The Ground Game

James Madison on AID to HAITIAN REFUGEES (1794)

2010-01-14T11:00:00.005-06:00

No one can deny the overwhelming need of the Haitian refugees who have been affected by the devastating earthquake. May our hearts, prayers and money speedily aid of them.

With that said, it was interesting to note that in 1794, the US Congress was faced with this very same dilemma, as to what exactly the role of the federal government was in instances such as these--specifically with regards to HAITI. The following is from the 1st session of the 3rd Congress when Madison led votes against granting assistance to French refugees from the Haitian revolution in 1794.

Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170 (1794-01-10) [3]. The Annals summarize speeches in the third person, with the actual text of Madison's quote as follows:"Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
The expense in question was for French refugees from the Haitian Revolution.

This is the instance which gave rise to Madison's famous quote:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." --James Madison

Hazlitt Speaks to our Time...

2008-11-25T08:20:00.007-06:00

Over fifty years ago (1946), economist Henry Hazlitt commented on the panic bailouts of 2008:

"The lobbies of Congress are crowded with representatives of the X industry. The X industry is sick. The X industry is dying. It must be saved. It can be saved only by a tariff, by higher prices, or by a subsidy. If it is allowed to die, workers will be thrown on the streets. Their landlords, grocers, butchers, clothing stores and local motion pictures will lose business, and depression will spread in ever-widening circles. But if industry X, by prompt action of Congress, is saved--ah then! It will buy equipment from other industries; more men will be employed; they will hive more business to the butchers, bakers and neon-light makers, and then it is prosperity that will spread in ever-widening circles."

In his own time, it was the silver and coal subsidy. The Treasury was forced to "acquire, at ridiculous prices far above the market level, hoards of unnecessary silver, and store it in vaults." Similarly, the fixing of the price of coal, below which it could not fall, accelerated the movement of consumers from coal to oil and natural gas.

What is the end result of a bailout? In Hazlitt's words, any attempt to save the X industry by a direct subsidy out of the public till would:

"...be nothing more than a transfer of wealth or income to the X industry. The taxpayers would lose precisely as much of the people in the X industry gained...And consumers, because they are taxed to support the X industry, will have that much less income with which to buy other things. The result must be that other industries on the average must be smaller than otherwise in order that the X industry may be larger. But the result of this subsidy is not merely that there has been a transfer of wealth or income, or that other industries have shrunk in aggregate as much as X industry has expanded. The net result is also...that the capital and labor are driven out of industries in which they are more efficiently employed to be diverted to an industry in which they are less efficiently employed. Less wealth is created."

Working with the Boss's Son

2008-11-20T09:00:00.002-06:00

I've been brooding over this topic for some time now, but I've got to make a comment. First let me emphasize how great and generous my employers are. These guys would give the shirt off of their backs to help one of their employees who is down on their luck (with construction workers, that seems more often than not). More than a few employees have left the company heavily in debt to my bosses, so they hardly fit the left's mold of greedy, hard-hearted capitalists titans. In that light, I begin.

I was walking down the hallway today after completing some work on a legal motion. In what has become a common occurrence, I looked into the office of the Boss' Son. I guess my shoes weren't striking the travertine tiles hard enough, because he didn't bother to stir from his slumber. In fact it took some tenacious throat clearing on my part to even get a bob of the guy's head. I could understand dozing off after pulling a late night in order to meet a work deadline, but when filing, even one document per day, becomes too great a burden, his paycheck, no matter how large, mocks the efforts of everyone else in the office.

Maybe I wouldn't mind if he no longer lived in his parents' basement, commonly bathed, shaved, brushed his teeth, or looked in the mirror before arriving at work. Maybe I wouldn't take notice if he didn't singlehandedly clear out the company's soft drink supply room by devouring twelve Coke's per day (not an exaggeration). Maybe I wouldn't be so embarrassed when investors and clients came to the office if he actually tucked in his shirt, rotated his jeans at least quarterly, and tied the shoelaces on his white Reebok high tops.

I ask you...am I expecting too much? After all, none of those things are required in the 'virtual world' in which he lives.

Windmills for Suckers: Pickens' Genocidal Plan

2008-11-19T10:32:00.000-06:00

Ouch!!!! This article appears in the Science & Technology section of the August 22, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

"Unless you want to kill people by energy starvation, wind is useless for an industrial society. It is intermittent, unreliable, subsidy dependent, with high costs and low energy density, and, for these reasons, wind requires a full-time back-up power source."

"Obstructing Official Business"

2008-11-19T01:00:00.001-06:00

Despite all of the China's "progress," their people are still slaves. Read the following excerpt and I will explain below. For over a decade, Ni Yulan, 47, has been a prominent rights activist and lawyer fighting against Kelo (Chinese style) government land grabs in Beijing.

"They stuck the demolition notice on our front door," Dong said, (Ni's Husband)
"Nobody came to talk with us, there were no negotiations for compensation, no public hearings."
As all land belongs to the state in China, local officials enjoy immense powers to determine land-use rights, and critics say residents and farmers are often forcefully evicted in shady deals between the government and developers.
Ni was charged with "obstructing official business", and she has been in custody ever since although she has not appeared in court.

Sound familiar to the creeping property law changes in our own country? First, the Public Use Clause was "reinterpreted." Since that bulwark has been breached, look forward to the time when the Just Compensation Clause will be eviscerated.

It's only a matter of time till we witness American versions of Ni Yulan playing out all across the fruited plain. Why might you ask? Because both the federal government, and the states alike, have moved away from their ultimate and primary purpose--that of preserving private property and personal safety--to seizing the property of one class of citizen for the service of the rest.

One cannot be free when the fruits of their labor can be arbitrarily stripped from him by force. Property rights are inextricably intertwined with human rights. They cannot be separated. Former United States Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland stated it this way:

It is not the right of property which is protected, but the right to property. Property, per se, has no rights; but the individual--the man--has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference; the RIGHT TO HIS LIFE, the RIGHT TO HIS LIBERTY, and the RIGHT TO HS PROPERTY. These three rights are so bound together as to be essentially ONE right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him liberty but to take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave." (From speech to the NY Bar Assn.)

Obama's BC$ Intervention

2008-11-17T08:34:00.006-06:00

Having graduated from a "Mid-Major" college, President Elect Obama's threat on 60 Minutes "throw his weight around" (which, even while wearing his empty suit drenched in water, probably doesn't amount to much more than 175 lbs) in order to get the BC$ replaced by an eight team national playoff system, was music to my ears. The problem is that, if the "Wall Street Bailout" is any indicator, Occidental, Columbia and Harvard (Obama's alma mater), despite their lack of merit, will all soon be receiving an "automatic bid" to the playoff. Those greedy politicians just can't seem to resist funneling prizes to their friends.

While I wholeheartedly agree that no sport should ever be decided by a computer, or bunch of balding news desk-bound sports reporters, the idea of seeing the federal government intervene in college football is a little absurd, don't ya think? This is almost as grand as McCain proposing to propose a steroid czar to fix a problem that has already been rectified.

Here's the Quote:

The interview ended on a question about creating a college football playoff system for the national championship, with Obama calling for three rounds and potentially three more weeks to the season.

"I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this," he said. "I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."

Just in Time for Christmas

2008-11-14T07:00:00.000-06:00

In the past two days (and just in time for Christmas), two of the nation's most influential editorial pages have weighed in on "public square" controversy brewing in Pleasant Grove, Utah--hardly a hotbed of social activism. All I can say is get ready for the day when your Christian Creche will be "balanced" by the atheists' singing Kansas' All we are is Dust in the Wind right next door.

The crux of the controversy in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum is that some ACLU lawyers, in order to make a name for themselves, dared a few members of some new-aged-Star-Trek-pseudo-religion to file a complaint against Pleasant Grove in order to have its teachings displayed on the grounds of Pioneer Park. Sounds funny, but let there be no doubt. Ultimately, this case is about one thing and one thing only--universal removal of religious monuments from the public square. It's not about "tolerance" or "inclusion." If it were, the attorneys would not have chosen so peculiar a plaintiff. After all, I highly doubt that there is a massive groundswell of support for this group's teachings to be placed in the park. The lawyers are simply trying to make a point. It was not long ago that the Supreme Court began its open hostility to religion (read Christianity) and it is being waged intensely under our noses.

It's interesting (but unsurprising) to note the divergent positions taken by these two papers. The NY Times frames the issue thusly:

The real problem is that Pleasant Grove City elevated one religion, traditional Christianity, over another, Summum...There is no shortage of churches, synagogues and private parcels of land where the Ten Commandments could be displayed without the need to include the credos of alternative faiths. Public property like Pioneer Park must be open to all religions on an equal basis — or open to none at all.

Aha! The last line reveals their true intentions. The WSJ, however, has a different view:

The common-sense argument against Summum's claim, which the U.S. Solicitor General made to the Supreme Court, was that it would cause a clutter of public monuments. If a city let private donors contribute a memorial to local boys who died in the Iraq war, would it have to accept another group's monument to pacifism? As Chief Justice Roberts asked yesterday, "Do we have to put any president who wants to be on Mt. Rushmore?"(As of now, perhaps.)...This is the sort of case that cries out for the judicial wisdom of Solomon, long dead in the U.S. Indeed it was the departure from common-sense wisdom that pitched the country into endless legal thickets

With the election of Barack Obama you can expect that the left wing radicals will be emboldened on every front. It's time to defend our traditions and our culture. It's time to push back the liberal hoards.

California Cross Stomping

2008-11-12T21:07:00.004-06:00

You know the times (and Culture) have changed when the desecration of the Christian cross hardly raises an eyebrow. They always say that what starts in California spreads to the rest of the country. Let's just hope that this trend travels really slow! (See minute 2:20)

Florida's New Bureaucratic Palace

2008-09-26T11:16:00.007-05:00

As we note here, Governor Charlie Crist recently socialized Florida's property insurance by creating the Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Today, from State Senator Don Gaetz we learn that Citizens Property Insurance is planning to either construct or lease back a new bureaucratic palace:

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation is currently planning to lease or have built-to-suit a new 100,000 square foot office facility in Tallahassee. The sheer size, scope and expense of such an undertaking is extraordinary, particularly given the economic conditions facing those who pay Citizens premiums and directly and indirectly support Citizens through surcharges on other policies.

I am further advised that the amenities under consideration for this vast facility include a fitness center, restaurant and concierge services. While I can understand the comfort and convenience which would be available to Citizens executives and employees, I question the wisdom of spending Floridians’ dollars for what would seem to be non-essential luxuries.

There was a time when Florida had a Governor who knew something about fiscal responsibility and whose goal it was to reduce the power and scope of the government. In his second inaugural address Jeb Bush emphasized his intent saying:

"we can make these buildings around us empty of workers; silent monuments to the time when government played a larger role than it deserved or could adequately fill."

Thanks be to Don Gaetz for continuing in Jeb's foot steps.

Beware: McCain Proposes Regulation for Wall Street

2008-09-19T07:20:00.008-05:00

If history is any guide, the nation will rue the day that it allows McCain to get his hands on its financial and securities institutions. Speaking in Jacksonville, Florida recently McCain proposed a new set of regulations to replace "the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington." McCain's 'regulations' are all too often knee-jerk reactions which, because of his reliance upon an unhealthy mix of liberal and populist ideology, only serve to make matters worse. Here are a few examples:

McCain-Feingold (Evisceration of the First Amendment/Incumbent Protection Act)
Cap and Trade legislation (Government takeover of economy)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Amnesty)
Sarbanes-Oxley (Onerous business reporting rules now making London the financial capital of the world and preventing IPOs)

Other aspects of McCain's legacy:

Opposition to Bush's Tax Cuts
Gang of Fourteen
Drilling in ANWR
Crusade against tobacco
National compulsory service

Blindly bumbling from one bad idea to another, McCain has blamed the current financial crisis on his fall back populist rhetoric--"Wall Street greed." Next, McCain proposed a slow moving indecisive "bipartisan commission," and demanded the firing of SEC Chairman and Bush appointee Christopher Cox (reminiscent of McCain's demand for Rumsfeld's head). Unfortunately, the latter remark served only to remind McCain's recently energized base of his penchant for throwing Republicans under the bus (with almost as much skill as Obama).

Mr. McCain--shouldn't the managers of these failing companies (ie. Franklin Raines or Dan Mudd), or those who blocked their reformation (Barney Frank D-Mass.) at least receive some of the blame? For some odd reason I fear that your inconsistent and confused ideology would, at best, give us four years watered down liberal policies.

Thoughts on McCain at ServiceNation

2008-09-12T01:30:00.001-05:00

Eventually it hit me. I kept asking myself, "what's with the government centric assumption to service that pervades all of these questions posed by both Stengel and Woodruff?" The answer--these moderators are liberals! Most normal people find higher purpose in religion and perform their acts of service through their churches. To these liberals, government (or environmentalism) has become their religion and their higher purpose. They have never been to church!

It's stunning that the fundamental assumption of ServiceNation is that "volunteerism" has to be lead by the federal government. Incredibly, McCain was asked whether working class people have the necessary means and time off work to volunteer as compared to the wealthy (the assumption being that the government ought to mandate time off or supplement the incomes of those who "serve"). For some reason, McCain agreed to triple the size of Americorps, but the assumption continued when McCain was jokingly asked if he would establish a cabinet level of "Service!?!" If I were answering that question I would have said, h$*@% no, we need to be dissolving at least half of those departments! McCain finally got on track saying that the Cabinet is already too large as it is.

