised his or her voice - government control of our medical care.

Obama believes in government. With every vote he has cast in the Senate and his every action, he screams government control. From his own website:

• He wants the Federal Government to determine what wages should be, not the free market and private companies.


• He wants the Federal Government to provide college tuition for anyone who wants it, while penalizing the private student loan industry by elimination of subsidies. [It's good to see government doing what private industry can do better, right Barack?]


• He wants the Federal Government to provide another $300/family in assistance, cost - $20 Billion


• He wants the Federal Government to provide protection from foreclosure for homeowners who bought houses they knew they couldn't afford, cost - $10 Billion (yeah right, like that's all it will cost).


• He wants the Federal Government to provide "communities hardest hit by the housing crisis" with funds to provide vital services," cost - $10 Billion (another lie).


• He wants the Federal Government to provide a further extention of unemployment benefits, cost - $10 Billion.


• He wants the Federal Government to provide another $500/person in his "Making Work Pay" tax relief to those who pay no income tax, "to offset the payroll tax," (he doesn't even dare provide a cost for this proposal).


• He wants the Federal Government to fund a "Advanced Manufacturing Fund" to promote "green technologies," no cost estimate.


• He wants the Federal Government to "invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid," cost - $15 Billion/year.


• He wants the Federal Government to create, "New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies," no cost estimate.


• He wants the Federal Government to create a "Renewable Portfolio Standard" (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025, (and cost untold $Billions).


• He wants the Federal Government to create a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank," another Federal Bureaucracy, cost - $6 Billion/year.


• He wants the Federal Government to institute his "cap-and-trade system [that] will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters [folks, that includes you and me] pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies.

The list is almost endless. This is just a little sample from his Obama08 webpage.
These proposals don't represent "change," they represent a return to the tried and failed policies of Roosevelt's "New Deal" and Johnson's "Great Society." Those are the policies which have done more to destroy the fabric of our nation than any enemy could possibly have contemplated.

Through the misguided use of Federal money in "assisting" the poor, the Federal government, far from saving the American family, has done more to destroy it than any other single entity or cultural trend could have.

Obama's "Change You Can Believe In" is a huge step backward for our nation. His proposals are not a step forward to the future, but a giant leap backward to the past.

Obama is planning the systematic dismantling of our entire culture and economy with an aim of instituting a socialist "paradise" such as the Soviets enjoyed for 50 years. For Obama, government isn't a solution to our problems, it is the solution.

I don't care (at least not very much) whether Obama has a legitimate copy of his birth certificate, or if he is a Muslim. I care about what his plans are for this nation that I love, warts and all.

McCain sees government as a useful partner in meeting the needs of the American people. He has more faith in government than do I, but at least he envisions some limitations on the role of government in our lives. Obama has no such qualms about government intrusion into our lives.

For Obama, Government is mother, Government is father. Obama's vision of Government is as the ultimate expression of mankind. He trusts the government, not the individual. He believes that Government, not private enterprise can provide the solutions to our problems.

Surrounded by his thousands of adoring fans, none of whom can say exactly what he has done that warrants electing him as President of the United States, aided by a mainstream media more inclined to act as cheerleader and advocate for his election than as an objective and cautious critic, and being run by faceless controllers who hide in the background dictating his agenda, Barack Obama is the gravest threat this nation has faced in my lifetime.

Krushchev promised that the Soviet Union would destroy America not through might of arms, but from the inside.

Obama is Krushchev's promise made incarnate.

When an illusionist is performing tricks which dazzle you and divert your attention, watch that his assistant isn't standing behind you picking your pocket.

Keep your eyes on the prize!

Don't be distracted by these side issues. Yes Obama is a threat to America, but these small issues distract attention away from the threat Obama truly represents.

Obama is not a "Muslim Manchurian Candidate," his is an American Liberal Socialist candidate and his agenda will destroy our economy, our national security, and the social fabric of our society.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Contempt of Constitution: The 5-4 Heller Decision

Will Malven
6/26/2008

“This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”

T.S. Elliot – The Hollow Men

In Heller vs. Washington D.C., The Supreme Court of the United States voted 5-4 (divided along ideological lines) to declare that “the right to keep and bear arms,” as described in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is an individual right.

Al-riiight! [fist pump] Yee-hah! Victory at last! Woo-hah! Celebrate the power!

Okay, back to reality.

The United States Supreme Court, that august body "assigned" the highest responsibility of all judicial authorities, to determine what is or is not within the bounds of our Constitution, made a decision that the right to keep and bear arms, as laid out in our Bill of Rights, is an individual right; something that should have been intuitively obvious to any casual reader of the Constitution without the need of reflection.

So what’s wrong? They did so along partisan philosophical lines.

Imagine that, the “right to keep and bear arms” described in the Bill of Rights as…well…”the right to keep and bear arms,” being interpreted as an individual right.

Gee guys (and gal), ya think so? My, how clever you are. What an original concept, reading the Constitution of the United States…as written. What will they think of next?

For some inexplicable reason, there was a collective sigh of relief and celebration of this narrow vote as a victory for those who believe in that right of the individual law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms…in other words those who actually believe the Constitution to be primary and to be the fundamental basis of all of our laws…as our founding fathers intended.

This was not a victory ladies and gentlemen; this was an escape (and a narrow one at that). It was, to quote Lord Wellington following his victory at Waterloo:

“…the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.”

I find little comfort in this decision. Justice Scalia, in writing his opinion, was very eloquent. He was prolific in his use of quotations from our founding fathers’ writings and statements, to provide the historical context for the majority decision, but in the end this decision left the door open to a very broad array of laws restricting and limitations on, what should be, a law abiding citizen’s unfettered right, as long as those restrictions are not “arbitrary and capricious” in their enforcement.

Being neither fish nor fowl, I find this decision both gratifying and terrifying, gratifying in that it proves at least five of the justices on the Supreme Court can read, terrifying in that such a fundamental and inherent right, as are all rights protected by the Bill of Rights, should be decided under the hot passion philosophical and political opinion rather than the cold reason of constitutional interpretation by so many of our Supreme Court Justices.

It is horrifying that five of our nine justices (I include Kennedy here because his decisions are as inconstant as the wind) are so willing to include their own philosophical biases when making a decision that is so cut and dried as to the original intent of the framers of our constitution.

In the ruling, Justice Scalia says that laws that restrict access or possession of firearms, such as permitting fall within the constitution “as long as they are not arbitrary or capricious,” yet every vote by Justice Kennedy seems “arbitrary and capricious.”

For those who view the Heller decision as a “victory,” I will remind them that “stare decisis” as an “immutable” principle, or even a convenient excuse for avoiding changing prior rulings, is only considered so by those on the Left when the Court’s decisions agree with their own position, otherwise it is simply a vague and nebulous concept to be given cursory consideration before pressing forward with their Leftist agenda. Only honest jurists, those who believe in the concept of “original intent,” ever defer to stare decisis after careful consideration.

With the appointment of one more justice holding the (historically indefensible) belief that the constitution is a “living document” and that decisions should be made, “reflective of today’s evolving society” and the most recent public opinion polls, Heller can (and likely will) be overturned at the first opportunity if the American people relax their vigilance for even a moment.

Those on the Left have a cavalier contempt for the Constitution and for the concept of “original intent” when called upon to interpret the constitution, preferring instead a sort of “sense of the nation and society” basis for their interpretation. The fallacy of this view becomes readily apparent if closely examined.

If nothing within the Constitution of the United States is fixed in stone, if everything within the Constitution is impermanent and it is a “living, breathing document, then no aspect of our government or the way we choose our leaders can be considered sacrosanct.

If enough justices believe the people should not be able to elect their own government, who cares what the Constitution says? After all, it is a “living breathing document.”

If the original intent of our founding fathers, as made known in their concurrent writings doesn’t pertain or inform as to how the Second Amendment is to be enforced, then no right, is safe, no part of our Constitution is protected from the political whims of whoever sits in the majority of our Supreme Court.

In such a case, our Republic ceases to be a Republic and becomes an oligarchy in which the Courts, not the people or the democratically elected representatives of the people, rule our lives.

