At the risk of being called a racist, my criticism of Barack Obama continues. I don't seek ways to criticize, I simply read stories and respond:

Today, he announced an economic plan that would increase taxes on those families making over $250,000 a year, and cut taxes for those making less than 150K. This has me a little confused because back in June he announced this exact plan but stated it was his way of fixing Social Security, basically increasing the payroll tax for those who make over 250K. So, if you make over 250K a year it appears that Obama will raise BOTH your income tax and your FICA taxes. Ouch!

He calls it the "trickle up" effect, and seems to believe that cutting taxes for the middle class will somehow stimulate the economy. Wow.

This in light of the fact that the top 1% of US income earners pay 40% of the nation's income tax revenue, and the top 25% of income earners pay 86% of the revenue, while the bottom 50% of income earners pay only 3% of America's income taxes. For some reason Obama sees this as unfair (and, in a way, he's right) and wants to change things so the "rich" pay MORE!!!

As a side note, since I am in the medical field, I think it's worth saying that if a hypothetical physician sees too many patients he/she runs the risk of falling into Obama's "wealthy" classification. Basically, he will give that doctor incentive to decrease the work load since it will be way too costly otherwise. Sure, that doctor wants to serve his patient population, but this can't happen if it's financially detrimental. This is just one example of why these kinds of taxes don't work. For some, it could lead to cutting patient enrollment. For others, maybe it's cutting jobs, or downsizing operations, or postponing any plans for expansion. There IS a point where the financial gain is overshadowed by the "penalty" of taxation.

In addition to these taxes, he has also previously stated that he will DOUBLE the capitol gains tax and place a windfall profits tax on large corporat profits, namely the oil companies. Anybody who knows even a little economics should now be terrified of a Barack Obama administration.

Here is what will likely happen if Obama does the things that he is proposing:

First, small businesses will fail. These are the folks who fall in the 250K category. They fit Obama's description of wealthy, but are hardly super-rich. Small business is a major driving factor in our economy, and a major employer as well. So you can imagine what will happen when they are squeezed from both ends of Obama's tax plan. Couple that with the recent minimum wage hike and you have the perfect storm for America's small business. At best, they cut jobs and unemployment goes up. At worst, the business folds, the jobs are lost and the local economy takes a hit.

Then, the windfall profits tax kicks in. What do you think will happen to the price of oil? There will be no limit. Once that skyrockets, again the national and global economy feels the crunch, as it is today. Yet that crunch will be magnified by Obama's stubborn unwillingness to explore US drilling options. Basically, there is nothing Obama plans to do in the short term to bring oil prices down, yet he promises a tax on corporate profits that will without a doubt send oil prices even higher than they are now. One wonders how much more $120+ a barrel oil this economy can take.

Finally, Obama's capitol gains tax. Even Hillary - who rarely meets a tax hike she doesn't like - stated that increasing the capitol gains, even by a small amount, would be a bad idea for our economy. But Obama doesn't want to increase it by a small amount, he wants to DOUBLE it. This means that investment will slow down, and the stock market will plunge. Naturally, the overall economy will take a hit. NEVER has an increase in this tax led to economic expansion...never.

Obama has announced a few plans for the economy, and none of them will amount to actual growth. NEVER has a tax increase led to economic expansion. This is because of a simple premise, and that is that the gov't isn't effective at efficient spending. The private sector is. Under Obama, I fear we will see higher unemployment, more small business failures, decreasing investments, higher inflation, astronomical oil prices, higher food prices, and one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression.

The economy is sputtering from oil strangulation and the housing market, there isn't much more it can take before bad things start happening. But small business and investment remain strong. What happens when Obama hits them with his economic policy?

I Am Legend

Okay, I am now officially creeped out by this Obama-mania that seems to have a kung-fu grip on so many people across the country and now, apparently, across the globe. I don't get it. This guy has zero executive experience and has only been in politics a few years, yet he can stand and deliver a speech full of corny cliches and idealistic imagery - while virtually absent of ideas - and suddenly he is the savior of the world and has everyone blindly chanting "yes we can". Huh? Have the Europeans really become that easy to impress? Well, I guess this isn't the first time.

I read the transcript from Obama's speech. I didn't watch the speech, mainly out of fear of coming under the Obamatron spell, I swear this guy has some sort of Gorgonian quality. Instead of turning to stone, those who look too long become blathering fools incapable of independent or analytical thought, with big sparkly smiles, brown noses and a tendency to laugh at anything the Senator says that may be remotely considered a joke regardless of humor level. His media posse of Stepford Wives have turned from "yes" men to "yes we can" men. The toughest question this guy has faced was whether he preferred to work out with machines or free weights. Even Frank Luntz, usually objective and cynical, seemed to have fallen into an Obamian trance last night on Hannity & Colmes. Et tu, Franky? We're dropping like flies. I'm beginning to feel like Robert Neville trying to find a cure for this plague while fearing every night that I will be eaten by my fellow humans-turned-night-seekers who have fallen victim to the disease. I am not legend, I am just a guy who would like the Senator to answer a few tough questions regarding what he plans to do should he become President.