True service consists of simple acts like walking across the street and cutting down a tree limb for a neighbor or helping a widow in need. One of the greatest things about real volunteerism is the fact that there is almost no overhead--100% of the revenues going to those in need. That certainly would never happen with a new layer of bureaucracy. Service does not consist of getting paid to attend a government sponsored left wing training camp and do calisthenics in center city Philadelphia for a year (I've seen it first hand). It makes me wonder why McCain would agree to triple the size of Americorps.

Thoughts on Obama at ServiceNation

2008-09-12T01:00:00.000-05:00

Obama wants to train and deploy America's youth as "agricultural specialists" to Afghanistan. Does anyone besides me see a problem here? In my opinion, America's national parks have enough "agricultural specialist" running around. Our native cash crop could be devastated if Obama were to teach poppy cultivation to the unbathed and directionless protester class. On second thought, we would certainly have a huge pool of willing applicants.

Roundup of Biden's VP Gaffes...Stay Tuned

2008-09-12T00:30:00.002-05:00

Being a City Councilman Harder than being a Senator

Paying Taxes is Patriotic!

"Barack America!":

"Stand up for Chuck!"

Lt. Governor of Alaska:

Hillary would have been a better choice than Me:

Battalions or Brigades?

Seven Years Later, Still little Progress at Ground Zero

2008-09-11T09:01:00.011-05:00

Seven years after terrorist destroyed the World Trade Center, construction efforts at Ground Zero still show little evidence of progress. The 26 projects planned for Ground Zero (totaling over $15 billion) are "over budget and behind schedule," said the Port Authority' executive director Christopher Ward. According to Architectural Record:

"Originally scheduled to be to be finished this year, construction of the 1,776-foot-tall (1 World Trade Center) skyscraper has inched along since foundation work began in 2006. Today, steel columns rise a mere 20 feet above street level."

I guess it's not necessarily the triumphant rising of the phoenix that we had hoped for.

The Coming Civil War in America

2008-09-11T08:30:00.000-05:00

Phyllis Chesler's points out some stylistic differences between the Republican and Democrat National Conventions which portend and even larger cultural divide to come in America. Can the same thing be said about the "conservative" and "liberal" churches as well? Is it me, or is it strange to walk into a church and see a long-haired reformed hippie jamming on his guitar or banging on a snare drum just prior to taking communion?

The Democratic National Convention had music by the great Stevie Wonder; Jennifer Hudson, like Senator Obama, a sudden and recent star who won an Academy award for her supporting role in Dreamgirls; Melissa Etheridge; Sheryl Crow; the very popular soul singer, John Legend who performed twice, once alone and once with Will.i.am, a member of the funk/hip-hop group, The Black Eyed Peas. Robert Moore, a Rosebud Sioux tribal Council member, sang a traditionally non-traditional version of the national anthem.

The entire convention, especially the last night when Obama spoke, was the equivalent of a rock concert. To many people, especially younger people, this is what moves them, what is real. Only celebrity, “spectacle,” performance, and popular music have authority, are familiar, and command their respect.

The Republican National Convention had very little music. I myself saw and heard only one young Christian rock singer. Maybe there was more music and I missed it. Perhaps the Republicans decided to focus on the speakers and not on the entertainment. The RNC website lists no musical entertainers, probably courtesy of Hurricane Gustav.

Digging for Dirt But Finding Only a Hole

2008-09-10T15:31:00.005-05:00

From the moment that Sarah Palin was introduced to America as John McCain's pick to be his Vice Presidential Running mate, Obama dispatched his minions to Alaska to dig up any amount of dirt that could possibly be uncovered about the relatively unknown political newcomer (at least unknown on the national stage). As John Fund from the Wall Street Journal reported just yesterday, the Obama camp has dispatched over 30 lawyers and "opposition researchers" (a euphemism for political hacks or thugs) to try and find something -- ANYTHING -- to knock Sarah Palin off course. They know that she, more than McCain himself, stands as the single biggest barrier to the community organizer's dreams of becoming the most powerful man on earth.

Well, one thing that the radical America-hating hard left (with their help at the National Enquirer) came up with was a phony story about an alleged affair that Palin had with one of her husband's former business partners. The left-wing blogosphere was all in an uproar when an associate of the Palins, Scott Richter, filed a request with an Alaskan court to seal (or treat as confidential) his divorce papers. To the non-thinking, knee-jerk left wingers, that request alone was enough to prove that Sarah Palin must have had an affair and that affair MUST have been with Mr. Richter .... why else would he be trying to hide his divorce papers? A hoped-for home run in the game of gotcha politics. Or so they thought.

As the Smoking Gun now proves, the hype (or was it 'hope') by the Obamamaniacs was all for not. As it turns out, Mr. Richter was trying to seal his records only because the 30+ researchers and their allies in the national media were using the court records to obtain his name, address and phone number in order to hound him with questions about the Palins.

In his petition to the court, Mr. Richter plead for assistance because the media and others are using his name, number and address to obtain unwanted daily contact. Plus, he says, "[m]y cabin life and private life is extremely important to me and my young son who find ourselves and our lives disrupted by such contact."

So, the media and the Obama thugs dig up Mr. Richter's name and number, they pepper him with questions, they harass his 11-year old son and when he files a request with the court for some relief, they use that as proof that Mrs. Palin had an affair with Mr. Richter. Amazing. They cause the problem and when an innocent bystander tries to fix it, he (and Mrs. Palin) becomes guilty as charged.

I undertand the media's need to research Sarah Palin. I don't fault them for that. That's their job. And if they find something credible on an issue that matters, by all means bring that to light. But, if they are going to expend that much time, effort and treasure to researching all of Sarah Palin's dirty laundry, out of fairness and journalistic integrity (can I use those two words in a row or is that a ________?), then they need to fly their researchers to Chicago to study Obama's connections with Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and William Ayers as well as his involvement in unethical land sale deals and $1 billion in pork earmarks (to name just a few issues that the media has given blind eye to related to Lord Messiah Obama). What's fair is fair. But that concept isn't known to today's media. They carry the water for Obama and the liberal establishment, treat them with kid gloves, all while going after the GOP candidates like sharks.

So my only question is this: if the Democrats in Congress get their way and re-establish the "Fairness Doctrine", will the national media be required to comply or will it only apply to syndicated talk radio shows that have a top 5 nation-wide ranking? Just wondering.

Rice laments lack of black diplomats

2008-09-10T09:00:00.002-05:00

When it comes to Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Venezuela and the rest of the cast of characters, I'm not sure what the color of one's skin has to do with their capabilities to promote your country's interest abroad. On the other hand, with the State Department actively undermining the President's agenda, maybe some new blood isn't such a bad idea after all:

"I want to see a Foreign Service that looks as if black Americans are part of this great country," Rice told a gathering of black colleges and universities in Washington. I have lamented that I can go into a meeting at the Department of State," said Rice, the second black person to become secretary of state after her predecessor Colin Powell. And, as a matter of fact, I can go into a whole day of meetings at the Department of State and actually rarely see somebody who looks like me, and that's just not acceptable," she added.

On the other hand, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says that the Constitution forbids racial preferences, so I don't know what to think.

BBC Poll: World wants Obama as president

2008-09-10T07:20:00.001-05:00

Exactly the reason that the United States should vote for anyone other than Obama:

US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may be struggling to nudge ahead of his Republican rival in polls at home, but people across the world want him in the White House, a BBC poll said. All 22 countries covered in the poll would prefer to see Senator Obama elected US president ahead of Republican John McCain.

Alabama "Fat Tax"

2008-09-09T07:11:00.013-05:00

Although I am hard wired chafe under "Big Brother's" hand, I surprisingly have no problem with this:

Alabama recently ranked as the No. 2 fattest state in a national study looking at obesity. About 30 percent of Alabama residents are considered obese. The Alabama state government has decided it has to do something about that rate. So, in in the way typical of governments everywhere, it came up with an idea to encourage weight loss - and make some dough in the process. A fat tax. If the obese members of the state's 37,527-employee work force don't lighten up in a year, they'll be charged $25 to help pay for their health insurance - unless they get a free health screening. According to Business Week, if the screenings turn up serious problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose or obesity, employees will have a year to see a doctor at no cost, enroll in a wellness program or take steps on their own to improve their health. If they show progress in a follow-up screening, they won't be charged. But if they don't, they must pay starting in January 2011.

First of all, these employees are "at will" and if they don't want to lose weight in order to save their employers from an already crushing health care cost, then they can always work somewhere else. There is no inherent right to a cushy government job where you can (a) send every single one of your calls to voicemail, and (b) produce next to nothing all day. Having worked for several different branches of government during my time in college (both state and federal) I know this goes on from first hand experience.

Second, because this is a case of employer/employee, it is different than what we will inevitably experience under a future socialized medicine regime. Neither healthcare nor health insurance is a 'right' in the same sense that you have a right to a trial by jury. Where the employer chooses to offer healthcare to his employees, he does so, not out of charity, but to attract and retain more highly skilled employees. On the other hand, if the government were the sole provider of healthcare, your receipt of medical treatment would be dependent upon first, whether you have lived according to the government health mandates (ie. fat intake, smoking, alcohol consumption), and only then will the government proceed to examine the severity of your illness. Because socialized medicine requires rationing, healthcare will be rationed first to those submit to government prescribed way of life. People who are too fat, too old or too young are the first to be rationed. Incredibly as it may sound, prerequisites for government healthcare demand that you stop smoking, restrict your number of child births , or that all of your health information be available to the government, etc.

Supreme Court Ruling Put Marine JAG in Moral Quandary

2008-09-08T08:12:00.003-05:00

From the Florida Bar News: The Supreme Court's grant of civil rights to unlawful enemy combatants has placed the U.S. Military and this Marine JAG in a severe moral quandary. The issue--How can a prosecutor criminally try a defendant (a terrorist) with evidence obtained by duress or coercion (of even the slightest degree)? The "exclusionary rule," a penalty created by our courts, prevents the admission of evidence in a criminal prosecution which was collected in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. If an unlawful enemy combatant is entitled to certain Constitutional rights (as the Supreme Court says they are), how can a prosecutor both uphold the Constitution on one hand, and attempt to admit battlefield evidence that has been obtained in violation of the Constitution? Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch tells of his experiences at GTMO:

In October 2003, Couch first visited Guantanamo to get the lay of the land, and soon learned business was being conducted in a bizarre way. Waiting to watch an interview with another detainee through a two-way mirror, Couch heard what he called “ear-splitting heavy-metal, razor-blade rock” coming from down the hall. Couch ran toward the music, and found a room lit only by a flashing strobe light. A detainee was shackled to the floor, rocking back and forth and praying.

“These two civilian dudes came out and backed me up and pulled the door behind them. I said, ‘What’s going on here?’ They really wouldn’t answer my questions. To the guy who was escorting me around, an Air Force JAG, I said, ‘What the heck is this about?’ And he goes, ‘That’s approved.’”

While watching the treatment of that detainee, Couch said he had a flashback to his stint in the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) School, where air crew and special operations people learn how to handle themselves if captured.

He explains that one defendant began "singing like a canary" after interrogators made him believe that his mother was going to be arrested and brought to GTMO as well:

Slahi (the defendant) believe[d] he was going to be taken out and executed and buried at Guantanamo. The detainee Slahi was shown a letter on State Department letterhead that indicated his mother and his brother had been picked up and his mother was going to be brought to Guantanamo. The letter was expressing out loud concerns about what they were going to do, because she was going to be the only female at Guantanamo and they were concerned about her safety. The implication being: ‘Hey, we’re going to bring your mom to Guantanamo, and she’s probably going to get raped,’” he said.

Focused solely on what he saw in government documents about Slahi’s treatment, Couch said, “Enough is enough. Torture of a human being is wrong. It’s a violation of our domestic law.

Whether playing "ear splitting" music or showing a terrorist a piece of paper qualifies as torture is a hard sell for many people, especially when you consider the evil and vindictive means of torture devised over the course of human history, but this is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is to illustrate the moral quandary that the Supreme Court has placed upon our armed forces by attempting to force American rules of criminal procedure on what is, in fact, a legitimate war-time intelligence gathering operation. Criminal procedure and war-time intelligence gathering operations cannot occupy the same space simultaneously. You cannot apprehend someone on a battlefield who knows the enemies' battle plans, interrogate them for military purposes, and, at the same time, attempt to admit the information extracted as evidence in a criminal proceeding (that is if you are forced to use traditional rules of criminal procedure). The military has begun recruiting detectives and police for this purpose, but the whole notion of making a criminal arrest on a battlefield is ridiculous.

Is the U.S. military so mighty that we have no need to know of the enemy's plans? Are our tanks and airplanes so overwhelming that interrogation is now obsolete to our armed forces? By granting unlawful enemy combatants access to our criminal courts, the Supreme Court has implied precisely that. As a result, the military and Lt. Couch have been placed in an completely untenable position. Either the military must choose to interrogate detainees through some form of coercion and release them (for all evidence gained by coercion would be excluded in court), or they must begin building a criminal case against the detainee, thereby forgoing all intelligence that might contribute to the most important objective--VICTORY.

To fight and win wars, detainees must be interrogated. As battles rage back and forth and men spill their blood on one side or the other, intelligence on the enemy's location and strength has-more than once-meant the difference between victory and defeat.