This ominous power of the Supreme Court was never the intent of our Founding Fathers when they wrote, revised, and then approved our Constitution. Their intent was clear and it was set down in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

"Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed"

These powers were further refined by the Eleventh Amendment, ratified in 1795:

"The Judicial power or the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citzens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

Judicial review, as it is currently practiced was not explicitly granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. It was only in making the Marbury v. Madison decision (1803) that the Supreme Court assumed for itself the extra-constitutional powers of judicial review.

With that self-assumed power, the Supreme Court went from being the weakest of the three branches of our government, to the most powerful. Since that time and particularly over the past 100 years, the Court has used its self-determined powers to make sweeping changes to our nation and our society, substituting philosophical and ideological opinions for strict interpretation of our laws.

The dangers inherent in such a philosophically driven judiciary has become readily apparent in the court's modern tendency to "legislate from the bench" laws which cover matters rightfully belonging in the domain of the Legislative and/or Executive branches.

It is this tendency of modern jurists to legislate rather than interpret which has turned the Supreme Court from a strict monitor of our constitutional rights, into a political football.

It is also this tendency which emboldens the Supreme Court to thwart the wishes of the electorate as expressed by the various state legislatures and the Congress of the United States, as happened in the previous decision in Kennedy vs. Louisiana.

Justice Kennedy decided that raping a child was not a severe enough crime to warrant the death penalty (I think maybe justice Kennedy confusing his name with that of the appellant and fearing he might be the target of the investigation, cast his vote with the Foul Four just in case), in direct defiance of the will of the people of the State of Louisiana as made known in their passing of the law that was struck down.

Folks, I’m not certain what sort of Justices John McCain would appoint. I’m not terribly sanguine that he will appoint men of good originalist intent, but I do know for certain the kind of Justices Barack Obama would appoint and that alone is reason enough for me to vote for McCain in spite of my misgivings.

Long Live Our America Republic!!!

Uh, oh yeah! Hey Anthony…Anthony Kennedy – sorry -- Mr. Justice Kennedy, the word is “Republic,” not “Oligarchy.”

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Who Will Watch the Watchers?

Will Malven
June 24, 2008

In the science fiction thriller, Minority Report, citizens are under constant scrutiny by retinal scanners. They are used by advertisers to directly target individuals with products for their use and they are used by the government to monitor the location of every citizen. The aim is to reduce the likelihood of crime and to track known criminals.

Science fiction or science fact? In Britain today (and London in particular) citizens are being monitored, not by retinal scanners, but by thousands of remote controlled cameras.

The purpose of these cameras, as were the retinal scanners in Minority Report, is to reduce crime and to enable police to monitor criminal activity. The people who elected the councils who approved the use of these cameras are now questioning the wisdom of their decisions.

They are rapidly discovering a universal truth about ceding power to the state.

It is easier to withhold power from the state than it is to strip it away once it has been granted.

Originally approved under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to assist in the government’s battle against terrorism, the ease of access and the temptations associated with such a sweeping power has resulted in a trivializing of their use.

Those cameras are now being used not to stop serious crime alone, but to pursue any and all transgressors including people who fail to clean up “dog fouling,” when taking their pets “walkies.”

The citizens are now learning the lesson Benjamin Franklin attempted to teach when he admonished his fellow citizens that:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Franklin’s admonishment was not simply a capricious thought, but was a result of his astute observations of humanity and our natural tendencies.

Face it human beings are a lazy lot, for the most part, and our natural tendency is to turn to others to do that for us which we should do for ourselves.

We are also (for the most part) creatures who crave safety and security. A great many of us have a natural tendency to seek those two imposters at any price. Some of us know that there is no such thing as absolute safety or security and that, whatever form they take, they must be provided for by the individual.

It is this natural desire for safety which in part gives Leftists so much sway in our society. They see this innate weakness in the populace and they exploit it by amplifying our fears and then proffering the absurd notion that we can be safe if we just allow the government to protect us.

They offer a false sense of security and they offer it at the high price of our freedom.

• Want to feel safe from murder, surrender your right to keep and bear arms.
• Want to feel safe from the costs of medical care, surrender your right to private healthcare.
• Want to feel free from being offended, surrender your right to the free expression of ideals.
• Want to feel safe in your job, surrender your right to work when and where you choose.
• Want to feel safe from the high cost of gasoline, surrender your right to choose what kind of vehicle you drive.

The list is almost endless and the price you pay for each service you accept from your government is another portion of your individual freedom.

In her speech, “A Whiter Shade of Pale,” Janice Rogers Brown, a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and a Bush (43) appointee said the following before The Federalist Society at the University of Chicago in April of 2000 It remains one of the best descriptions of the dangers of an increasing presence of government in our lives:

“Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.”

No truer words have ever been spoken and the above stands as a description of our society and the direction in which it continues to move. Most interesting is the fact that this one truthful, candid observation so offended the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee that it came close to derailing her appointment to the Circuit Court. This fact alone should tell you the dangers we face in the upcoming election should a like minded Democrat occupy the White House.

Echoing Benjamin Franklin’s warning, Ronald Reagan told America in October of 1964 in his speech “A Time for Choosing” [also known as “The Speech”]:

“You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.”

He also warned about the persistence of government bureaucracy when he said:

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.”

…and finally, Reagan said of government:

“the Founding Fathers…knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.”

Though this threat tends to come primarily from the Left, there are those within the Republican Party and on the Right who also seek to usurp our rights in the name of “Homeland Security.”

Their efforts come in the form of a large expansion of governmental powers to invade our privacy and investigate those they deem “suspicious.” The Patriot Act as it is called ceded a tremendous amount of leeway in how law enforcement agencies conduct their investigations and I have for the past several years supported its existence with the caveat that such revisions in our constitutional rights, though they have historical precedence, must always be limited in their duration.

In the past, our government has relinquished those “war powers” once the threat is diminished, but we must remain ever vigilant that such power never becomes so entrenched that it is automatically assumed by the government. With such power comes the tremendous potential for abuse, as our friends in Britain are now witnessing with the ever present cameras they initially allowed for “security purposes.”

So now we must remain ever vigilant as this “War On Terror” drags on. We must never allow our government, whether it is held by those on the Right, the muddled Middle, or the Left, to become so accustomed to those powers that they fail to give them up.

With a socialist running as the Democrat Party candidate for President, and a very Liberal Democrat majority in Congress, we are now nearing a time of decision about the level of freedom we wish to enjoy.

Are you one of those who is willing to “give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety.” Your answer to that question and the answer of all Americans will decide what kind of society we will live in.

The citizens of Socialist nations very rarely [if ever] enjoy the individual freedom, prosperity and power that we currently enjoy as Americans.

As was asked in the movie, “The Matrix,” the question you must answer is,

Will you take the blue pill and wake up in a society with few individual rights and a little security, or will you take the red pill and go forward into a society fraught with risk and filled with individual freedom and prosperity?

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Election 2008, McCain or Obama? It's a Hobson's Choice.

Thomas Hobson was the operator of the stables in Cambridge, England back in the 17th Century, and when a customer came to rent a horse, he was given one choice, the first horse in line. The alternative was to walk. It is from this story, that we now have in our vernacular the phrase "a Hobson's choice," meaning a choice that is no choice.

The phrase has evolved to imply a choice between two equally bad options, but the original definition is still the preferred one.

In this 2008 election, Americans are presented with a choice between what may be the worst two options in the past 100 years:

1. A small, gruff, cantankerous, old retired Navy Captain whose mental stability is more than a little suspect, but who served his nation with honor both in the military and as a United States Senator for 20 years.


2. A tall, attractive, smooth talking empty suit with great oratory skill and no ideas.

Not a very exciting choice for anyone with intellect enough to understand the issues confronting America.

To make matters worse, there's not a dimes worth of difference between the two of them on two of the most important issues (I'm tempted to say crises here) facing the American voter, the blight of uncontrolled illegal immigration and the farcical myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Both of these candidates seem to be Hell bent on destroying our culture by granting what amounts to automatic citizenship to all illegal aliens with nothing more than a slap on their collective wrists for violating our national sovereignty and our nations laws.

Both of these candidates also seem equally Hell bent on destroying our nation's economy by imposing pointless restrictions on our consumption of hydrocarbons and their consequent emissions of CO2.

Their attitudes seem to be. "Why let the free market do something when the government can do it?" Of course the last word off of that sentence, worse. "Why let the free-market do something when the government can do it worse?"