The Bag Tax--a Long Train of Abuses

2008-09-05T09:40:00.004-05:00

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels wants to force all shoppers to pay a twenty cent tax whenever they receive disposable bags — paper and plastic — at a grocery store. This is not all. Mayor Nickels has also proposed banning foam food containers and cups at food-service businesses starting Jan. 1, and Non-recyclable plastic food containers and utensils by 2010. Here's how the money would be spent:

"Seattle Public Utilities would collect the bag fee from stores. The utility estimates it would bring in $10 million per year. About $2 million would be used to provide and promote reusable bags. The rest would be spent on waste prevention, recycling and environmental education programs."

What is it with these guys? It's not enough just to tax us coming and going. Now the residents of Seattle (but most likely their grade schoolers) will have to be "re-educated" with the very money that was extracted from them at the grocery store. As with all taxes of this nature, the true purpose is to give the mayor a massive slush fund to promote his radical big government ideology. Is it possible that pulling $10 million out of family's already tight budgets is not a good idea? Is it possible that most of this money will end up being squandered at city hall? If the "tobacco settlement" is any indicator, this money will slowly get lost in the city budget--some of it going to golf courses and pot holes--but most of it being awarded to the mayor's friends (in exchange for campaign contributions, of course).

Furthermore, Nickels reveals the single goal of the environmental movement--the growth of government. For the enviro-Marxist, "global warming" is just the latest reason for the government to control more and more of your money and your life. Sometimes it's "for the children," sometimes it's "for the planet," but the solution is always the same--greater taxes and more government regulation.

Now, instead of endless supplies of free trash can liners, the government will force us to drag around some filthy canvas bags in our trunk for the rest of our lives. Is this a huge inconvenience? For those of you living in Europe or in an American 'blue state,' probably not, but a long train of abuses and usurpations such as these can, and will, eventually reduce Americans under a state of absolute despotism. Man cannot remain free so long as the government may, by a million little cuts, arbitrarily rob him of the value of his labor.

Every time the government introduces another program or regulation, its effect is always to increase our costs of living. If you think that regulations like the bag tax are isolated incidents and that they will only increase your budget by a minuscule amount, then think again. If you ever plan on purchasing a home in Seattle you might want to take a stand right now. An intriguing new analysis by a University of Washington economics professor argues that home prices, also, have been driven up $200,000 by such good environmental intentions:

"Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations, says Theo Eicher — twice the financial impact that regulation has had on other major U.S. cities. In a nationwide study, it can be shown that Seattle is one of the most regulated cities and a city whose housing prices are profoundly influenced by regulations."

Do you want to buy an affordable house? Don't count on it. Do you want do buy affordable gasoline? Don't count on it. Do you want affordable medical care? Don't count on it. The long train of abuses (costs imposed by the government) slowly add up until you neither have money nor manumission.

Biden and the Advent of Communist Show Trials

2008-09-04T08:19:00.010-05:00

Elaborate Soviet-style show trials may soon be coming to a capital near you--that is if Joe Biden and his fellow leftists have their way. It's no coincidence that Democrats have been slowly honing their stagecraft in recent decades--they're simply trying to catch up with their ideological cousins from Kiev to Cambodia, who for decades have been utilizing show trials to eliminate their opponents. At a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, Biden made the following comment:

"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued...[N]ot out of vengeance, not out of retribution, out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law."

If the Soviet experience is any indicator, the introduction of this practice does not bode well for the future of our Republic. Imagine an America as described by S. P. Kolosov a brigade commander in the Red Army: "I am afraid to open my mouth. Whatever you say, if you say the wrong thing, you're an enemy of the people. Cowardice has become the norm." Imagine the 'home of the brave' turned turned into a quivering mass of cowards--fearing a political witch hunt from the least respected and least accomplished body in our country. Imagine a statesman stifled by indecision--having more fear of the future Democrat inquisition than executing his Constitutional duties against a foreign enemy. Imagine being charged and convicted for acts, which when committed, were not contrary to the law of the nation, but were declared so after they were committed (a violation of the ex post facto clause, by the way). Imagine--after leaving office--being charged criminally for purely political decisions made while in office.

If you can imagine this, you can see the consequences of a future Obama administration.

Watch the Video Here:

How Sarah Palin Handled Corruption

2008-09-03T10:13:00.008-05:00

This post brought to us from Cynical Alaskan at The American Thinker:

From an Alaskan who is a very serious cynic about all things political, here is my take on Sarah.

I met and spoke with Sarah Palin about two years ago at our downtown park strip. It is a place for walking, carnivals, political outdoor things and such. She was cooking hotdogs at a fund raiser and introducing herself to the public as a Governor hopeful.

She came by and said the usual "Hi, I'm Sarah Palin and I am running for Governor"...and I expected her to keep on to the next person but she asked me who I was and what I did in Alaska and we ended up talking for 15 minutes about me, Air America (she was all agog!) and my career in the Army and AAM. She is a pilot (Super Cub) I'm told, although all she told me about that was that she loved flying.As I watched her successful run for governor over the next six months, I was really impressed. In fact I already was impressed greatly even before that, after she resigned a good position (Alaska Gas and Oil Regulatory Commission) because a fellow Commission member (Chair of the Alaska Republican Party) misused his office and position. He was using the fax, computers, printing room and all to promote the Republican endeavors while in a state job. That is a huge no-no in any government employment position.

She resigned and made her point, and within weeks Randy Ruderich (the above bad guy) found his butt out on the street and a subsequent investigation found him guilty and he was fined $12,000. Small change actually but a giant point was made.

Next she went after our most horrible Governor ever, Governor Murkowski, and damned if she didn't beat him! All of us here in Alaska, except the Democrats, are sick of our state's corruption. That fact was shouted to the heavens after she was elected with an overwhelming point spread.

After she got into office she started going after corrupt legislators, and with the FBI's help we've put four of them in prison, indicted six more and the "Corrupt Bastard's Club" as they arrogantly called themselves (even had hats made with CBC on the front!) suddenly found it no fun anymore.

The current flap which has cost her a ten point loss of popularity (she's still 82%!) was over firing a popular Commissioner of Public Safety who is responsible for our Alaska State Troopers. She fired him for no stated reason, which was her prerogative as the guv. He served entirely at her option. She and her whole family had a bad, bad experience with a rogue Trooper who was married to Sarah's sister. His name is Trooper Wooten. This dimwit Trooper had threatened Sarah's father (death threat!), threatened Sarah ("I'll get you too"), Tasered his 12 year old stepson, drove drunk in his AST cruiser, got a pass by a fellow Trooper who stopped him for erratic driving a second time while in civvies, and just a host of other things not yet released to the public. He got away with it and got another pass by the Commissioner's appointed AST Trooper Internal Affairs investigator with a tiny slap on the wrist. Five days off without pay to be exact.

This maverick Trooper is still on the payroll but only just. The union's intervention saved his malcontent butt. He'll yet get his, I'm sure. Incredible heat is being heaped on the Troopers. Public heat, not the Governors office.

The Democrats had the audacity to appoint an obviously biased investigator, Rep. "Gunny" French (so called because he lied about being in the USMC while running for the legislature) is a staunch liberal and probably under the orders of Senate President Lyda Green who hates Sarah. She hates Sarah because after being elected Governor Sarah told the whole Legislature in one of her first meetings with them that, quote; "All of you here need some Adult Supervision!"

Sarah was seriously angry and not afraid of anyone there. That played wonderfully well with Alaskans. We are sick of all of our corruption watched her successful battles against a seriously entrenched corrupt government before she took on the legislature. The whole legislature was angry back at her and still are, but also afraid of her because of her popularity.

She reminds me personally of our Alaska wolverine which will fight anything in its path if it sees fit to do so. No respect at all for size or position.

In closing I must tell you that she is the best, most moral and most focused leader I've seen since President Reagan. I feel, really strongly that like Alaska, the rest of our country will love her within a few weeks. Put simply, she represents Middle America like no leader we've ever had.

I think McCain made a totally brilliant move in choosing her. She's a maverick who is probably tougher and more focused than McCain himself... and she won't be a total yes man, or more appropriately, yes woman.

McCain will love her.

In 2012 she will be President.

Alinsky's Hand at Democrat Convention

2008-09-02T22:53:00.007-05:00

Hillary wasn't the only Alinsky convert to come out of Chicago. Barack Obama mastered his tactics as well. According to Alinsky's own son, Alinsky's tactics could be seen all over last week's DNC:

ALL THE elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situations and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd's chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people. The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style.

Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

Scary stuff.

Obama off the teleprompter...Again

2008-09-02T15:19:00.011-05:00

Barack Obama, fearing that he would be viewed for what he is--the least qualified person on either party's ticket--was quick to make the following ridiculous statement:

“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,” Obama responded.

So RUNNING for president qualifies you to BE President. I see the logic. I wonder why Microsoft, Boeing or General Motors don't select CEO's by the same criteria. I can envision the Ford family sitting around the director's table right now:

Director #1: "Harry Hardluck has wanted to run the company since first grade when he visited the factory on his summer trip."
Director #2: "Has he ever run another car company?"
Director #1: "No, but he has lots of people campaigning on his behalf."
Director #2: "Sounds like the obvious choice to me!"

This notion is plainly ridiculous. It's interesting to note that like many "hip" celebrities, Obama seems to take great pride in his entourage. With 2,500 paid staff, it sounds like even Obama's entourage has an entourage. Did it ever occur to Obama that employing hoards of sycophants to faint at his rallies or make tie dyed "Che Obama" T-shirts his hardly the same thing as running a city where potholes have to be filled, streets cleaned and a constituency to be appeased? Does it bode well for our country's future finances when a man with absolutely no economic bona fides brags about how much money he blows every month? Obama continues to stuff his empty suit with hollow managerial experience such as this gem:

"Our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the past couple of years and certainly in terms of the legislation I’ve passed in the past couple of years, post-Katrina.”

So PASSING LAWS qualifies you to be President. I see that logic as well. (If anyone can identify Obama's legislative achievements, you may want inform his supporters)

Update: This from Byron York: “Just for the record, Alaska’s FY2008 operating budget is $11.2 billion, and the state employs approximately 15,000 people. Those certainly aren’t huge numbers in federal terms, but they’re a good bit bigger than the Obama campaign.”

Obama's Daughters vs. Palin's Daughters

2008-09-01T23:51:00.007-05:00

By now we've all heard the news that Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin's daughter (who is 17 and unmarried) is pregnant. The Left is in a tizzy hoping and praying (well, maybe not praying, because that would be an implicit admission of the existence of deity) that the bigoted holier-than-thou religious right will dump their support for Palin like a bag of rocks. You see, the Left believes that when conservatives attempt to live by a moral code of conduct (and persuade others to do the same) they are being inherently judgmental of all those who do not. Being judgmental and bigoted by nature, Christian conservatives' first reaction upon learning that Palin's minor daughter is pregnant will be to reject both Palin and her daughter, a sort of Scarlet Letter, if you will.

In fact, reality for Christians is much different. While we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, a moral standard helps to guide society toward an ideal. One reason for Christ's perfect life was to show us how to live. He instructed: "be ye, therefore perfect. " (Matt 5:24) However, when an individual falls short of that ideal, it is not time for judgment, but gentle persuasion, repentance and reformation of ones life back to the ideal.

Liberals, on the other hand, believe that they cannot be held to any standards of ethics since they deny the existence of universal truth. Take Barack Obama for instance. According to USA Today, when asked to define sin, Barack Obama replied:

"sin is "being out of alignment with my values." Statements such as this have caused many people to wonder whether Obama has a God complex or is hopelessly arrogant. For the record, sin isn't being out of alignment with your own values (if it were, Hannibal Lecter wouldn't be a sinner because his values hold that it's OK to eat people) nor is it being out of alignment with Obama's — unless he really is our Savior.

The Left loves to point out the character flaws in conservatives who fail to meet a religious or moral standard, but isn't it better to at least attempt to live a moral and ethical life than to go around preaching that right or wrong is whatever you can conceive of within your head?

The Left would have their daughters compound an initial mistake (pregnancy), that was likely made in the heat of passion, with an infinitely more grievous evil (abortion). While the Christian conservative sees the pregnancy as an opportunity for deep personal reflection and change, the Liberal sees it as punishment which consequences, typical of liberal philosophy, must be avoided at all costs. Thus, we have Obama's statement from a discussion about sex education:

"if [my daughters] make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

While I may be accused of taking Barry out of context, the underlying assumption is unavoidable. Barry sees a child (who, by the way, is his own flesh and blood--a grandson or granddaughter) and thinks of termination. The Palins see their children and think of life.

Update: Sarah Palin has issued the following statement regarding her daughter's pregnancy. It reinforces the value they place on children:

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

McCain, Romney and the Politics of Wealth

2008-09-01T22:03:00.009-05:00

When I read this story this weekend, I thought I was having economic deja vous. It leads you to wonder if Cindy McCain was paying attention during the Republican primary debates earlier this year.

"Cindy McCain told an interviewer that she was "offended by Barack Obama" and other Democrats who have been hammering her husband John McCain for being unable to immediately answer a question about how many homes he owns. "I'm offended by Barack Obama saying that about my husband...My father had nothing. He and my mother sold everything they had to raise $10,000. I'm proud of what my dad and my mother did and what they built and left me. And I intend to carry their legacy as long as I can."

It wasn't so long ago when John McCain's economic credentials were called into question by Gov. Mitt Romney that he too responded to Romney's assaults by leaning heavily on a bizarre form of economic populism:

"I know how to lead," McCain said at one point, sharpening a distinction between himself and Romney, a longtime businessman who never served in the military. "I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy, and I did it out of patriotism, not for profit."

We can hardly criticize the Democrat party from exploiting McCain's wealth for political advantage. After all, class warfare has been their bread and butter since at least Woodrow Wilson. It's a bitter pill to swallow; however, when the Republican nominee is so poorly schooled in the fundamentals of economic liberty that he spouts the anti-growth, anti-capitalist talking points. Usually, in the primaries nominees run hard to the extremes and then move to the center during the general election. McCain (the Maverick) has done the exact opposite. In fact, for the past six weeks of the general election McCain has been running as a Rush Limbaugh conservative and has actually been receiving praise from his conservative base. Recently, at the Saddleback Church when McCain was asked by Pastor Rick Warren to define rich, McCain was heard to say:

“I don’t want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don’t believe in class warfare or redistribution of wealth. But I can tell you for example there are small businessmen and women who are working sixteen hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as, quote, rich, my friends, who want to raise their taxes and raise their payroll taxes. Let’s have—keep taxes low…So—so I think if you’re just talking about income, how about five million. So—but seriously, I don’t think you can…The point is that we want to keep people’s taxes low…It was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending.”

Maybe somebody on McCain's staff finally shook him by the collar and knocked some sense into him. (Thanks!!)

Obama: "I (the government) am my brothers keeper"

2008-08-29T09:17:00.012-05:00

Apparently, Obama sees the people of America as helpless sheep who need a strong shepherd (ie. the government) to guide them through the storms and hardships of life. This is frightening to a people who inherently cherish the liberty handed down to them by their forefathers. When the government tells you that you are ineligible for surgery until you lose weight, quit drinking alcohol or do any other such thing, you'll know that your dependence upon the government has morphed into slavery. Last night Obama proudly declared: "I am my brother's keeper," but is Obama going to look after us the same way he looks after his step-brother who lives on one dollar per day in a dirt floored hut in Africa? According to Barry:

"Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology. Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us."

Everything after the "but" reveals Obama's governing philosophy--one of big government paternalism. My question to Senator Obama is: which of the following things can American citizens NOT do for themselves?

Protect ourselves from harm: The Democrat's governing philosophy explains why they clamor for the government (George W. Bush) to personally rescue people from hurricanes, and why they expect homeowners to wait patiently (and without a firearm) for the police to arrive while a robber is breaking down their door.
Keep our water clean: Mr. Obama, out here in "fly-over country" we live off of well water, irrigate our yards from canals and go swimming in ponds filled with alligators and we do it all without some government bureaucrat certifying that the water is safe.
Keep our toys safe: Mr. Obama, isn't this what consumers use "name brands" for?--to differentiate between high quality goods and low quality goods? Is Barry going to suck on ever painted toy before our kids play with it?
"Invest" in everything: Mr. Obama, I've commented on this before here, but I'll repeat it again. Every time you hear some politician talking about how they want to "invest" in this or that amount of money for some government boondoggle, just know that every dollar the government "invests" of your tax money, is a dollar which be cannot spent by you or your family on new clothes, tires, computers or other goods and services. The government does not produce capital, it merely sucks up capital from the private market that could have contributed to the expansion of the economy. Additionally, when the government "invests" money, no real wealth has been created, because, undoubtedly, the government will not earn any return on its "investment." You can be assured that a large portion of the "invested" funds will be lost, diverted, squandered and/or end up lining the pockets of crooked politicians across the land.

Will the MSM Discuss Obama (Sr.'s) Legacy of Polygamy?

2008-08-28T12:29:00.006-05:00

This from Newsweek:

Born in 1961, [Barack] Obama is the son of a white mother from Kansas; his father was a black man from Kenya. The parents met at the university of Hawaii and married; Obama was born; the father, who, it turned out, already had one family in Africa, left for Harvard and never came back. "I consider myself a serial polygamist," Obama Sr. once told a friend. "That is, one wife at a time." By most accounts Senior had eight children with four women."

I seem to remember a few months ago when the main stream media attempted to railroad another presidential candidate because of his alleged connection or descent from a polygamist ancestor? Examples of this can be seen here, here and here. While Mitt Romney's great-great-grandfather had more than one wife, Barack Hussein Obama's father (note: that's just one generational step above the current Democrat presidential nominee) was, by his own admission a "serial polygammist." In the eyes of the MSM will that disqualify his son for the presidency? I doubt it.

In Denver, the End of Capitalism

2008-08-28T09:21:00.008-05:00

David Harsanyi describes perfectly the philosophical underpinnings of the Democrat National Convention:

"buried beneath the idealistic policy talk in Denver is an ugly detail: It's about coercion.

[Gov. Brian] Schweitzer claims "we must invest" in projects he likes, he means government will take it and invest it for you. You see, you must. Then Schweitzer claimed (in a half-truth) that Republican nominee John McCain voted "against" solar energy, biofuels and wind energy.

Which is weird because I could swear my neighbor has solar panels, so they must be legal. I've seen windmills. So I suppose that Schweitzer meant that McCain voted against some federal boondoggle for wind and/or solar energy.

Sen. Hillary Clinton later chimed in that she would force energy companies to invest in the projects deemed worthy of the common good. (Imagine if your business were told how it "must" invest its money.) She claimed Americans "give" windfall profits to oil companies. No, we don't "give" them anything; we pay them for a product.

Here's the point. Every time you hear some politician talking about how they want to "invest" in this or that amount of money for some government boondoggle, just know that every dollar the government "invests" of your tax money, is a dollar which be cannot spent by you or your family on new clothes, tires, computers or other goods and services. The government does not produce capital, it merely sucks up capital from the private market that could have contributed to the expansion of the economy.

Additionally, when the government "invests" money, no real wealth has been created, because, undoubtedly, the government will not earn any return on its "investment." You can be assured that a large portion of the "invested" funds will be lost, diverted, squandered and/or end up lining the pockets of crooked politicians across the land. The reason is simple. As Henry Hazlitt put it:

"there is a difference between the loans supplied by private lenders and the loans supplied by a government agency. Each private lender risks his own funds...If money is lost he must either make good out of his own funds or be forced out of business. When people risk their own funds they are usually careful in their investigations to determine the adequacy of the assets pledged and the business acumen and honesty of the borrower."

"If the government operated by the same strict standards, there would be no good argument for its entering the field at all. Why do precisely what privately agencies already do? But the government almost invariably operates by different standards. The whole argument for its entering the lending business, in fact, is that it will make loans to people who could not get them from private lenders. This is only another way of saying that the government lenders will take risks with the people's money (the taxpayers') that private lenders will not take with their own money."

Is it possible to get Hazlitt's book distributed in Denver before it's too late?

Recruiting Men for College

2008-08-26T21:47:00.008-05:00

Colleges across the land have begun to wonder: where have all the men gone? According to insidehighered.com:

Male students made up 52 percent of the U.S. undergraduate population in 1976, but that figure dropped to 43 percent by 2004, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The difference between male and female participation was found to be particularly stark among black students, where women outnumbered men in college enrollments by 29 percentage points in 2004.

Having recently completed my ~~indoctrination~~ education at one of the nation's center's of higher learning, I have a few thoughts on the subject. Whether anyone really wants to admit it, one of the primary objects of going to college is to select a suitable (attractive) spouse from among the overflowing masses of humanity on this earth. Getting your foot in the door of a lucrative profession is nice byproduct as well, but while going to college allows a man to find a woman who might be more intelligent, attractive or successful than one he might find in his own small home town, going to college may not be what it once was.

Is it possible that young men are now able to have their cake and eat it too? At least since the housing bubble beginning in the early 2000's, it seems that young men have been able to leave high school slap up a few homes and pocket a couple of hundred thousand dollars. That sure looks a lot more attractive to a woman than a piece of parchment on the wall and a huge debt on the books. Additionally, is it possible that young men without college educations are capable of weighing the financial risks/rewards of going to college? Who wants to end up like this:

"For more than two decades, colleges and universities across the country have been jacking up tuition at a faster rate than costs have risen on any other major product or service - four times faster than the overall inflation rate and faster even than increases in the price of gasoline or health care (see the chart to the right). The result: After adjusting for financial aid, the amount families pay for college has skyrocketed 439% since 1982....Mind you, some borrowing can actually be a good thing, giving students a built-in investment in their education. But today many kids leave school with unprecedented amounts of debt - $20,000 on average, up from $9,000 a decade ago - and one in 10 private college students borrows over $40,000...One chilling sign: Among students who graduate from four-year schools with more than $15,000 in debt, the default rate is nearly 20%.

Update: Maybe there's a correlation between the rising number of women on college campus and the rise in prices. While I think it has much more to do with government subsidizing of student loans (ie. subsidies naturally create an artificial demand for a product) John Lott makes a similar argument that the growth of "big government" correlates with the age of women's suffrage:

"If women's right to vote increased government, our analysis should show a few definite indicators. First, suffrage would have a bigger impact on government spending and taxes in states with a greater percentage of women. And secondly, the size of government in western states should steadily expand as women comprise an increasing share of their population. Even after accounting for a range of other factors — such as industrialization, urbanization, education and income — the impact of granting of women's suffrage on per capita state government expenditures and revenue was startling. Per capita state government spending after accounting for inflation had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting. But state governments started expanding the first year after women voted and continued growing until within 11 years real per capita spending had more than doubled. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting."

Obama on the cover Newsweek again!

2008-08-26T13:01:00.004-05:00

This is getting embarrassing for Newsweek, but at least there aren't any halos this time:

Obama appeals to FEC to silence political advertisement

2008-08-26T12:29:00.004-05:00

The scary thing is that if Obama gets elected, you can bet he and Pelosi will do, by means of the 'fairness doctrine,' the same thing to conservative talk radio.

Sen. Barack Obama has launched an all-out effort to block a Republican billionaire’s efforts to tie him to domestic and foreign terrorists in a wave of negative television ads. Obama’s campaign has written the Department of Justice demanding a criminal investigation of the “American Issues Project,” the vehicle through which Dallas investor Harold Simmons is financing the advertisements. The Obama campaign — and tens of thousands of supporters — also is pressuring television networks and affiliates to reject the ads. The effort has met with some success: CNN and Fox News are not airing the attacks. Obama has also launched his own response ad, directly addressing Simmons' attempt to link him to domestic terror. The project is “a knowing and willful attempt to violate the strictures of federal election law,” Obama general counsel Bob Bauer wrote to Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney last week in a letter provided to Politico. Bauer argued that by advocating Obama’s defeat, the ad should be subject to the contribution limits of federal campaign law, not the anything-goes regime of issue advocacy.

Here's the ad:

Democrat Convention Spending Spree

2008-08-26T10:40:00.004-05:00

This week's Democrat National Convention has become a microcosm of the governing philosophy that pervades both parties from top to bottom. Free spending is easy at the DNC (as well as in DC) when those spending the money are not the same as those actually earning the money. Compare this account about the Democrat National Convention to the description about the Wal-Mart Shareholder's Convention:

DNC: "Lobbyists are once again spending millions of dollars here on gourmet food, top-shelf liquor and private lavish parties for Democratic elected officials who seem more than happy to play the role of world-class freeloaders. According to Denver's top chefs and caterers, no expense is being spared. Kevin Taylor, of the Denver restaurant Palette, who says he is the only four-star chef in Denver, says he is booked to prepare delicacies for more than 100 "high end, hush-hush events." "The demand is over the top, you've never seen anything like this," said chef Taylor, especially for his signature King Crab terrine appetizer with white champagne caviar. At the Ritz Carlton Hotel, where rooms for Democratic VIP's are now going for $2,000 a night, the executive chef, Andre Jimenez, says even the room welcome gifts need to be elaborate for the 35 top donors and celebrities, including "the rarest peaches in America." "It's only for the best of the best that we host here," the chef told ABC News. "We're seeing lobbyists gone wild," said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a non-profit group that lobbied for the new ethics law enacted last year, aimed at curbing lobbying abuses.
Wal-Mart Convention: "Scott and Chief Financial Officer Tom Schoewe earned a combined $14 million in stock and cash in 2003. But on business trips, the two will share a $49 hotel room. "Sharing rooms is a very symbolic part of what we do," Scott says. "It's also an equalizer. If I'm asking the district managers to share a room, but I won't share a room with Schoewe, then what am I saying? There are two different standards here? The customer is the most important thing for all of you, but for me I think I'll run a different standard."

The differences between the practices of the private sector versus the public sector are astounding. When will one of these parties stop to think about the virtues of thrift, savings, service and sacrifice? Don't hold your breath. Obama recently claimed:

"We will not take another dime from Washington lobbyists," Obama said in a speech June 5, repeating a theme he has main a key to his campaign. "They will not fund my party."

So what is the reality? This from Steve Weisman of the Campaign Finance Institute, affiliated with George Washington University.

"Barack Obama, who says that he doesn't want to have any lobbyist money in his campaign, is having a lobbyist bundle money from large corporations, many of which are clients, for the convention that's going to nominate Obama," said Steve Weisman

It's kind of odd to see Democrats shaking down corporations for cash when they have been demonizing them for years.

Hidden Victories In (The Republic of) Georgia:

2008-08-25T15:59:00.002-05:00

A little good news:

A small number of Georgians received special operations training, but not enough of these troops were available to defeat the Russian advance. The Georgians did better in the air and at sea, even though they were greatly outnumbered there as well. Georgian warplanes shot up the Russians pretty badly (killing the commander of Russian ground forces, for example) before the Russians were able to shut down the Georgian air force. But in the process Russia lost at least four aircraft destroyed, and a number of others badly damaged. At sea, Georgian missile boats hit several Russian warships, which had not been equipped with equipment, or crews, that were capable of dealing with this kind of threat. Two Russian warships were damaged sufficiently that they had to withdraw from the area. Within a few days, however, Georgia's miniscule navy and air force were destroyed, largely by the much larger Russian air force.