What do we know about John McCain?

Well, we know that he revels in his reputation as a "maverick," even to the point of "sticking it" to his fellow Republicans. He loves to brag about "crossing the aisle" (between the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate) in order to get something accomplished. Unfortunately, everything he has accomplished in that manner has been an anathema to those who believe in our constitution.

This sad form of "cooperation" has led to:

1. McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law which effectively restricts the right of all Americans to free speech.


2. McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, which was effectively a grant of blanket amnesty to all illegal immigrants.


3. McCain-Liebermann, which would have bankrupted our economy by imposing unnecessary limits to carbon dioxide emissions and imposed a "cap and trade" system of carbon taxation.

I guess "bi-partisanship" isn't all it's cracked up to be, John.

What exactly do we know about Barack Hussein Obama?

1. We are told he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago School of Law, though how he did that I am at a loss to say as he apparently has only a very faint passing acquaintance with what the Constitution says, if one judges his knowledge from his (very brief) Senate voting record and the policies he supports.


2. We know that his is the most Liberal voting record of all 100 members in the Senate.


3. We know that he is a black separatist (sorry, one cannot attend a black separatist church for 23 years and not agree with what is being preached there), unless he is a liar and only attended that church for crass political reasons, which would make him a hypocrite and a liar of the most cynical sort.


4. We know that the policies he supports are socialist by nature, increasing governmental power in our markets, our culture and our lives.


5. We know that he lacks any experience in dealing with foreign powers. He mistakes our enemies (dictators, Castro of Cuba, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Kim Jong Il of North Korea, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran) for our friends and our friends (the Israeli people and their democratically elected government, the people of Iraq and their democratically elected government, our military leaders, and our troops in Iraq) for our enemies.


6. We know that he has not been to Iraq for over two and one-half years yet he has proclaimed the troop surge a "failure." "A failure," without having even been to Iraq to see whether or not the surge has been working. I believe that this is what Democrats like to describe as "Shooting from the hip."


7. We know he lacks the courage to take a stand. Obama's inability to take a stand came under scrutiny when his record of voting "present" 129 times while in the Illinois State Legislature, but that record pales in comparison to is record in the US Senate. According to Project Vote Smart, from January 2005, his first day in the US Senate, through June 10th of this year, this courageous Senator has "not voted" 232 times out of a total of 544 votes...ahem...that's approximately 42% of the time.

Those last two are perhaps the coldest cuts of all, America needs a leader, not a follower. Say whatever you will about John McCain, he is his own man and is not afraid to take a stand (however wrong that stand may be in the eyes of many within his own party).

Thus we are faced with the electoral equivalent of a Hobson's choice, the choice between the only horse available, an old beat up war horse, cantankerous and mean, but wise in the ways of the world and war, or nothing...an empty suit with a smooth seductive patter.

Obama lacks both the informational and intellectual depth and the breadth of knowledge of the issues confronting America to present a real alternative. He is the analogue equivalent of a jittery, wobbly legged, inexperienced colt to John McCain's old war horse.

With Obama, America would be rolling the dice as we have never rolled them before. He's naive enough to believe that meeting with our international adversaries without any pre-conditions would be advantageous to America.

He actually believes that Americans are stupid enough to vote for a slogan "A Change You Can Believe In" thus illustrating the contempt that he and his handlers have for the American voters. For many on the Left, unfortunately he is correct, they prefer the easy, "feel good," nebulous offerings of the Obama campaign to the tough choices real solutions require.

I will in the next few articles provide a glimpse into the abyss, pulling information directly from the Obama for President web page, I will show what an Obama-nation will look like.

The first heads up for those who love freedom and understand the threat that a Leftist government presents is the following quotation from Obama himself...in discussing his intended expansion of the American's with disabilities act.

"We must build a world free of unnecessary barriers, stereotypes and discrimination. That policies must be developed, attitudes must be shaped, and buildings and organizations must be designed to ensure that everyone has the ability to get the education they need and live as independent citizens in their own communities."

I take special notice of the phrase "attitudes must be shaped," I don't know about you but those are very frightening words coming from a potential President of the United States. There is a vast difference between "convincing people" which implies changing minds through reasoned debate, with compelling arguments and "shaping attitudes," which implies governmental coersion.

The world has had experience with people who believed in "shap[ing] attitudes." During the cold war, our enemies were very good at running "re-education camps" and using their educational institutions to promote a specific social agenda, replacing education of substance with propaganda.

Such a suggestion is the antithesis of the freedom of ideas and speech which most Americans hold very dear and for which hundreds of thousands of Americans throughout our nation's history have given their lives to defend.

That is the vision Obama and his handlers in the Leftist organizations of America offer our citizens.

As with all Liberal ideas, the intent is noble but the execution is execrable. The inevitable unintended consequences of such a suggestion is a further erosion of individual freedom in America.

This is not my vision for America and it was not the vision of our Founding Fathers when they built this greatest of nations.

McCain may not be my cup of tea, but the America he offers is far better than the enslavement those in the Obama camp offer.

As I have stated, a Hobson's choice...McCain and freedom or Obama and enslavement, a choice that is not a choice.

As the great Yogi Berra said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Lies and Myths of the “Anthropogenic Global Warming” Fear Mongers and the Dire Threat They Pose

Will Malven
June 5, 2008

The American people are constantly being bombarded more and more with piffle and drivel from the lunatic fringe of the “Greens” movement.

Organizations with their own political, social, and economic agendas, like the IPCC and the UN General Assembly present themselves as clearing houses for “scientific information” while placing their own philosophical brand on the findings they report.

The proponents of the “doom and gloom” scenario of man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW) tend to fall into easily recognizable categories:

1. Climatologists and other scientists whose livelihoods depend on the perpetuation of the theory that:
   
   a. The planet is warming up, and
   b. That man’s activities are the primary driving force behind such a change.
   
2. Computer modelers who take current data and construct mathematical models which they then use to confirm their already drawn conclusions about the origin and ultimate results of global warming.
   
3. Members of organizations (generally, but not exclusively found on the extreme left-wing of the political spectrum) like the Greens Party, the Sierra Club, and other environmental wacko groups who believe that mankind (and especially American mankind) is basically a toxic presence which infects the planet and that the planet would be better off without him.
   
4. Naïve, well intentioned do-gooders who lack the intellect or knowledge to penetrate the fog of jargon with which the global warming alarmists camouflage their intentions and to critically examine the weak, faux science now being presented as fact.
   
5. Leftists who understand global warming as the scam is, but see in it, through their cynical, Machiavellian eyes, a useful tool to further government control over the economy and the people.
   
6. The average citizen who lack the time, knowledge, or inclination to learn the truth about AGW and the aims of its proponents and who fall victim to the massive propaganda machine in the Leftist controlled mainstream media that tells them tales of a “grim reality” rapidly approaching which can only be prevented by taking draconian measures…IMMEDIATELY!

There have been innumerable “doom and gloom” cults throughout history, but never before have they had such a powerful propaganda weapon as the mass communications apparatus now in place.

That propaganda machine has already catapulted Albert Gore, Jr. from Clinton court jester to superstar status (with commensurate income) and has rendered him immune to cries against his hypocrisy, by excusing his massive “carbon foot print” (as well as those of other celebrity alarmists) as being an unfortunate side effect of the obligation he has to spread the gospel.

Al Gore, the man who flunked out of Divinity School, is presented as an expert in AGW. If he says it, we are to believe it without question. In fact Barbara Boxer quoted Al Gore, Jr. as one of her unimpeachable sources influencing the design of her global warming substitute amendment, a massive government takeover of the American economy.

Al Gore tells us that human generated CO2 is causing global warming and he uses charts derived from ice-core samples to prove it…he even shows us a huge blown up image of a graph of that ice-core data…nevermind that he misrepresents what those data tell us, we must believe him.

Al Gore is the new messiah of the global warming movement.

What a joke!

We already know. Through a close examination of those same data, that increases in CO2 levels lag behind increases of global temperatures by 800 years, not precede it. They occur as a result of increased temperatures and have no causative effect whatsoever.

If, as enviro-mental wacko's and their naive adherents claim, solar, gravitational, and geophysical effects contribute only a small percentage to the phenomenon of global warming and the accumulation of CO2 (caused by "evil" man) in the atmosphere is the primary causative factor, then there would be little evidence of massive climatological changes occurring on other planets, but there is.