From Street Agitator to Senator: How Obama Got His Start

2008-08-25T14:25:00.004-05:00

As a street agitator, Obama worked the machine politicians until he was 'made' Senator. This From the Chicago Sun Times:

"He came to me and he said, 'You're the Senate president. You have a lot of power,' " Jones recalled. "I said, 'I do? What kind of power do I have?' He said, 'You have the power to make a United States senator.' 'Oh? I didn't realize that. If I have that kind of power, do you know of anyone I could make a United States senator?' He said, 'Me.' He caught me by surprise. I said, 'Let me think about it.' And we continued to talk, and I told him, 'That sounds good. Let's go for it.' That started the campaign."

Pelosi Lies about Catholic Abortion Doctrine

2008-08-25T12:42:00.005-05:00

This Sunday, Nancy Pelosi attempted to redifine 2,000 year old Catholic doctrine on abortion:

Do you really have to make this so easy Nancy? This from "Catholic.com":

The Catholic Church has always condemned abortion as a grave evil. As the early Christian writer Tertullian pointed out, the law of Moses ordered strict penalties for causing an abortion. We read, "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: "so that her child comes out"], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex. 21:22–24).

In 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).

The Didache:
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas
"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

The Apocalypse of Peter
"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).

Athenagoras
"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).

Tertullian
"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . .

"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).

"The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).

Minucius Felix
"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).

Hippolytus
"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).

Council of Ancyra
"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).

Basil the Great
"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).

"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).

John Chrysostom
"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome
"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

The Apostolic Constitutions
"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

Helmet Hair: are we seeing a pattern among VP Nominees?

2008-08-25T12:15:00.007-05:00

The Politico has this to say about Biden's Hair:

It is a fraying, combed-back helmet that barely covers a longtime fact of Washington life: The senator from Delaware has taken steps to pre-empt baldness. The most common hypothesis is that he received a hair transplant, where follicles from the bushier back of the head are grafted onto fading spots closer to the front of the dome. In 1987, a Washington Post reporter asked him to confirm the theory. "Guess," he responded. "I've got to keep some mystery in my life."

I have to admit, I have much more confidence in Biden's hair than the hair of the "metrosexual" they nominated last time:

Democrats open faith-filled convention with prayer

2008-08-25T11:13:00.007-05:00

From the outset, the Obama campaign incorporated religious imagery to build a cult of personality around its candidate. In New Hampshire in January, for example, the Obama told an audience that:

"a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany . . . and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama."

In that vein, the Democrat Convention recently opened with an (religious) invocation of all things. The Associated Press hit the nail right on the head with this comment:

"Four years ago, such a scene would have been unthinkable at a Democratic National Convention."

At the convention, "young Muslim women in headscarves sat near older African-American women in their finest Sunday hats."

This is the most obvious feint to Bible thumpers I've ever seen. Isn't it the Democrat Party who unleashed the rabid anti-Christian campaign on America through their surrogates at the ACLU, CAIR and La Raza? Shouldn't the ACLU be standing up for the rights of these Muslim women not to be offended by the prayers of Christians and Jews?

Why would Obama invoke religion at his convention? His mentor Saul Alinsky, taught his followers not to be "Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman with their long hair and hippie attitudes. … He said they should cut their hair, they should shave their beards, they should get business suits." All this in order to mask one's true ideology. This tidbit from Investors Business Daily gives us some insight:

"Obama calls his years as an Alinskyesque community organizer in Chicago "the best education I ever had, and where I learned the true meaning of my Christian faith." But as radicalism expert Richard Lawrence Poe has noted, "Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. In organizing coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer." Indeed, Alinsky believed in sacrificing ethics and morals for the great cause. "Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times," Alinsky wrote in his last book, "Rules for Radicals," adding that "all values are relative in a world of political relativity." Published a year before Alinsky's death in 1972, "Rules for Radicals" includes a dedication in which he gives "an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."

Interesting First Campaign Appearance

2008-08-25T10:41:00.002-05:00

When Barack Obama talks about "Hope and Change" I'm not sure this is what he had in mind:

More News on Chinese Infrastructure

2008-08-25T09:27:00.006-05:00

This from the Epoch Times over the Weekend:

Southern China was slammed by severe snowstorms resulting in blackouts which seriously affected railway transportation for millions of people planning to travel for Chinese New Year. The Jing-Guang (Beijing-Guangzhou) Railway, one of the major railways connecting North and South China, was nearly paralyzed by the storm. Some experts and reporters have noted that this situation exposes insufficiencies and inefficiency in China's infrastructure, particularly for transport and the electric power system. It has also shown that its capacity to handle a crisis is very fragile; Chinese authorities need to consider this situation seriously. According to a recent article written by Deng Liwen, a researcher at the Central Party School in Beijing, currently the biggest problem facing China's rail transit system is not only its inability to meet the demands of social and economic development, but also that it is falling behind the air and road transit systems. As of 2006, China had less than 80,000 kilometers of railway, only six percent of the world's total railway length. This is an average railway length of about six centimeters per person in terms of China's 1.3 billion people, while its railway network carries 24 percent of the world's rail freight traffic.

Doing business in China is sounding better and better every day. You don't have to worry about environmental or labor regulations. Eminent Domain is not a problem. What's not to love?

China has always suffered from aridity, as about 20 percent of its landmass...but the situation is getting worse. Persistent drought, overgrazing, indiscriminate use of ground water and rampant logging are eroding the edges of China’s deserts, allowing them to merge and spread. Recent satellite imagery shows that the Badain Jaran desert in north-central China is pushing southward toward the nearby Tengger desert to form a single, larger desert, overlapping both northwestern Gansu province and neighboring Inner Mongolia. Expanding deserts swallow almost a million acres of land every year, China’s State Environmental Protection Administration says. Soon 40 percent of China could turn into scrubland, creating massive social, economic and ecological challenges, including the problem of millions of “ecological refugees.”

Obama on American and Chinese Infrastructure

2008-08-22T13:41:00.015-05:00

This February, Barack Obama called for:

"the establishment of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that would invest $60 billion over a ten year period for highways, technology, and other projects. Obama proposed this concept as a component of his $210 billion economic stimulus package, when he made an economic policy address at a GE Assembly Plant on Wednesday. “For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America,” said Obama. “This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs—many of them in the construction industry that’s been hit hard by the housing crisis.”

Yesterday, Obama had this to say:

"Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics , Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think, 'Beijing looks like a pretty good option.'"

Hugh Hewitt calls the Communists' Olympic infrastructure in Beijing "eye candy."

For instance, the Communists' iconic "Bird's Nest" stadium is nothing more than those that have become a dime a dozen here in the states. According to Wikipedia, the stadium currently has a seating capacity of 80,000 and ten people were killed in its construction. We have lots of those (without the deaths). Just about every city in America boasts some massive stadium that rivals the Bird's Nest. Here's a list of just the NCAA's largest stadiums.

To steal a line from Owen Wilson, they've got a 2,000 year old civilization (with a Billion of starving and oppressed people), and this is all they could come up with? The fact is that even in rural areas, American infrastructure is vastly superior to Chinese infrastructure. I guarantee you won't be driving 95 miles per hour in western China's highways, but in "nowhere" Nevada and Montana people regularly drive faster than that. America's infrastructure is just one item in a long list of things Obama has thrown under the bus.

Let's face it folks, with all the rain this week at the Olympics, it is obvious that the Bird's Nest is just another glorified Texas Stadium which you can neither heat when it's cold nor cool when it's hot. Here in the States our stadiums have trains, water slides, retractable roofs and football fields that roll in and out on giant rails. I didn't see any drunk Chinese Olympic fans by the center field fence sitting in "lazy boys" or hot tubs like we've got here.

Update: I hope Barry Obama doesn't forget about Texas' shrines to High School Football when he's commenting on which country's infrastructure is better.

More Ominous Economic Clouds on the Horizon?

2008-08-22T11:20:00.006-05:00

This week's Fortune Magazine continues to sound the alarm bell:

There were $85 billion in mortgage securities downgraded in third quarter of 2007, $237 billion in the fourth quarter, $739 billion in the first quarter of this year, and $841 billion in the second quarter of 2008."

Meredith Whitney, (who by Fortune's own admission is a lousy analyst) graces the cover is quoted as warning a standing-room only crowd of money managers that:

"What's ahead is much more severe than what we've seen so far...While my loss estimates are much more severe than those of my peers, my biggest concerns is that they're way too low."

That was back in May. Today we get this from Ben Bernanke:

"Although we have seen improved functioning in some markets, the financial storm that reached gale force" around this time last year "has not yet subsided, and its effects on the broader economy are becoming apparent in the form of softening economic activity and rising unemployment," Bernanke said in a speech to a high-profile economics conference here..."A jump in inflation, in part the product of a global commodity boom, and the result has been one of the most challenging economic and policy environments in memory," he said.

Maybe it's because I live on Florida's Emerald Coast and work in the real estate development/construction industry, but many of the contractors, subcontractors and laborers that I have spoken to give me an indication that the problems are just starting to mount. Their teaser rates are just now beginning to end, their interest reserves are just now expiring and their home and car loans are just now coming due. Just a few years ago these guys were raking in $10,000 a week and went on a spending spree purchasing $46,000 trucks and furnishing their bachelor pads. Just based on my conversations with these guys, the Banks can expect additional losses as the real estate industry continues to implode.

The Personification of Ice

2008-08-22T07:30:00.008-05:00

The Associated Press Reports that a large chunk of ice is breaking off of some really cold ice cube in Greenland. Notice how the writer wants us to think that this giant snow cone is a living being with feelings:

In northern Greenland, a part of the Arctic that had seemed immune from global warming, new satellite images show a growing giant crack and an 11-square-mile chunk of ice hemorrhaging off a major glacier, scientists said Thursday. And that's led the university professor who spotted the wounds in the massive Petermann glacier to predict disintegration of a major portion of the Northern Hemisphere's largest floating glacier within the year. The crack is 7 miles long and about half a mile wide. It is about half the width of the 500 square mile floating part of the glacier. Other smaller fractures can be seen in images of the ice tongue, a long narrow sliver of the glacier... The question that now faces scientists is: Are the fractures part of normal glacier stress or are they the beginning of the effects of global warming?

The AP continues:

"Satellite images show that the Jakobshavn glacier, the fastest retreating glacier in the world, set new records for how far it has moved inland. That concerns Colorado's Abdalati: "It could go back for miles and miles and there's no real mechanism to stop it."

There's no mechanism to stop it? I have a suggestion. Maybe we could round up a few of those human shields that were lucky enough to survive the Iraq War and ship them up to Greenland. Their patriotic service is needed once again! Just like the Chinese Tank Man, the glacier would stop dead in its tracks at the very thought of grinding the human shields into fine powdery dust under the weight of 5 million tons of ice.

Or maybe Barry Obama can lead an expedition of shaamen and miracle workers to the iceberg. Does the ability to turn back the "rise of the oceans" and "heal the planet" also empower one to cure an iceberg? For the planet's sake, I hope so!

Update: Hopefully the glaciers in Greenland won't treat the human shields the same way the ones in Washington State did.

The Religion of Pelosi

2008-08-21T13:45:00.009-05:00

Technically, Nancy Pelosi is a Roman Catholic (she recently crossed herself while at a Syrian Mosque), but during the recent Congressional infighting over the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration Pelosi was quoted as saying:

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

I think Pelosi needs to go back to Catechism. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., reminded Americans that the world has already been saved. She says:

“[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she’s just trying to save the planet,” Bachmann said. “We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet — we didn’t need Nancy Pelosi to do that.”

Then a week later Pelosi greeted Obama at a California fundraiser calling him:

"a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

I'm not denying that the hand of God hasn't been behind Obama's meteoric rise from community agitator to Democrat Presidential nominee; however, I think it has more to do with the fact that he has gets three times the media coverage that John McCain receives.

Wind Turbine Syndrome...??

2008-08-21T12:43:00.008-05:00

New research from Dr. Nina Pierpont entitled Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on the Natural Experiment suggests that living close to wind turbines can cause:

"sleep disorders, difficulty with equilibrium, headaches, childhood "night terrors" and other health problems."

The real question is whether the mental problems related to living in and around wind turbines is the result of:

"low-frequency noise and vibration generated by wind machines," or
having to live with the piles of shredded birds so close to your house.

Obama on the Cover of Time Magazine for 7th Time This Year

2008-08-21T12:16:00.006-05:00

Flashback: Weeks ago I said Newsweek was suffering from the same disease regarding the "Messiah." See the story here.

California's Proposition 8 and Judicial Tyranny

2008-08-21T09:32:00.010-05:00

This November California's proposed Proposition 8 would amend the California Constitution to read:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

What Prop 8 has to do with Judicial Tyranny? Let me explain. In 2000, by means of a ballot initiative, the People of California voted 61.4% in favor of Proposition 22 which altered Section 300 of the California Civil Code to define marriage as

a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.

Predictably since that time, the radical left has thrown the whole issue into the courts and succeeded in overruling the will of the people on the matter.

Today, traditional marriage and family advocates are once again trying to maintain that sacred institution by means of a Constitutional amendment. Advocates hope that the amendment would take the issue out of the hands of the courts by adding a new section to the California Constitution (Section 7.5) to Article I, but I would not hold my breath.

The people of California need to understand that the Judicial tyrants in their state don't care if the people vote in favor of this measure. They do not care if it is placed within the State's Constitution for a time. There is absolutely no way that Proposition 8 will stand for long. State Supreme Court Judges throughout the country have made a habit of invalidating and striking down ballot initiatives. The "Men (and Women) in Black" are just biding their time until they can strike Proposition 8 down as well.

He's Always Been a Superb Swimmer

2008-08-20T20:52:00.002-05:00

Clarence Thomas' Resume Not Strong Enough for Supreme Court?

2008-08-20T15:25:00.004-05:00

“I would not have nominated, uhhh, Clarence Thomas. Uh, I don’t think that he’s—uhhh... uhhh... I—I—I—I—I—I don’t think that he was an exper... uh, a strong enough jurist or legal thinker, uh, at the time, uh, for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.”

—Barack Obama when asked by Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren which Supreme Court Justice he would NOT have nominated

From the WSJ: So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.

So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.

While Obama's Brother lives on $1 per day Obama calls Americans Stingy

2008-08-20T13:08:00.013-05:00

While Obama has earned millions of dollars from the sale of two books about his heretofore paper thin life experience, his brother subsists on just one dollar per day.

Recently, at Saddleback Church Obama stated:

“Americans’ greatest moral failure in my lifetime,” he said, “has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”

I say that Obama should first set his own house in order, then begin thinking about how to confiscate our money. Aside from the obvious hypocritical nature of Obama's statement, what Obama is really attempting to assert is that Jesus Christ himself espoused Obama's radical redistributionist philosophies. Attempting to pandering to the "Religious Right" by telling them that their Bible really justifies the theft of their honest incomes by distant bureaucrats is not likely to fly here in the South.

Also, this from the DC Examiner:

"the evidence of an internationally superior American generosity is impressive, beginning with the numbers on our charitable giving. We give twice as much as the British per capita, and according to The American magazine, seven times as much as the Germans and 14 times as much as the Italians.

Even in inflation-adjusted dollars, the amount given each year just keeps getting larger, and meanwhile, we do far more volunteer work than in other industrialized countries."

Chinese Athlete In Her Own Words

2008-08-18T10:22:00.004-05:00

Were your parents here to see you compete, among the cheering crowds?

“I don’t know.”

When was the last time you went home?”

“Ummm … before I joined the national team,” Yang said, her small voice hard to hear.

When was that?

“More than a year ago.”

Will you go on holiday after the games?

“I don’t know.”

How many holidays do you get a year?

“I have not had a holiday since I joined the national team.”

Treatment of Chinese Peformers Indicative of Communism

2008-08-18T10:16:00.002-05:00

The Kung Fu pupils in the opening ceremony of the Olympics have spent the last year cooped up in a military camp outside Beijing. Conditions have been bad. "They weren't even given enough food," says their trainer. This news adds to the criticism of the Beijing Organizing Committee.

Viewers from around the globe marvelled at the Opening Ceremony last Friday. One of the most spectacular features was the martial arts display by 2008 pupils from the famous Shaolin Centre in Henan province. With coordinated movements, they showed the Tai Chi variant of Kung Fu; a popular way to relax for many Chinese people.

The skilful and well-executed show took a severe toll on many of the participants; both those who took part and the performers who were held in reserve.

Many of the martial arts performers feel abused and ignored by the Olympic organizers. For the last year, they have been housed 50 to a room, more than 70 kilometres from the ‘Bird’s Nest’ National arena. This is where they have slept, eaten and spent all their time.

Leaving the compound around the barracks was strictly forbidden. The dormitories are crammed with bunk beds. Between 30 and 50 of the teenagers spent the night in each room. Only a few of the showers work and the toilet facilities have been bad. The winter was icy and in summer, the pupils had to battle against mosquitoes and the heat.

"After repeated complaints they finally installed air-conditioning in the sleeping quarters. However, most of the equipment was so old that it didn't work," says one of the pupils.

Most of the 2500 performers have been sent home after the opening ceremony. The few that remain in order to take part in the closing ceremony are extremely angry about the treatment they have received from the Olympic organizers.

"The food is the worst thing. We’ve had the same two courses for dinner for a year. Sometimes there hasn't been enough for everyone. Those who have arrived last haven't got anything to eat," says a pupil.

He adds that he "wants to throw up," when the food is served.

"We never get noodles or dumplings. All we get is rice," he says.

Another pupil describes his disappointment as he arrived in Beijing last year. "We were proud at being chosen to take part. We all had great dreams about what we were going to do, what we were going to see and what big stars we would become, but all we've seen is the inside of this military camp. The only thing we dream of now is going home," he says.

Conditions have been so bad that their trainer, Kung Fu master Liu Haike, has sent a series of complaints to the Olympic organizers. The complaints did have some effect.

"In the end, the pupils got enough to eat, even if the diet was extremely monotonous," he says to daily newspaper Aftenposten.

Liu describes pressure from the organizers as extreme. Everything had to be perfect. As result the performers had to practice up to 16 hours a day. "The test performance of the opening ceremony was worst of all. The pupils had to remain in the stadium for 51 hours. They were hardly fed. There was nowhere to sleep. Some managed to sleep on the seats, but they didn't get more than a couple of hours at most," says Liu.

He adds that several of the pupils got heatstroke, but their physical training meant that they got better again relatively quickly. Liu says that he felt very sorry for his pupils and the way that they were treated.

"But the organizers have promised them an Olympic certificate thanking them for their effort. They will not receive pay. Nevertheless I think that the majority will think that it was good to do what they did for the Olympics and their country," says Liu.

Germans try to slow glacier melt with giant screen

2008-08-15T15:06:00.006-05:00

Folks, this is getting ridiculous. How far afield has western civilization drifted from any rational notions of morality when you have a bunch of German scientists running around trying to 'save the ice?' Just read this story for starters:

German researchers trying to slow melting glaciers have set up a large screen in the Swiss Alps that they hope will trap cold air over the icy mass, Johannes Gutenberg University said Thursday. 'We hope our installations will bring about a net cooling of the area. And if the melt is not stopped, that it is at least slowed,' the project's leader, geography professor Hans-Joachim Fuchs, said in a statement.

For years the environmental movement has advocated a new type of morality (one which places and animal life above human life and the 'earth' above all) but now the Germans have taken this absurdity to a whole new level. They have decided to expend huge amounts of time, research, money and energy to "clothe" the glaciers from the sun's rays. I think that someone needs to inform these guys that the ultimate injunction is to feed the hungered and clothe the naked, not to run around "clothing" the ice. The ice has been there for hundreds of years and will be there long after any of us are gone. The ice doesn't need your charity, HUMANS DO!

Francis Fukuyama Wrong Again

2008-08-15T08:19:00.018-05:00

In his 1989 book The End of History and the Last Man (which we were forced to read as political science students) Francis Fukuyama wrote:

"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."

He was wrong then, and today (in his WSJ editorial) he's wrong again.

Today, Fukuyama writes:

The Bush administration this week rebuked Russia for its disproportionate military intervention in Georgia; many rightly suspect Moscow's real goal is regime change of the pro-Western, democratic government in Tbilisi. But who set the most recent precedent for a big power intervening to change a regime it didn't like, without the sanction of the U.N. Security Council or any other legitimating international body?

Mr. Fukuyama, while I reject your naked assertion that the US went to war "without the sanction of the UN Security Council or other legitimate international body," let's assume arguendo that your statement is true. The precedent of going to war in such manner is as old as war itself. I don't remember Jefferson, McKinley, Polk, Reagan or any other President knocking on the UN's door before entering into armed conflicts.

There's only one function of the United Nations as it is comprised today, and that is to weaken and dilute America's influence in the world. The U.N. is without equal in its ineptitude and corruption. Its sole purpose is to justify the existence of its budgets and bureaucracies. As it squanders the worlds donations, it attempts to stand in judgment of the very nation that props it up.

But there's another thing that you do not understand, and that is that international organizations neither have authority nor legitimacy to restrain America's constitutional authority to wage war. America must not grant a veto over its power to the socialist countries of Europe or to every third world dictatorship which happens to belong to the U.N. A majority of Congress voted in favor of military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and that war was waged with remarkable efficiency and success.

In light of the lessons from the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, which were not lost on President Bush, the Iraq War had to be fought. First, we would no longer would we allow failed nations to become havens for Islamic extremists, and Second, would we not allow rogue nations (ie. Iraq) develop weapons of mass destruction which they could then deliver to their Islamo-Fascist surrogates. Saddam Hussein both claimed the ability and had shown in the past the willingness to use WMD's. He had violated the terms of the Persian Gulf War for years, financially supported Palestinian suicide bombers, harbored and trained international terrorists and needed to be dealt with.

The real reason Fukuyama cringed when he saw the "mission accomplished" banner was not because he "knew" we would be fighting for five more year (he was wrong again by the way), but because professors like Fukuyama and the left (aren't those synonymous?) cannot stand a victorious American military. Rather, they want America hamstrung by international organizations and desperately yearn for China, the EU, Brazil or Russia to act as a counterweight to our influence in the world. Pray that day never comes.

Peak Oil Theory Debunked

2008-08-14T14:27:00.001-05:00

You gotta love this line: "peak oil is a moving target,” Mr. Hatlen said. “Oil is always a function of price and technology.”

In fact, the world oil shortage is political, not geological.

The case for drilling—and more energy production

Jon Basil Utley | August 14, 2008

The media constantly repeat the claim that it would take a decade to get the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) into oil production and about as long for offshore continental oil to start flowing. Most accounts promote the views of extreme environmentalists to make the issue appear so hopeless that we must instead "change our way of life" rather than tap into proven oil reserves. In July, CNN repeatedly reported that offshore drilling would take "seven to 10 years" to get into production. Yet Brazil's Petrobras expects its new finds in extraordinarily deep waters to already be producing 100,000 barrels per day in just two years. What is wrong with American oil companies that they would take so long?

In fact, the world oil shortage is political, not geological. In the U.S., the government prohibits drilling offshore. In Nigeria, civil strife has shut down major production. In Libya and Iran, Washington effectively blockaded and isolated the nations for years to inhibit new production. In Iraq, of course, the U.S. destroyed much of the infrastructure since the first Gulf war in 1991 and then blockaded reconstruction. In nations such as Russia and Mexico nationalism and corruption curtail increased production.

Outside of developed Western countries, the single largest reason for oil "shortages" is government incompetence and ownership of the subsoil rights so that landowners don't benefit from oil discoveries. In Patagonia, Argentina (a nation with abundant oil), I was told how it was common for landowners to try to hide any evidence of oil seepages from underground, lest the government oil company come in and ruin their lands with no benefit to themselves. Private mineral rights ownership is the reason some 90 percent of all oil wells drilled have been in the U.S. Scientific advances and innovative engineers keep coming up with ways to both discover new fields and keep old ones in production almost indefinitely.

ANWR could become the fastest way to generate hundreds of billions of dollars of new oil. But laws need to be changed to fast track the leasing (there are 11 litigation choke points) and to create special courts to expedite environmental issues, as recently proposed by Rep. Michele Bachman (R-Minn.). Under current laws, it could indeed take 10 years to produce oil, compared to two or three years for the actual drilling and pumping. Additionally, leasing is done slowly, thanks to laws written when oil was plentiful. Such laws were designed to gain maximum upfront money for the government, not for speed. For example, BP recently paid $1.2 billion for a new offshore lease, some 400 miles East of Canada's Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. The cost and distance gives some idea of industry expectations as to the extent of oil reserves.

In Anchorage last month, Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil & Gas Association, explained to me the following time frame for ANWR drilling: Expect 12 months or more for an Environmental Impact Statement after Congress approves drilling. And this is working fast. It would likely take much longer. Expect 12 months to 18 months for the Department of Interior to draw up and bid out the lease-sale process. Plan on two years for oil companies to do test drilling and analysis. Drilling and transport of heavy equipment can only be done in the winter months when the permafrost ground is solidly frozen, from December through April. Concurrently with oil drilling, a 75-mile pipeline spur needs be built to connect to the main Alyeska Pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to the Southern shipping port.

However, this time frame does not allow for environmental lawsuits "every step of the way," as Crockett warned. The rest of the 10-year time frame is to allow for lawsuits trying to prevent or harass production in one way or another. For example, a single judge in California's 9th circuit has failed to issue a decision on a Shell Oil project that already had $200 million of investment before it was ordered to stop. It will produce 30,000 barrels per day, about $1 billion per year of oil.

There has already been a test well drilled in ANWR and the oil drilling could be done from a concentrated small area, about the size of Dulles Airport. Compare this to the total size of ANWR, which is roughly equivalent to the size of South Carolina. Its reserves are estimated at 10 billion barrels by the U.S. Geological Survey, compared to 32 billion nationwide, almost a 33 percent increase. At full production, ANWR would add a million barrels per day to U.S. production. At $100 per barrel, this would equal over $36 billion per year that would not need to be spent on foreign oil. It would also create some 700,000 well-paying jobs, according to a Wharton Econometrics study [pdf].