"Long-time greens" (as at least one has presented himself to me), are so twisted in their thinking that they view mankind as (to quote from the movie Matrix) "a virus" which infects our planet.

They willingly adhere to any theory which predicts the imminent destruction of mankind in a sort of convulsive purging of itself by Mother Earth which they believe is a living organism called Gaia (didn’t Bluebonnet or Parkay already do an ad about that?). “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”

The fact that these consummate "neo-Malthusians" are invariably and repeatedly proven wrong by science and by the continued stubbornness of mankind in refusing to "go quietly into that good night," deters them not one whit.

Apparently reality impinges but little into their world.

Global warming has already stalled for the past decade and last year was the coldest in a decade.
According to the geological record, we are not even close to the warmest temperatures Earth has seen over the past few hundred-thousand years.

In past interglacials, temperatures rose considerably higher than they have in the current inter-glacial...and yes we are still in the midst of an inter-glacial, so periods of warming are to be expected.

If these facts elude you, try reading some works of genuine science instead of these politically motivated diatribes written by people with a social agenda.

One of the more recent observations to send a tremor of fear through the global warming alarmists, is a report that subsurface ocean temperatures, as directly measured by over 3000 robotic probes have shown no rise in global oceanic temperatures. In fact those same probes have shown a small but statistically significant decrease in subsurface oceanic temperatures.

These results were so unexpected that, even now, the little Gorebots are scrambling to alter their models to account for what simply have to be anomalous data.

It is an immutable truth about Liberal dogma that, as they are proven wrong in their pet theories, the tenor of the conversation (such as there is) approaches hysteria. The level of hyperbole and the number of predictions of “doom and gloom” rise.

The fevered pitch of the comments coming from those alarmists and the more and more dire predictions of our approaching demise, serve only to prove their desperation as once more one of their pet theories falls onto the ash-heap of history.

AGW is yesterday's news and over the next 10-20 years, people in these organizations will be warning us, once again, of an impending ice-age or some other dire prediction, with the requisite imminent end of civilization as we know it.

I am not a part of the "pro-carbon" lobby, I am a part of the pro-science, pro-reality lobby, a voice of sanity standing in defiance of the raging tide of alarmism emanating from the Left. I am a green’s worst nightmare, a Conservative with a strong knowledge of science and the ability to know Leftist BS when I see it.

I am far from being alone. Most individuals of good common sense (mostly Conservatives) see AGW for the con-game it is. The arguments, as put forward by AGW alarmist, offer neither compelling scientific nor logical reasons to react impulsively to each spate of tornadic activity reported on the evening news.

The most compelling scientific evidence and arguments rest with AGW deniers like me.

It is individuals such as those I have described above who, through their blind following of false profits of doom like Rachel Carson (author of one of the deadliest lies in history, the book "Silent Spring") and Albert Gore, Jr, represent the most pressing danger to the world’s population.

Rachel Carson (after Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the 1973 Supreme Court through its ruling in Roe v. Wade) is the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century. She and her gullible little army of adherents are responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans from malaria. By demanding and achieving the a ban on the manufacture, distribution and use of DDT, one of the most innocuous chemicals ever invented by mankind, they have caused unimaginable suffering by those in developing nations.

That book and the “science” upon which it was based is one of the most horrendous (in consequences) mistakes of the faux scientists in the green movement. Her theories were flawed and the science upon which they were based was bad and, in spite of her full knowledge of this prior to the precipitous actions her work generated, she persisted in her campaign.

The story of Rachel Carson and her egregious error of arrogance should be an object lesson for all who now heed the siren call of the greens in this AGW campaign, but that same arrogance, the arrogance inherent in the Left, will prevent them from paying attention.

AGW is a monstrous scam and any action taken by congress or any government will most certainly have grim unintended consequences, just as all poorly thought out and ill-conceived laws have, throughout our nation’s history.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hyperbole and Lies Dominate Debate on Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill

Following close on the heels of the coldest year of this century and a growing "consensus" among non brain-washed scientists that man-made global warming is a Leftist hoax and in a continuation of the United States Senate's tradition of being a day late and a dollar short, that "august body" of mental defectives will begin debate on the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill.

This bill is a mare's nest of faux science, half-truths and outright lies...beginning with the name of the bill. Properly it should be called the Boxer-Warner Bill as, according to H. JOSEF HEBERT of the Associated Press, the bulk of the 500 page Leftist assault against capitalism and our economy was authored primarily by Senator Babs Boxer, not Joe Lieberman or John Warner. They are merely the chief co-sponsors. Why isn't Barbara's name on the bill...take a guess. How far do you think such a bill would get if it was sponsored by one of the dimmest bulbs in Congress and one of the most Liberal?

One of the stand-out features of the Lieberman-Warner Bill is a concept resurrected corpse of the McCain-Lieberman Stewardship Act which, happily, was defeated in 2003, the so called "cap and trade" (more properly called "bait and switch") policy dealing with so-called "carbon units."

The key of this proposal is that every corporation and other "entities" (that means you and I) would be given an base allotment of "carbon units" (or credits). Any of these "entities" that exceeded their base allotment of credits would be required to purchase additional credits from those "entities" consuming less than their base allotment. Or as described by the PEW Center on Global Climate Change:

An entity that was in a covered sector, or that produced or imported synthetic GHGs, would be subject to the requirements of this bill if it (a) owned at least one facility that annually emitted more than 10,000 metric tons of GHGs (measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalents – MTCO2E); (b) produced or imported petroleum products used for transportation that, when combusted, would emit more than 10,000 MTCO2E; or (c) produced or imported HFC, PFC and SF6 that, when used, would emit more than 10,000 MTCO2E. Each covered entity would be required to submit to the EPA one tradeable allowance for each MTCO2E directly emitted. Each petroleum refiner or importer would be required to submit an allowance for each unit of petroleum product sold that, when combusted, would emit one MTCO2E. Each producer or importer of HFC, PFC, and SF6 would be required to submit an allowance for each unit sold that, when used, would emit one MTCO2E. The Administrator would determine the method of calculating the amount of GHG emissions associated with combustion of petroleum products and use of HFC, PFC, and SF6. [Emphasis added]

The net result of this con-game system would amount to a "carbon tax" on all American citizens. The beneficiary of this carbon-tax would, of course, be the United States government, which would then disperse these additional revenues to those industries favored by the environmental wackos (a.k.a. the EPA).

Reading further from PEW:

The Secretary of Commerce would determine the amount of allowances to be given away or "grandfathered" to covered entities and the amount to be auctioned. The Secretary's determination would be subject to a number of allocation factors identified in the bill. Proceeds from the auction would be used to reduce energy costs of consumers and assist disproportionately affected workers. [Emphasis added]

There you have it folks, classic socialism; the redistribution of wealth, as directed by the government, from the profitable to the unprofitable, or energy providers to the governmentally blessed "alternative energy" industry.

Just as it is for every problem facing America, the Left's solution to our energy problems then is "let the government provide the solution, not the free market."

The oil market is steadily tightening as the demand for the known oil supplies continues to grow. The obvious solution is to expand exploration and production. The obvious solution to high gasoline prices is increased refining capacity. Yet these intuitively obvious solutions somehow escape those on the Left.

Is the Left's response to this so-called crisis expand the oil supply? No, it's "let's find more difficult to develop, more expensive sources of energy," and let the government do it, not the free market. As a result, money will be diverted, by the government, to such useless endeavors as wind energy, bio-fuels, and solar power.

These sources would be developed as a natural result of market forces, by private industry, as soon as the expense of developing them became commercially viable. The problem with this sort of government imposed "energy plan" is that it encourages groups to spend tax-payer money to develop commercially unviable energy sources.

The natural result of these policies is the creation boondoggle projects at tax-payer expense.

Today's (Tuesday, June 03, 2008) floor debate varied from the patently dishonest - Bill Nelson (D-Fla) admitting that the markets and supplies are tightening but saying that additional exploration won't solve the problem - Go Figure), to the surreal - Diane Feinstein (another intellectual midget) giving a lecture on the science of "Anthropogenic Global Warming," warning us the Al Gore (now there's an expert opinion to hang your hat on) told her that "Greenland and Antarctic glaciers may melt sooner than expected and raise ocean levels by as much as 20 feet" ( Lions and Tigers and Bear. Oh my!) and Babs Boxerstein declaring in her opening remarks from the floor of the Senate (as related by The Canadian Free Press:

“Why do this [the Lieberman-Warner bill] now? We’re in a recession. Precisely because we’re in a recession is why we should be doing this. This bill is the first thing that brings us hope.”

Sheer genious Babs. Raise taxes and energy costs during the early stages of a recession and drive more jobs overseas. I am certain that your proposal will bring a great deal of "hope" to the workers in China and India as they are hired by companies which will no longer be able to afford to conduct their business in America.

For that proposal alone, Babs should be drawn and quartered. Anyone with half a brain - that let's Barbara Boxer and her fellow Liberals in Congress out - knows that raising taxes during a recession, or near recession will destroy the economy.

The auction of Carbon "allowances" Babs proposes will "bring in" $3.26 Trillion in revenue by 2050. No doubt that Liberals are salivating over this huge influx of tax-payer dollars. It gives them more money to buy the votes of the fools who believe what they are saying.

What? You think only corporations will pay these additional taxes? Where do you think those corporations will get the money for those Carbon Units? Higher prices of course; higher prices that you, the consumer, will pay and pay and pay. You will pay higher food prices, higher fuel prices, higher medical costs, higher clothing costs...well you get the picture.

Of course that $3.26 Trillion is only the beginning. "Madamn" Boxer expects that revenues will eventually reach twice that amount; all of it to be handed out by Congress and the government to those who can best help these slugs get re-elected.

This is the ultimate tax-payer funded boondoggle and it will destroy our economy.

We are safe this year, because President Bush will veto any bill remotely resembling the McCain/Lieberman/Warner/Boxer/Sanders/et al Bill, and congress lacks the votes to overturn a veto or even force a vote. Next year is not so hopeful.

With McCain falling prey to the wiles of Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Americans will be forced to rely solely on the few strong Conservatives in Congress to obstruct and delay any future Global Warming Boondoggles coming from the Left.

What a bunch of crooks and liars. There is no redeeming feature in any of this legislative activity beyond the entertainment value of watching idiots like Boxer, Feinstein, and The Gigolo act like they know anything about what they are discussing.

There were a few bright spots in today's debate, some heroes of the debate. Pete Domenici (R-NM) found the fire once more blasting the Democrats, freshman Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) put in a great performance and of course James Inhofe (R-OK) loosed a few broadsides.

The fun is supposed to last the remainder of the week. Some of the Senators will turn your stomach if you have a minimal understanding of the absurdity of the entire AGW scam, but there will be some very bright spots.

Break out the popcorn and enjoy the show. There should be (judging by today's debate) some real fireworks.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Political Correctness: When the Absurd Becomes Dangerous

Will Malven
May 24, 2008

Political Correctness is one of the most absurd, offensive, and now dangerous concept in America. What used to be laughable, the idea that some words and ideas should be quashed because someone in society might be offended, has become the battle cry for an Orwellian - Stalinist/Maoist - attempt to control all thought and ultimately the freedom, long enjoyed by Americans, to say anything they wish about any subject without fear of government repression or suppression.

We're talking about the First Amendment here folks, not some silly law passed by a bunch of corrupt politicians, but the first statement of protected rights in our nation's founding document.

It has become increasingly obvious over the past two decades that the Political Left, armed with such nebulous concepts as "fairness" and rights made up out of whole cloth, such as "the right not to be offended," neither of which can be found in our Constitution, is on a campaign to control what may and may not be said and ultimately, thought.

It’s very reminiscent of North Korea today, or of Maoist China and Stalinist Russia; societies in which simply using the wrong words could send you to a Gulag or your friendly neighborhood death squad.

In this atmosphere of absurd concepts, Liberal Democrats are increasingly attempting to control what may or may not be said...by those whom they oppose...while embracing any and all offensive and threatening words directed at their opponents as simply exercising their right of free speech.

What results is a bizarre mixture of socially enforced rules of speech culminating this week in the instant and insane rebuke of Hillary Clinton (once the darling of the Left) by the Obama camp and the Left in general for simply invoking the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in explaining her choice to pursue the presidential nomination in spite of all of the calls from the elite Left, in the press and in the Democrat Party, to step aside.

What Hillary said was neither threatening, nor likely to invoke a desire to kill Barack Insane Obmouse by any Hillary supporter. Yet one would have thought from the reaction within the Obama camp that Hillary had called for an assassination squad.

This kind of hypersensitive over-reaction to speech is one of the gravest threats we face in an Obama victory. Liberals love to throw verbal bombs at their perceived political enemies (and in some cases, say Obama’s close friends, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn for example, they throw literal bombs) yet they are, like a little spoiled child, surprised and outraged when their opponents return the favor.

They react to those “in kind” responses by crying out in rage that somehow unlike they, who are merely indulging in their constitutional right to free speech, the other side is using "hate-speech" or is, in some strange twist of (I hate to use the word logic or reason as Liberals lack any of either) understanding, being “unfair.”

Thus we return to the Hillary - Bobby Kennedy story. There is some delicious irony in all of this hoopla surrounding Hillary's run for office and the attempts by those on the Left to portray her as, what we on the Right have known her to be for almost 20 years, an insufferable, intolerant, imperious, hypocritical, hateful bitch.

One might say that the Clintons are being hoisted on their own petard...settle down Liberals…I said "petard" not "retard," so don't get your P's and C's in an uproar. If you don't know what "petard" means, look it up in your dictionary...assuming you have one. Don't be niggardly (better look that one up as well) in your use of your dictionary

The problem with all of this nonsense is the far more serious implications associated with this laughable concept of political correctness. These run the gamut of possible consequences, from costing you your job because some co-worker has been offended by what you said, whether the insult was intended or not, to the far more dire concept of "hate crimes" in which the legal system has proclaimed themselves capable of determining not just guilt or innocence, but what the perpetrator was thinking as he was committing the crime, and that some murders are worse than others because some form of social bias was involved.

Simply hating the victim does not qualify the murder as a hate crime; go figure.

However, if the victim was a member of one of the specially anointed (by the Liberal social agenda) groups, i.e. he was gay, he was black, or he was (a fill-in-the-blank social designation), then and only then is it a hate crime.

The, very much to be enjoyed, castigation of one of their own, Hillary Clinton, by the Illuminati of the Left, while fun to watch, is a dire warning of what our society could become should they, Liberals, actually gain control of our nation's government.

Liberals routinely indulge themselves in what they would call hate speech when discussing those with whom they disagree. They may call President Bush "Chimpy," "dumb," ”a liar,” "a murderer," "a terrorist," "a Nazi," or any hateful thing they choose; they may make fun of his daughters, his wife, his father and mother, his siblings, and members of his cabinet. All political enemies are fair game for the most hateful and derogatory descriptions and implications.

They do this with impunity as the dying Mainstream Media says nothing. They will object to none of it and, in fact, will encourage it by describing such behavior as "Liberals exercising their First Amendment rights."

Yet any comment, however benign, they can construe in any way (no matter how convoluted their thinking) as hateful toward one of their sacred few, becomes a rallying cry for their lynch-mobs. They will leave no stone un-turned to destroy that targeted source of that objectionable statement.

The fate of former Virginia Senator George Allen serves as an object lesson for all Conservatives. His career and his Presidential aspirations were destroyed by a controversy constructed entirely out of whole-cloth by the Left and the mainstream media.

The Alphabet networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN act as cheerleaders, repeating their baseless allegations again and again until what was created out of whole cloth seems to be a statement of fact.

That is the danger in what would be normally considered the uproariously funny way in which Hillary Clinton is now being treated by the press and her Liberal colleagues.

This is the "dream" that Liberals offer America, a society of skulking finger-pointers yelling "Hate speech!" or "Bigot!" and ultimately the dreaded "J'accuse!" of the police state.

This maybe the society for which Liberals yearn, but it is not my "American Dream."

Therefore, as much as I detest the Clintons and the havoc they have wreaked on our society during their ascendancy, I must defend her against this ravening mob.