Some accurate pictures are finally beginning to circulate. Previously, ANWR was typically portrayed as if it was like the Rockies, with happy goats jumping around. But the land is actually flat and desolate for most of the year, feeding birds and caribou in the summertime. I have personally seen such land with its untold numbers of shallow, frigid little lakes on the Arctic Circle in Northern Russia. It reminded me of what the first French explorer called such lands in Canada's northern extremes: "The Land God Gave to Cain." I was in Alaska hiking last July; the quantity and variety of animal life is astounding. Grizzly bears roam within the city limits of Anchorage and moose die of starvation every winter all over the state. Nearly a million caribou (reindeer) roam. The whole western half of the state is without roads. Hundreds of streams are filled with salmon. I saw a bowhead whale breaching and little sea otters (once nearly extinct) in Seward Harbour during one afternoon boat trip out into the bay. Drilling, in other words, will not spoil the richness and abundance of Alaska's wildlife.

Here are some other interesting facts about Alaskan oil:

• Drilling is permitted in the Beaufort Sea on Alaska's north coast. On the west coast, it is not allowed under the general prohibition against offshore drilling.

• Wells at Prudhoe Bay and nearby ANWR, if allowed, are very shallow, mostly 1,000 feet to 2,000 feet deep, which allows for fast drilling.

• New technology now also allows long distance slant and horizontal drilling from a single drill site. BP is now planning such an eight-mile drill.

• The Beaufort Sea off shore is very shallow and production is done from man-made islands. A single platform allows for many slant wells.

• The Bering Sea between Alaska and Siberia is only some 2,000 feet to 3,000 feet deep.

• Estimates of recoverable oil are based on a $40 barrel price—they should be much higher with oil at $100-plus per barrel. The higher price justifies more costly drilling and secondary recovery engineering.

• Alyeska Pipeline once pumped 2.1 million barrels of oil per day, It's now at 700,000 and declining 7 percent annually. Roughly 400,000 of these barrels come from many new, smaller fields discovered after Prudhoe Bay started production.

• The Alaska National Petroleum Reserve, a very large area west of Prudhoe Bay, may also have large new oil reserves. However, most of the area has not yet been leased by the Federal government's very slow plan, nor explored, nor litigated.

The amounts of natural gas are just as astounding as the quantities of oil. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated years ago that there were 150 trillion cubic feet of conventional gas, 590 trillion cubic feet of gas hydrates (an as-yet-unexploited form of methane trapped in water molecules underground). The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that to be "twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth." Also, there is an uncalculated amount of drillable coal-bed methane in an estimated 13.7 billion tons of indicated coal resources.

The state government of Alaska is now proposing a new pipeline to transport already discovered gas through Canada to connect with pipelines reaching the American Midwest and the east. It will cost around $30 billion, be underground, and transport quantities equal to some 6 percent to 8 percent of all current U.S. consumption.

Meanwhile, Washington has become paralyzed by dysfunctional government. France and China can build nuclear electric plants in just years; in the U.S. it takes a decade. Brazil will bring offshore oil online in 24 months, while for U.S. companies it takes 10 years. New refineries are virtually illegal to build. New electricity-generating plants using coal are now unable to obtain financing because of environment constraints.

This is destroying the value of the dollar and wrecking our balance of trade, making oil prohibitively expensive, and sending hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign lands—many of whom are no friends of America. No wonder 80 percent of Americans think their nation is on the wrong track. Washington needs to declare a national emergency program to produce energy. The reasons we don't are political, not technical. Indeed, new natural gas discoveries have knocked U.S. prices down by about 30 percent.

Jon Basil Utley is associate publisher of The American Conservative and a former foreign correspondent for Knight Ridder newspapers. He has decades of experience in the oil business, including as the owner and operator of a small oil drilling partnership.

Chi-Comms Beating and Detaining Press and Others

2008-08-14T14:01:00.003-05:00

John Ray of Brittain's ITV news was detained
Another man Ji Sizun came to Beijing from the southern province of Fujian and wanted to demonstrate in one of three protest zones Chinese officials have designated for the games, Human Rights Watch said in a statement. Ji, 58, applied at the Deshengmenwai police station on Aug. 8, the day the Olympics began, and disappeared three days later, when he went back to check on his application, it said. Witnesses saw Ji enter the police station on August 11 only to be escorted out of the building later and put into a car by several men "who appeared to be plainclothes policemen," the group said. Ji's cell phone was turned off on Wednesday. A man who answered the telephone at the Deshengmenwai police station said no one had been arrested or taken away.
Now China is trying to stomp out the media reports of the fake face/voice
A Chinese Christian on his way to a worship service attended by Pres. Bush while in China is now missing after being taken away by security forces
Chinese detain and beat 2 Japanese reporters.

Olympic Deceptions

2008-08-14T13:56:00.004-05:00

If the facts do not fit, simply change the facts. Read this story:

Just nine months before the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese government's news agency, Xinhua, reported that gymnast He Kexin was 13, which would have made her ineligible to be on the team that won a gold medal this week.
In its report Nov. 3, Xinhua identified He as one of "10 big new stars" who made a splash at China's Cities Games. It gave her age as 13 and reported that she beat Yang Yilin on the uneven bars at those games. In the final, "this little girl" pulled off a difficult release move on the bars known as the Li Na, named for another Chinese gymnast, Xinhua said in the report, which appeared on one of its Web sites, www.hb.xinhuanet.com

Female Olympic gymnasts by Olympic rules, are not allowed compete under the age of 16. Other Olympic deceptions include:

Fake fireworks
Then the Milli Vanilli-esq lip synk
Then the faked gymnasts' ages (Photos)
Now we get fake spectators at events:

Obama Refuses to Give Credit to Troops for Surge's Success

2008-08-14T11:01:00.005-05:00

Fast forward to minute 7:20 and watch until the end.

Brokaw: "And the 'Anbar Awakining,' most people believe, was successful in large part because the American troops did come in and make it possible to have the kind of political reconciliation. Do you disagree with that?"

Obama: "As I said before, to try to single out one factor in a very messy situation is just not accurate."

Question to ponder: Why does Obama continue this farce of saying "As I said before..."

Republicans: "The Party of the Stupid"

2008-08-08T10:45:00.012-05:00

Paul Krugman writing for the left leaning Old Gray Lady today writes:

"Republicans, once hailed as the 'party of ideas,' have become the party of stupid."

Before I respond to his editorial, let me just note that Mr. Krugman reminds me of just about every one of my former college professors. Why is it that the Left breeds these left-over sixties radical wimps...who all wear beards as a sign of their intellectualism? Is it a requirement that you have to wear a beard once your thesis is approved? American special forces wear beards when hunting down Al Queada, but I don't think these limp wristed leftests all wear beards because they are manly, I think it's because they, if nothing else, want to look manly.

Now to address Krugman's editorial. It's hard to reason with man who asserts absolutely no facts in his writing and then relies upon "experts from the energy department," but I'll try. Krugman attacks Republicans as the party of "instant-gratification," but that's hardly a befitting description for a party that, at least traditionally, was opposed to governmental bailouts for every spoiled, lazy or self indulgent modern American. It's certainly not the Republican platform to espouse abortion to avoid the consequences of one's action, to bail out people with bad credit histories, many of whom lied about their income and nature of employment, got mortgage loans they weren't qualified for to buy houses they couldn't afford.

Krugman again puts forth the Leftists favorite naked assertion that "it would take years before offshore drilling would yield any oil at all, and that even then the effect on prices at the pump would be 'insignificant.'" The Spectator does a good job analyzing that one:

On Friday, July 14, the price of a barrel of oil hit $147. On Monday, July 17, President Bush withdrew the Executive Order banning offshore drilling. That doesn't even start any new drilling because there is still a Congressional ban in place. Nevertheless, by Friday, July 21, after 4 straight days of decline, the price of oil had plummeted to $128, a decline of 13% on a symbolic action alone. The Center for American "Progress" was only off by 21 years, 51 weeks.

There are oil wells off the Pacific coast that were capped years ago when the offshore drilling ban was first adopted. They could be brought back into production in less than a year. Expert oil engineers recently interviewed have said other sites could be producing in 18 months. The standard estimate for production from new drilling in Alaska is 10 years. But if the government gets the lawsuits and regulatory delays out of the way, here's betting the new wells would be producing in less than 5 years.

The truth of the matter can be summed up as Representative Michele Bachmann assures us: Democrats “want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, [and] take light rail to their government jobs.”

Obama: America is Not the Model of the World

2008-08-07T11:10:00.004-05:00

Aside from the Bible, the American system, including the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, is the greatest means of freeing man from the oppressed and impoverished station in which they have existed for endless centuries. When you look around the world, the default human condition is POVERTY and TYRANNY. America is the exception to that rule. No system has ever allowed its people to produced such wealth. No system has ever reserved such expansive judicial guarantees to its people. No system has ever allowed so many people to escape poverty and oppression. If one nation follows Americas founding political and economic principles, they will invariably experience greater liberty, greater freedom, greater property rights and greater wealth.

So, how is America not the model for the world?

Type rest of the post here

Al Qaeda Weapons Chief Killed in U.S. Missile Attack

2008-08-03T19:38:00.001-05:00

The U.S. military has become extremely proficient at finding their enemies and eliminating them. I'm proud to be an American.

By ALAN CULLISON
August 3, 2008 3:05 p.m.

KABUL -- In a blow to al Qaeda in Pakistan, the terror group confirmed Sunday that one of its top weapons researchers, Abu Khabab al-Masri, was killed, apparently in a U.S. missile strike last week.

For more than a decade, Mr. Masri moved in the top echelons of al Qaeda as a bomb-maker and innovator of the group's mostly feckless attempts to build viable chemical and biological weapons. While his expertise is replaceable, Mr. Masri's death further decimates the old guard of al Qaeda who were trusted by leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahri.

Al Qaeda confirmed Mr. Masri's death in a posting on Islamist Web sites Sunday, calling him an "expert" who had left behind a generation of students. He was rumored to have been killed in a missile strike on a village in Pakistan's northern tribal areas last week.

The timing of Mr. Masri's death in the attack coincided with a visit to the U.S. by Pakistan's new prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, who is under pressure to do more to combat Islamists in Pakistan's border areas.

Mr. Masri, who carried a $5 million bounty on his head, was part of a well-educated Egyptian cadre in al Qaeda that has developed and directed some of the group's most spectacular terror attacks. Experts say he likely helped train the suicide bombers who attacked the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in 2000, and assisted in the failed mission of Richard Reid, a British citizen, who tried to blow up a trans-Atlantic airline flight with a bomb concealed in his shoe in 2001.

A chemist by training, Mr. Masri started in al Qaeda as a bomb-maker, but branched out into biological and chemical weapons development after the group settled in Afghanistan in the 1990s. There he was entrusted with part of al Qaeda's so-called "yogurt project" to develop weapons of mass destruction and operated a training camp in the village of Derunta. He tried unsuccessfully to develop an anthrax weapon, and with Dr. Zawahri tried to develop poisons that could kill more quickly by mixing them with chemicals that caused them to be absorbed into the skin quickly.

It's not clear how much of the research bore results, though U.S. authorities said Mr. Masri did gas some dogs at the Derunta training camp. U.S. authorities said he provided hundreds of Mujahidin with hands-on training in the use of poisons and explosives and distributed training manuals showing how to make chemical and biological weapons.

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism specialist and professor at Georgetown University, noted that one of Mr. Masri's students was Kamal Bourgass, who was convicted in 2005 of trying to spread ricin and other poisons on streets in the U.K. "He had his hands in a lot of different things," Mr. Hoffman said. "He was involved with projects that were approved at the highest levels."

In April, U.S. officials confirmed that another senior al Qaeda planner, Abu Obaidah al-Masri, alleged mastermind behind the 2005 London transportation bombings, died in Afghanistan last year of hepatitis.

"The old guard is being slowly diminished," Mr. Hoffman said. "You can replace some of them but what you can't replace is the trust and access to the leadership, which is important."

American and Israeli Politicians Suffering From Similar Character Flaws

2008-08-03T13:16:00.006-05:00

The difference between the statements politicians make when they are running for office or when they are shrouded in the power of office is the breach through which the public loses its confidence in its leaders.

Immediately after Eliot Spitzer, governor of New York, resigned after being linked to a prostitution ring, his successor, David Paterson, admitted he had cheated on his wife and tried drugs. Spitzer resigned because he broke the American code, which posits that a leader's views on morality cannot contradict his actual behavior. Paterson was quick to reveal his actions to the public in order to avoid a similar conundrum.

Israeli politicians now preparing to run for the premiership, whether in the Kadima primary or in elections for the Knesset, would do well to learn from Paterson. However, Israel is not the United States and the code of behavior in the two countries is not identical. This said, Ehud Olmert's announcement that he plans to step down in the near future as the country's leader is proof of a new standard vis-a-vis the public's expectations of those who aspire to lead it: People will not tolerate public figures who lead corrupt lives.

Contrary to Olmert's announcement - that his decision to resign will allow the police, prosecution and media to be more permissive in dealing with politicians under investigation - the norm apparent in his defeat is the opposite: The state's future leaders are required to be clean, otherwise they may find themselves in the same spot Olmert is in today.

Olmert's surrender to public pressure may signal a positive change in the conduct of Israel's heads of state. Just as Yitzhak Mordechai's conviction left its mark on the relations between senior officers and subordinate female soldiers; as Moshe Katsav's removal from office created a welcome precedent to protect women against sexual harassment in the civil service; as the airing of complaints against Professor Eyal Ben-Ari, whether justified or not, will usher in fresh air to the dark corners of academia's corridors - so does Olmert's resignation serve as a vaccination against moral corruption in politics. Olmert was forced to end his tenure not because he was found guilty in a legal process, but because his conduct was perceived to be unacceptable in the eyes of the public.

Those in Kadima competing for Olmert's post, as well as the heads of Likud and Labor, must now evaluate their actions well and decide whether they have anything to announce to the public - before they ask, once more, for its confidence. This state will be undermined if every other day it needs to come to terms with its leadership's dubious behavior, which gives way to investigations and legal wranglings. If, after one of the four - Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu, Shaul Mofaz or Tzipi Livni - is elected prime minister, credible information about their past conduct is brought before the state comptroller, police commissioner or attorney general, the public will lose its trust in its leadership entirely, and the ability of Israel's democracy to continue functioning will be severely harmed.

For this terrible scenario not to come true, the four need to be brave and honest with the public: Have they left behind any mines in their public lives - in terms of unacceptable behavior - that may explode precisely when they are at the top? They must know that they have competitors, but also colleagues, who will not hesitate to latch on to any stains from their past to challenge them and bring about their downfall. Since the public is exhibiting less willingness to accept corrupt behavior, as Olmert's case proves, it is advisable that all four candidates for the premiership consider carefully the degree to which they are immune to embarrassing probes.

Otherwise, they will find themselves in the same situation Olmert was in last week, on Wednesday evening at 8 P.M.: standing before the entire country, not looking at them directly, admitting the mistakes he has made in the past that are now forcing him to resign. This is the same Olmert who two months earlier declared he was looking the public straight in the eyes and telling them he did not put a single shekel in his own pocket. The difference between the statements politicians make when they are running for prime minister or when they are shrouded in the power of office, and the truth that is revealed in police investigations and journalistic probes, is the breach through which the public loses its confidence in its leaders.

Exxon Posts Record $32.36 Billion Tax Payment

2008-08-02T21:54:00.005-05:00

Key to reading CNN: Always read the paragraphs buried deep in the article to find out what's really going on.

In addition to making hefty profits, Exxon also had a hefty tax bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called "other taxes."

Mark Perry points out:

In other words, Exxon Mobil paid $32.361 billion in taxes in the second quarter, which works out to $4,114 in taxes per second. Another way to look at it - Exxon paid almost $3 in taxes ($32.361 billion) for every $1 in profits ($11.68 billion), see chart above.

Barack Obama "shifts" on Oil Drilling

2008-08-02T21:35:00.003-05:00

Just add this to the list . I'm beginning to think that Barry could have benefited from a few more days in the Senate

Jellyfish Invasion Bothering Beachgoers

2008-08-02T20:33:00.003-05:00

Without even reading the article I could have guessed why "experts" believe there has been an increase in jellyfish this year.

Marine biologists blame the overabundance of jellyfish on several factors, including global warming, the over-fishing of their predators, such as tuna, and pollution -- such as runoff from lawn fertilizer.

Here are a few other byproducts of global warming. Note all of the opposites listed.

"Big Pharma" Offers Free Treatment; Oregon Offers Assisted Suicide

2008-08-02T08:00:00.005-05:00

Is this what we have to look forward to with State-run healthcare? I'm pretty sure socialized medicine would have killed Ted Kennedy.

Last month Barbara Wagner found out that her lung cancer, which had been in remission for about two years, had come back. After her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that could slow the cancer growth and extend her life, Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn’t cover the treatment, but that it would cover palliative, or comfort, care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide.

Then, on Monday morning, a representative of the pharmaceutical company called Wagner and told her it would provide the medicine for free. Wagner said she didn’t know whether to laugh or cry, so she did both.

“I am just so thrilled,” she said. “I am so relieved and so happy.”

Wagner had to rely on the charity of a drug company because the Oregon Health Plan wouldn’t cover her treatment.

“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the unsigned letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.

Officials of LIPA and the state Health Services Commission, which sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, say they’ve not changed how they cover treatment of recurrent cancer, only clarified the rules.

But local oncologists say they’ve seen a change in policy, and that their Oregon Health Plan patients with advanced cancer no longer get coverage for chemotherapy if it is considered comfort care.

“It doesn’t adhere to the standards of care set out in the oncology community,” said Dr. John Caton, an oncologist at Willamette Valley Cancer Center.

Coverage limitations

Numerous oncology studies have found that chemotherapy, used in a palliative setting, decreases pain, decreases time spent in the hospital and increases quality of life, Caton said.

When the Oregon Health Plan was established in 1994, it was expressly intended to ration health care. A prioritization list was drawn up, with diagnoses and ailments deemed most important — pregnancy, childbirth, preventive care for children — placed at the top of the list. At the bottom are procedures such as cosmetic surgery, which would not be covered.

“We can’t cover everything for everyone,” said Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which administers the Oregon Health Plan.

“Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people.”

Most cancer treatments are high priority on the list, Shaffer said. “But there’s some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile, or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care.”

Dr. David Fryefield, medical director of the Willamette Valley Cancer Center in Eugene, said Oregon Health Plan policies haven’t kept up with advances in oncology.

“The prioritization list and the definitions and tests that are applied are 15 years old and not appropriate in today’s practice of oncology,” Fryefield said. “There are so many more targeted therapies that specifically target the cancer and have very few side effects.”

Darren Coffman directs the state Health Services Commission, an 11-member panel of doctors, social service workers, public health nurses and consumer representatives that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan. One long-standing rule of thumb developed by commission is known as the 5-year, 5 percent rule: Any treatment that doesn’t provide at least a 5 percent chance of survival after 5 years won’t be approved.

Last fall, he said, the commission added an example to its guidelines, stating that coverage of palliative care for patients with advanced cancer would not include chemotherapy or surgical intervention intended primarily to prolong life or alter disease progression.

“We wouldn’t consider that to be a change in policy,” he said. “They wanted to point out examples of things that wouldn’t be covered to be more explicit.”

Palliative care is intended to provide comfort and relieve symptoms such as pain and shortness of breath for patients with a fatal prognosis.

Dr. Som Saha, a Portland internist and chairman of the Health Services Commission, said the instances where chemotherapy is the only way to relieve someone’s symptoms are relatively rare.

“Chemotherapy is relatively costly, and relatively toxic,” he said. “And sometimes it’s the case where people will give chemotherapy with the intent of prolonging life when the extent of prolonged life is not substantial.”

Cancer drugs are notoriously expensive, often costing $3,000 to $6,000 a month, oncologists say. Tarceva, the drug that Wagner’s oncologist prescribed, costs $4,000 for a month’s supply.

Fryefield said chemotherapy today often falls in a gray area between comfort care and a cure. It can both extend life and maintain a patient’s quality of life, he said.

Many lack basic care

Consider the case of Randy Stroup, a 53-year-old Dexter resident who recently found out the Oregon Health Plan wouldn’t cover mitoxantrone, chemotherapy for prostate cancer.

Stroup’s oncologist, Dr. Andy Monticelli, said mitoxantrone, the first chemotherapy approved for prostate cancer, has been around about 10 years, and the benefit of using it for recurrent prostate cancer has been to shown to be “not huge, but measurable.”

“It would probably be of minimal benefit for a relatively short duration of probably several months,” he said.

But while the drug may not extend a patient’s life by very long, it does help make those last months more bearable by decreasing pain, he said.

Stroup said he wants what ever time he can get.

“My perspective is, if it works it works,” he said. “What is six months of life worth? To me it’s worth a lot.

“This is my life they’re playing with,” he said.

Commission members say they feel the weight of people who are denied coverage under the health plan.

“It is impossible not to think of those individuals and the suffering they’re going through,” Saha said. “But we also need to think about the hundreds of thousands of Oregonians who don’t have access to even basic health care. We have to keep an eye on those people as well.”

Wagner said she was devastated when she found out that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn’t cover Tarceva, the drug that her oncologist ordered when her lung cancer came back.

“I think it’s messed up,” Wagner said, bursting into tears.

She was particularly upset because the letter of denial said that doctor-assisted suicide would be covered.

“To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel,” she said. “I get angry. Who do they think they are?”

The language in the letter referring to Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act comes out of the Health Service Commission’s statement of intent under examples of comfort and palliative care, said Dr. John Sattenspiel, senior medical director for LIPA.

“I understand the way it was interpreted,” he said. “I’m not sure how we can lift that. The reality is, at some level (doctor-assisted suicide) could be considered as a palliative or comfort care measure.

“We had no intent to upset her but we do need to point out the options available to her under the Oregon Health Plan.”

Wagner, 64, lives in a low-income apartment in Springfield with her Dachshund, Chachi. She’s a divorced mother, grandmother and great-grandmother, retired from driving a school bus for the Springfield School District and working as a waitress at a Coburg truck stop.

She was a life-long smoker, quitting when she was diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer about two years ago. Her oncologist, Dr. Jae Lee treated the cancer with chemotherapy and radiation and it went into remission, she said.

In early May, a CT scan revealed her cancer was back and Lee prescribed Tarceva, the brand name for erlotinib, a cancer drug in pill form taken once a day. Studies show the drug increased the median survival rate for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer from 4.7 months to 6.7 months. One-year survival for patients who took Tarceva was 31.2 percent, compared to 21.5 percent for patients who took a placebo.

Every patient, and every cancer, is different, and Lee said Wagner already has lived much longer than a typical lung cancer patient. Her cancer doesn’t grow rapidly, and he thinks Tarceva would help her.

Lee appealed to Genentech, the company that markets Tarceva in the United States, to cover Wagner’s medication. On Monday, Wagner got the call from Genentech. She was told they would cover the drug for a year, at which time she could re-apply. She expects to receive a visit today from FedEx.

“It’s fantastic,” she said. “I can’t wait to start the medication.”

Obama Dispenses Additional Oil Wisdom

2008-08-01T11:38:00.005-05:00

Oil conservation advice: Inflate your tires, get a tuneup. Not kidding.

The Birth of Another Governator?

2008-07-31T15:50:00.016-05:00

Is it fair to ask for just a little bit of ideological consistency from elected Republicans? This month's Florida Trend Magazine depicts Florida Governor Charlie Crist standing outside the Governor's Mansion. In quotes below the piece's title is the following:

"Nearly two years in office, Gov. Charlie Crist has all but abandoned traditional ideology in favor of governing from the gut."

Anyone with a wallet in the State of Florida needs to watch out when politicians start 'governing from the gut.' While Crist deserves praise in several key issues during his tenure; his radical departure from conservatism on property insurance and several other key issues will surely come back to bite the State of Florida in a big way.

To address the [property insurance] problem, Crist imposed de facto price controls that have turned the Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, essentially a state agency, into Florida’s largest provider of homeowner’s insurance... “This plan violates every principle of actuarial soundness,” says a prominent Florida Republican. The result is that taxpayers are now on the hook if a violent tempest slashes its way across the state in the next few years.

This big gamble doesn't quite fit the mold of "limited government" or fiscal responsibility.

Maybe Charlie has taken a page out of the play book of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican California Governor who has presided over $41 billion in new spending since a recall election ousted former governor Gray Davis in 2003. Schwarzenegger openly encourages "Republican candidates, after getting nominated, [to] 'wander a little bit more to the left.' Schwarzenegger thinks "Flip-flopping is getting a bad rap, because I think it is great."

Californians who elected Schwarzenegger with his conservative agenda are now officially out in the cold. Mike Spence, president of the California Republican Assembly, said Mr. Schwarzenegger had all but abandoned the party that helped elect him. "Who cares if he gets re-elected if he's not going to advocate one iota of a fiscally conservative Republican belief?" Mr. Spence asked. "The good news is you don't know what he stands for. So he may stand with us next year."

[Recently] California Governor apologized...citing "political inexperience" as his excuse for having espoused semiconservative ideals and principles during his first campaign and in the early years of his Governorship. The man who rode into the Governor's mansion four years ago on a wave of dissatisfaction with former Governor Gray Davis and the budget crisis he wrought was, by all accounts, sober in his reflection on the last few years in office, telling Times writers and editors "that he now regrets a number of the policies he championed in his early days in office and acknowledges his own rhetoric was at times overheated and naive."

Hmm...Maybe abandoning a conservative ideology wouldn't have saddled your state with another $15 billion shortfall. Let this be another lesson learned for the Republican party officials who get elected and then try to beat the Democrats at their own game.

Update: I think Governors Crist and Schwarzenegger ought to go ask George W. Bush what it feels like to be an ideologically muddled, big spending conservative. I don't think it's too good for the legacy building campaign.

Update: Keep on eye on Charlie Crist. Arnold of the South? Maybe in a few years, they'll be calling Arnold the Charlie of the West.

Cream Puffs for Mugshots

2008-07-28T16:12:00.015-05:00

Obama continues to enjoy cream puff treatment whenever his mugshot ends up on Newsweek (which of late seems to be just about every other week). Note figure A. below, the latest in the overwhelming tide of flattering Obama photo ops. Rodin should consider a copyright infringement suit against Newsweek for their attempt to make Obama look like a deep, reflective thinker.

This Newsweek cover photo follows on the heels of the Newsweek cover depicted in figure B-1 was spiked for the "photoshopped" figure B-2. It turns out that Jon Meacham's wife gently bestowed the angelic Halo upon Baracks countenance after her disapproval of the original cover shot. Disney may want to employ her creative genius since that Pixar deal was very expensive. Checkout this collage. Notice, in the top right, how Time Magazine's cover likewise casts a mystic aura around the "Messiah's" mind. Not to be outdone, Rollingstone chose to simply casts its brilliant penumbra around Obama's entire body.

This reminds me of when Rolling Stones air-brushed Al Gore's crotch in their attempt to make an alpha male out of the Enviro-Prophet. Nevertheless, the worshipful media contiues for Obama.

Who knows, maybe some day The Messiah's glory may one day even outshine the Prophet.