Words are words. They may be variously inspiring, dispiriting, depressing, offensive, enlightening, entertaining or simply boring, but they are ultimately just words. The only power they hold is that which we ourselves give them.

Today we live in a society in which it has become fashionable for one to take offense anytime anyone says something they don't like. We have become a society of hypersensitive wimps, unable to deal with anything unpleasant, likely to take offense at nothing more than what we imagine is being said about us, incapable of dealing with opposing opinions without being offended by them.

The ultimate response to Obama's much (some would say overly) praised response to the comment that his campaign was just based upon "words and hopeful ideas" and that he lacks the "substance" that would enable him to be an effective leader (an undeniable and profound truth if I ever heard one) when he interspersed the phrase, "Just words?" while spouting quotations from some of the great leaders in our nation's history, is "Yes Senator Obama, just words."

Words alone have no power. Words don't feed the hungry, stop a bullet, or put gasoline in the car. They don't solve the world’s problems and quite often they exacerbate them.

Yes words do have the power to inspire, but that is only a good thing when the cause to which they call people to rally is a worthy cause. Like Obama, Hitler too was a great orator. Many Leftist dictators are great orators, but only fools and the un-educated can be entranced by their words.

Hillary is a distinctly unsympathetic figure, but in this case she is being given the bum’s rush simply because she is bucking the Democrat Illuminati and interfering with their agenda.

Someone, maybe George Soros, maybe some even more nefarious figure (Chavez?, Bin Laden?, Ahmadinejad?) is behind the Obama train pushing it forward with astounding force even though the candidate himself is absurdly unqualified for the office he seeks. To whom does he owe “special allegiance” for his meteoric candidacy?

The idea of Obama as President is laughable. The Liberals and Democrats made fun of George W. Bush as unprepared and unqualified for the office of President of the United States, but compared to their anointed one, George W. Bush is a political and intellectual heavy-weight.

What President, then candidate Bush, lacked and still lacks is Obama’s glib speech and easy style. On substance there can be no comparison. Obama falls short in every conceivable category.

Have you ever wondered why Obama, who is every bit as white as he is black, is being advertised as a black candidate?

Why is it that race is only a legitimate topic for Liberal Democrats, who kept blacks oppressed for over a century and not Conservative Republicans who fought to free them for just as long?

Why is it still the Liberal elite of the Democrat (and Republican) Parties who seek to classify, quantify, and judge people according to their race and the Conservatives who seeks to free all Americans from categorization and any restrictions?

Why is it that the first piece of information of interest to Liberals about a person is how they can be classified?

Why have these elitists turned their backs on the words of one of Black America's greatest leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his dream that his

"four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?"

Just a few questions for readers to ponder.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Jimmy Carter-Our Very Own Neville Chamberlain...Without the Intellect

The Presidency of Jimmy Carter is the most embarrassing moment in our entire checkered national history. He was the most bumbling, incompetent, failure ever to "grace" the White House with his presence and like a bad case of food poisoning; he is the Democrat gift that keeps on giving.

Witness his abominable "Nukiyer" weapons agreement with North Korea. The Democrats in Congress, and Hillary, Mrs. William J. "Bubba-1," Rodham Clinton in particular persistently attempt to portray the failed attempt to bribe the North Korean government into abandoning their aspirations to posess nuclear weapons, as somehow being President Bush's fault.

Yet to any who choose to examine the facts, it becomes readily apparent that the North Koreans negotiated in bad faith, completely "bamboozled" the "Great Negotiator," former and still reigning "National Champion Idiot," Jimmy "the Peanut" Carter, and so slickered "Slick Willy" Clinton that he was caught with his pants down in signing the Agreed Framework between the United States of America and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Of course, that's not the only time Bill Clinton got caught with his pants down, but we don't really need to go there.

The failure of the "Agreed Framework" was due entirely on the typically Leftist willingness to believe anything any enemy of America says in preference to anything loyal Americans may say in opposition.

This failure...really a weakness of Liberal thinking processes...to comprehend that there are "bad actors" out there (no I'm not talking about Sean Penn or Keanu Reeves) who really are intent on doing harm to other people and who are not interested in anything those targets have to say short of "I give up."

This "do-gooder" behavior is generally associated with the insouciant (one might as easily describe it a insipid) arrogance that only a Liberal can truly exemplify. It is an arrogance born of being insulated from the real world, which is why it is so often found in "Ivory-Tower" Liberal professors who live in enclaves of people, all of whom think the same and who hold similar values.

So certain are they that they have the wisdom and reason to make these bad actors see reason, that they are doomed to failure from the outset. People like Jimmy Carter live in a fantasy world in which "the perfectibility of mankind" is taken as an immutable fact.

Because of that belief, they are vulnerable to the lies of leaders like Kim Jong-Il and Kim Il-Sung. They believe the lies of the Communist Chinese leaders because they want to believe them rather than be seen as "rude, boorish, and (worst of all) unsophisticated...or as we Conservatives say, "realists."

So now this former President of Our United States of America is "treating" with another avowed enemy of our nation, the Islamic terrorist organization, Hamas.

In an unauthorized, unsanctioned, and potentially illegal visit to the leaders of Hamas, this Mighty Warrior for Freedom and survivor of the Battle of Plains, Georgia (in which he single-handedly defeated a Killer Bunny-Rabbit), has once more placed himself in between American foreign policy and the goals of our avowed enemies.

Carter found his voice as he spent the 25th anniversary of the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, honoring our fallen diplomats and Marine guards by meeting with Hamas chief Khaled Meshal and his deputy Moussa Abu Marzouk in Damascus, after embracing a Hamas leader in the West Bank and meeting with Hamas leaders from Gaza in Cairo on Wednesday and Thursday.

Yep, old "Jimmy the Bunny-Slayer" had his diplomatic tin-ear in full view for the people of Israel and all of the other victims of Hamas' reign of terror.

Carter was warned repeatedly by the Bush Administration and by over 50 members of Congress that his visits with members of the Hamas leadership would be seen as a victory for Hamas and lend them further legitimacy.

Sure enough, in a statement before several thousand supporters, Mushir Masri, declared the visit by former President Carter as proof that Hamas was not a terrorist organization, but a legitimate political organization. He cited the meeting as "lending legitimacy" to their group.

Hmmm, isn't that precisely what Carter was told would happen?

Jimmy Carter is like the sit-com character who is constantly the butt of the jokes of his fellow cast members. The guy who is gullible enough to believe anything that those around him tell him, rushes off on whatever inane mission upon which they send him, and as soon as he leaves the room, his co-workers burst out in laughter at him.

One can easily imagine members of Hamas breaking out in hysterics as soon as Jimmy Carter left the "talks" with his head full of empty promises and flattery.

Carter came out of these "discussions" announcing that "Hamas was ready to declare Israel's right to exist," only to have his announcement immediately contradicted by Meshaal in a press conference he held in Damascus.

Nothing so strengthens my willingness to trust Democrats with our national security like brilliant diplomatic moves such as this feckless, grandstanding attempt at assuaging the anger of our avowed enemies by "The Great Bunny-Rabbit Slayer," "Hero of the Battle of Plains, Georgia" and former President of the United States, Jimmy "the Joke" Carter.

With incompetent louts such as Carter, Clinton and their newer clones, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton running the nation's foreign policy for the next four years, I am not certain the America I grew up in, born of and dedicated to freedom, free enterprise, and individual responsibility, conceived of by men of principled, Judeo-Christian heritage, and defended by the blood of men and women in whom those principles were ingrained, will survive.

"Saints and Ministers of Mercy Preserve Us."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Global Warming: It Ain't What It Used To Be

As with all hoax theories, the more real science is brought to bear on Human Caused Global Warming, the more the false science falls apart.

1. The first myth to fall was the incorrect conclusion that as atmospheric CO2 levels rise, global temperature rises. Al Gore famously stood in front of a huge graphic in his paean to his ego and the myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), An Inconvenient Truth.
   
   The truth was revealed that atmospheric temperature increases precede increases in atmospheric CO2 levels by about 800 years. Now Al Gore, that is a real "Inconvenient Truth."
   
   Of course the hack "scientist" who make their living off of the AGW gravy train attempted to rationalize this inconvenient fact by claiming that "Maybe the initial temperature rise was due to non-greenhouse gas causes such as solar variations, but these temperature increases were then snow-balled by the increases of atmospheric CO2 which resulted." Of course this fails to explain why global temperatures eventually began to drop...well have no fear, these same hacks explained that, "Of course those same non-greenhouse gas affectors, like solar variations, eventually reverted to their original levels, causing global temperatures to fall which in turn caused CO2 levels to begin to drop as CO2 was reabsorbed by the oceans.
   
   These are interesting arguments considering that one of the most vociferous claims of the AGW hoaxters has been that solar variations and orbital variations were miniscule in their effect compared to the effects of greenhouse gases.
   
   Sooo...these "minor actors" are so potent that they can set the entire Global Warming machine into motion, but are not powerful enough to cause the phenomenon itself.......OHHH-KAAY, if you say so.



2. The second assertion to fall is the claim that temperatures have been increasing at an alarming rate over the past 60 years.
   
   Well, it is warmer than it was 60 years ago, that's an undeniable fact, but the truth is that temperatures over the past 10 years have ceased to increase and have leveled off.
   
   Not only that, but this past year was a record setting cold year with snowfalls throughout the world setting new records.



3. The third blow fell just last week when NASA scientists reported that deep sea probes intended to measure variations of temperature at varying depths are reporting data that don't support the expectations of AGW "scientists."
   
   As reported on NPR and on the pages of our own houston conservative The data from the over 3000 probes which can dive and measure ocean temperatures as deep as 3000 feet are proving that oceanic temperatures have fallen, not risen.
   
   The "scientist" hacks' explanation? We just don't know how to interpret the data. Uhhh...guys, it's temperature data. It only tells you if it warmer or cooler. It just ain't that complex.
   
   I'll interpret it for you...your pet theory is severely flawed...it's wrong.



4. Finally we have this report on research being done by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski.
   
   Zbigniew Jaworowski, past chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, a participant or chairman of some 20 Advisory Groups of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Environmental Program, and current chair of the Scientific Committee of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw is now debunking the data from ice-core samples which have been used as the lynch-pin of the AGW myth.
   

   The ice-core man
   
   Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
   Published: Friday, May 04, 2007
   
   Once upon a time, and for millennia before then, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were low and stable. Then came the industrial revolution and CO2 levels began to rise. The more man industrialized, the more that CO2 -- and the temperature -- rose. In the last half century, with industrialization at unprecedented levels, CO2 reached levels unprecedented in the human history. This is the story of global warming.
   
   ------------snip------------
   
   Dr. Jaworowski agrees that CO2 levels rose in the last half century. Starting in 1958, direct, real-time measurements of CO2 have been systematically taken at a state-of-the-art measuring station in Hawaii. These measurements, considered the world's most reliable, are a good basis for science by bodies like the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the agency that is co-ordinating the worldwide effort to stop global warming.
   
   But the UN does not rely on direct real-time measurements for the period prior to 1958. "The IPCC relies on icecore data -- on air that has been trapped for hundreds or thousands of years deep below the surface," Dr. Jaworowski explains. "These ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless -- the IPCC has based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
   
   Ice, the IPCC believes, precisely preserves the ancient air, allowing for a precise reconstruction of the ancient atmosphere. For this to be true, no component of the trapped air can escape from the ice. Neither can the ice ever become liquid. Neither can the various gases within air ever combine or separate.
   
   This perfectly closed system, frozen in time, is a fantasy. "Liquid water is common in polar snow and ice, even at temperatures as low as -72C," Dr. Jaworowski explains, "and we also know that in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen, guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change. Moreover, under the extreme pressure that deep ice is subjected to -- 320 bars, or more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure -- high levels of CO2 get squeezed out of ancient air."
   
   Because of these various properties in ancient air, one would expect that, over time, ice cores that started off with high levels of CO2 would become depleted of excess CO2, leaving a fairly uniform base level of CO2 behind. In fact, this is exactly what the ice cores show.
   
   "According to the ice-core samples, CO2 levels vary little over time," Dr. Jaworowski sates. "The ice core data from the Taylor Dome in Antarctica shows almost no change in the level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 7,000 to 8,000 years -- it varied between 260 parts per million and 264 parts per million.

So what we are beginning to see is that those of us who have been branded and excoriated as "Global Warming Deniers," a term intended to create a comparable emotional reaction as that encountered by Holocaust Deniers, are being proven to have been correct all this time.

AGW is and always has been a money-making, job security scam created entirely out of whole-cloth to frighten the people of the world and increase the Left-wing's control over Western Society.

The Socialist/Communist movement of the twentieth century failed in its attempt to bring down the great capitalist societies of the world, so they have switched tracks from a purely philosophical economic argument, to an attempt to frighten, intimidate, and bully the free world into adopting their confining and limiting restrictions on freedom that caused so much misery in the former Soviet Union.

As more and more free thinking scientists turn their attention toward the "science" being proffered as evidence of AGW, the more tenuous and ridiculous their claims and efforts to control our society become.

The biggest lie of our time is being debunked by exposure to the cold clear light of serious, objective scientific evalutation.

Freedom will win out.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Time to Make Left-wing Municipalities Pay for Anti-Military Policies

Following the "bicycle bomber's" attack against the recruiting station in New York's Times Square, it is time for the Bush administration to make those on the Left who, "support the troops, but hate the war," to pay the price for their anti-military incitement activities.

Yes, Code Pinkos, I'm talking about you...and the others of your ilk who so hate our nation and out troops that you interfere with our military's ability to recruit young men to serve in our military.

The Left has been allowed to get away with the same old canard, "We support the troops, but not the mission," for long enough. Why don't you find the "guts" to tell the truth for once?

What I find so contemptible in Liberals is that they lack the courage of their convictions. People like Cindy Sheehan and Nancy Pelosi always open their attacks against our young men and women in uniform with that meaningless affront to veracity.

What do Liberals mean when they say "I support our troops?" Just pay attention. What they think about our military is evident from their every action...

"Our troops are thugs and I have absolute contempt for their intelligence, their morals, their belief system, their values, their actions, the nation for which they fight, and everything for which they stand, but I don't have the courage to say so publicly."

What you get as a result is the inane blather of someone whose words are self-contradictory such as Madame Speaker in a Left-wing love-fest on the Charlie Rose show on PBS, March of last year (before the troop surge really took hold). Here is part of the transcript from "A conversation with Nancy Pelosi"

CHARLIE ROSE: Some argue that the sacrifice had been primarily by the men and women in the armed services and their families. And part of the reason that we ought not go to war, in which the American people are not asked to sacrifice behind the military.

NANCY PELOSI : Well, the one percent of our population is feeling this in a very personal way. And that`s just not fair. The shared sacrifice -- what did we do? We went to war, and the president gave a tax cut to the wealthiest people in America instead of saying we’re going to have a shared sacrifice here so everyone knows what the cost of this war is.

But we have -- the long-term costs of this war in Iraq are tremendous. You can`t even quantify them when you talk about the breakup of marriages, the mental challenges that many of our troops are coming home with, the domestic violence that is occurring, the divorce rates in the military. This is -- this is a different flavor than we have seen before.

How nice. Here we have the Speaker of the House, second in line for the Presidency of the United States, who "supports our troops," calling our returning troops wife-beaters and crazies. Isn't that just so special. She is so concerned for the welfare of our troops that she has chosen to slander them with lies which are simply not supported out by the data.

What else is one to conclude, but that this woman, our very own Wicked Witch of the Left, has nothing but contempt for our men and women in uniform. Pelosi is only one of the most visible of the many Liberals who have such contempt for our troops that they aren't even aware that it shows.

You know them. They are the people who tell the lies about our returning war veterans. That our troops rape and kill at random, that they are "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs." [courtesy of John F. Kerry-Heinz] Lies about our troops committing "atrocities" are perpetuated by those on the Left, because they fit the Liberal paradigm of who our troops are.

Liberals are so filled with hatred for our nation and everything for which it stands that it colors their opinions of any who disagree with them...including those who choose to serve in our armed forces, whether out a sense of obligation, patriotism, or for more mercenary motives, such as an opportunity to gain a better education.

In the Liberal paradigm, the only people who serve in our armed services are "poor people who have no other prospect for employment," or "ignorant people" who can't get a job anywhere else and who are too stupid to see that they are being "duped" by their government, so Liberal contempt for them flows easily.

Of course they do reserve a third category of veteran; Liberals who want to burnish their credentials before running for office. Most of those serve in the rear echelon and make up tales of heroism about themselves...you know the type, Al Gore and John Kerry come to mind.

Well, I say it is time for President Bush and what few Conservative Republicans remain in Congress to make these jerks pay for their hate and the best way I can think of is for President Bush to issue an executive order that any municipality which through action or inaction allows the business of our federal government to be hindered by individuals acting illegally would immediately be stripped of all federal funds. And when I say all, I mean all. No education funds, no grants, no highway funds, no construction projects, no federal funding for police or fire protection, nothing whatsoever, until that municipality enforces the law and protects those recruiting stations.

The fact is that although congress has appropriated funds for various projects, the Executive branch is not required to spend the money, or at least, wasn't required to do so for almost 200 years. From Jefferson to Nixon, the President had the power to "impound" monies, i.e. the President could simply refuse to spend all of the money congress appropriated.

In 1974 congress, facing a president who was not afraid to impound monies, passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricting that previously constitutional authority.

I would urge the president to re-assert that executive power and allow the challenge to reach the Supreme Court. It is time for the usurpation of power by the post Watergate congress to be reversed. This administration did a good job in the first term in rolling back some of that congressional overreaching, but those efforts seem to be on hold now.

I can think of no greater legacy President Bush could leave than the complete reversal of the congressional imperialism of the 1970's. He should ignore the 1974 law as unconstitutional and allow congress to sue his administration. Let the SCOTUS decide this issue once and for all.

I believe that the Executive Branch could make a very good case based on historical precedent and on the fact that Congress provided no viable alternative to impoundment. The 1974 law does allow for a "rescission" of appropriated funds, but congress must affirm the rescission within 45 days or it becomes moot, and congress has never even bothered to bring a presidential rescission up for an affirmation vote.

The other alternative provided by the 1974 Act was the power of "deferral," but in 1987 The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that a 1983 Supreme Court decision, which declared that all "legislative veto" provisions authorizing congress to override Presidential decision by means short of passing legislation were unconstitutional, effectively wiped out the deferral provision of the 1974 law.

Therefore the 1974 law leaves the president without recourse. Given that the power of impoundment was a long standing accepted power or had, using the Liberals favorite legal phrase, considerably well established stare decisis, and given that congress' actions in 1974 were an effort by the Legislative Branch to restrict the powers of a separate and independent Executive Branch, I believe that there is substantial grounds for overturning the 1974 congressional power grab.

If Berkeley and Lawrence among others don't see the need to support our military, then let's withhold all of their discretionary funds. Perhaps this "whiff of [fiscal] grapeshot" will bring these Left-wing loonies to their senses...or knees. Either way it would be a good thing.

Let's allow these ingrates, who revile our military and all for which it stands to foot the bill for their hostility and impound all funds allocated to towns such as Berkeley, California and Lawrence, Kansas. Perhaps that would get the attention of these so-called representatives of the people and encourage them to perform their duties.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

On Voting John McCain: Pragmatism Is Not a Conservative Principle

I was recently asked by one of those who has resigned himself to voting for John McCain because it is the “pragmatic” thing to do:

“What's your solution…sit home and don't vote? Vote for Hillary or Obama? Vote for a third party candidate which will only benefit Hillary or Obama? Have a temper tantrum because [you] didn't get [your] way?” Thanks, but I'll stick with my pragmatism."

It’s a fair question; what should a Conservative do if he can’t vote for McCain for president?

First thing you don't do is cower in fear of a prospective defeat at the hands of a Democrat Party candidate.

Too many people in the Republican Party appear to be suffering from Hillary Derangement Syndrome (HDS) or Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS)...or maybe it's just Democrat Derangement Syndrome (DDS). They are filled with dire predictions of our future demise should a Republican…any Republican not be elected to the White House.

There is no proof of, or even any evidence to support, the absurd proposition that losing the Presidency in 2008 will mean the end of the world, the histrionics of the "lesser of two evils" touts in the punditry notwithstanding.

The “Conservative” pundits in the press and on television tell me that, no matter how far McCain strays from the principles in which we purportedly believe, he can’t be as bad as Hillary or Obama.

They speak to me of “pragmatism,” of facing the reality that I must support John McCain, regardless of how flawed he may be. I must be “pragmatic.”

Don't speak to me of pragmatism!

Pragmatism gave us David Souter on the Supreme Court.

Pragmatism is McCain/Kennedy giving us amnesty for 20 or 30 million illegal aliens and the end of our culture.

Pragmatism is an excuse for accepting the unacceptable rather than fighting for that in which you believe.

What would America look like had our Forefathers decided to "be pragmatic?" If General George Washington had been “pragmatic,” he would never have attempted to stick it out in Valley Forge, Pa. He would have simply shrugged his shoulders and told his troops, “Well guys, we gave it a good go, but it’s over now so let’s all go home.”

What if Abraham Lincoln had simply shrugged his shoulders and said, “Well, this war is too costly, I think I’ll ‘be pragmatic’ and let the South secede?”

What if Americans had decided to "be pragmatic" and allow the Germans to conquer Europe uncontested?

What if Reagan had decided to "be pragmatic" and cave in to the unilateralist movement in the early 80's?

All of those possible choices were available at the time and they would have been the easier course.

What would America look like had “pragmatism” prevailed over ideology whenever adversity raised its head? “Pragmatists” (like Jimmy Carter) told President Reagan, and all Americans, that our best times were over, that it was all downhill from then on. They told him it was impossible to defeat the Soviet Union.

Ronald Reagan confronted the “pragmatists” who told him that the best we could hope for is to reach an accord. Ronald Reagan took President Kennedy’s question, “Why not?” and threw it in the “pragmatist’s” faces. Ronald Reagan refused to look at the world through the eyes of “pragmatism” and chose to look at the world through the lenses of optimism and moral courage.

Pragmatism is for weaklings and cowards. It’s the snake's voice that says, “Give up, you can’t win. Why even try?”

Perhaps I’ve been alive too long for the rest of the people who are writing about this election, but I lived through the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton administrations.

Guess what folks, I'm still here. I'm still a Conservative, and I still have my guns, my freedom of speech, free enterprise did not die out, the Communists did not take over America and...Surprise!...we still have private health care.

If all of the dire predictions coming out of our “Conservative” punditry class today were correct, then according to them, I should already be living in a People’s Socialist Republic of America rather than the greatest, freest, most productive and inventive nation in history.

Certainly socialism has made some progress in our nation, but America today is less socialist than it was in the 60’s and 70’s. One wonders how that could possibly be.

It didn’t come about because we Conservatives gave up on our principles and voted for whomever the Grand Old Party told us to. It came about by Conservatives standing firm on their principles and asserting their power…or withholding their power when necessary.

Are these supposed Conservatives seriously proposing the absurd suggestion that either Barack Obama-sama or Hillary Clinton are any more corrupt, Liberal, or incompetent than Lyndon Johnson or Jimmah Cahtah? If so then they need to revisit their history lessons.

Conservatism is based upon the principles set forth by our founding fathers 230 years ago. Do you believe them to be any less worth fighting for today than they were then?

Maybe old George Washington was mistaken and should have given Benedict Arnold a pardon and asked him to assume the Presidency. That's what all of these so-called Conservatives appear to be advocating now. They tell us that because John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee, we should abandon our principles and capitulate to the powers that be within the Party.

John McCain is no Benedict Arnold in the historical sense, but in the political sense he is every bit as much of a traitor to the Conservative principles he now claims to support. Voting him into the Presidency is no different from taking the easy path.

John McCain does not stand for the principles to which I have dedicated my life and in which I believe. Therefore voting for him would be betraying all that I have spent my life defending.

He does not believe in the sanctity of life, the right of Americans to secure their borders, the right of Americans to keep more of their incomes, the right to freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment, or in the free market as a solution to our energy problems. He believes in the false religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming. He opposes the exploitation of our nation’s natural resources in ANWR and off the coasts of Florida and California.

John McCain does not believe in and has never supported any of the Conservative principles in which I believe with the exception of the defense of America against our enemies and, truth be known, neither Hillary nor even Obama will abandon America to the terrorists.

Throughout our history, the weight of office has moderated each and