But seriously, I read the transcript from the speech and I am not impressed. This wasn't Reagan, or even Kennedy. It was a pretentious display of bold self-indulgence and glorification that has me wondering what Obama is doing. Is he running for US President, or Emperor of the Galaxy? Should we expect a campaign tour of Mars soon? He no doubt has the money for it. Arrogant and elitist? No, this guy has transcended those terms. My great grandmother would say that he has "gotten too big for his britches". Maybe that's a better description. I wonder if Grandma would ever chant "yes we can".

Since I have been able to resist the tractor-beam of Obamacharm, I have my own critique of Obamapalooza 2008, and my own questions that I can only hope will one day be asked of his Highness. First, how does being popular with Europeans translate in America? The way I see it, there is a vast culture gap between mainstream Americans and mainstream Europeans. Our values differ a great deal. In short, we just don't have much in common anymore. Europe has become a wasteland of secularism, socialism and moral relativism. So when 200,000 Germans gleefully chant your name in support, how will that be received in America? When Reagan went to Germany, he was protested. In fact, the Europeans didn't like him all that much. But the LOVE Obama. In my mind, that's a negative and it only reinforces my opinion of his Highness. Being loved by the Europeans isn't something to brag about, and it isn't easy. You basically have to prove that you're similar to them in so many ways. Obama's socialist agenda complete with universal health care, carbon offsets, internationalist foreign policy and appeasement in the war on terror plays well with the Europeans. In their eyes, he's not American at all. I didn't see any protests. Just how important is it to Obama that he is liked by the world? To me, it seems very important...not a quality that I look for in a President. People in Californistan may approve, but I wonder how this will play on Main Street, USA. Just smile and say "yes we can".

Is it reasonable to expect the American tax payer to foot the bill for a portion of Obamapalooza? The first few days was labeled a Senate "fact finding" mission. This way, Obama was able to travel for free with a clear conscience. His campaign insists the trip had nothing to do with his presidential campaign. I'm not convinced and surely I'm not the only one. The Obama campaign should have funded the entire trip. Don't worry Mr Taxpayer, just nod and say "yes we can".

Did al-Maliki truly endorse your 16 month pullout plan? That's not what I heard. Al-Maliki said he supports the eventual withdrawal of all US troops and feels a plan should be in place for such a withdrawal when the proper time comes. Congrats to the Prime Minister, who is now part of a unanimous opinion, thank you for stating the obvious. We all want US troops to leave Iraq eventually. Now, if you speak Obamese then that apparently translates into an all-out endorsement of Obama's pullout plan. To which, Al-Maliki responded: "That's not what I said". Not that it matters, let's not quibble with details. The Stepford Wives lapped it up and formatted Maliki's words into a complete endorsement and no one has called them on it. In fact, if you believe Obama's posse then you probably think that al-Maliki bowed to Obama and asked his Highness to bestow his blessing upon Iraq and its people while bobbing his head uncontrollably and chanting "yes we can". But that's just rumor.

Why did you bother meeting with General Petraeus? This had nothing to do with fact-finding. Obama declared before the trip that he would pull US troops out of Iraq in 16 months. He made his Imperial decree before meeting with the General, before stepping foot in Iraq, basically before he knew what he was talking about. That was a mistake. At least he could have been more patronizing and announce his plan after meeting with Petraeus, but the Obamatrons didn't seem to mind. Again, independent thought isn't a trait of theirs. The General has long argued against unconditional timetables but, then again, he has yet to fall under the Obamacharm spell. Perhaps that's why Obama met with him. Alas, it was to no avail. The General still opposes unconditional timetables and thus Obama had to change his rhetoric. Before, he was pulling us out because the surge had failed. Now, he's pulling us out because the surge has worked so well that the Iraqis no longer need us. In Obama's eyes you can call it what you want, so long as he gets his 16 month unconditional retreat and keeps his far-Left river of money flowing. And in the process, he got some really cool photo-ops with the troops. Never mind, just nod your head and say "yes we can".

Why didn't you bother meeting with the injured troops in Germany? The Pentagon says they reminded Obama that any such meeting must be in private, thereby keeping the campaign off the base. Basically, Obama was told that he could have a few senate staffers with him and that's it. No press, no parade, no hoopla. To that the Senator said, "No thanks". Sure, he tried to paint it as the Pentagon's idea, but these rules have been in place for a long time and are applied equally to both parties. It seems, at least on the surface, that Obama isn't interested in meeting with our armed forces unless there is a camera close by to show the world how much he cares. At least that's how it seems. To those troops in Germany, just nod and say "yes we can".

And finally, Senator, please tell me what the difference is between the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. You say we must win in Afghanistan but you're basically indifferent on Iraq. Why the two positions? In both places, we're fighting extremists who want to rule a country with the iron fist of tyranny, who live for the destruction of the West and anyone who disagrees with their way of thinking all while actively seeking the most horrifying weapons known to man. Did I miss something? Is there something going on in Afghanistan that isn't happening in Iraq? What is it that makes one crucial and the other an afterthought? I guess the people in Iraq should just nod and say "yes we can".

Something tells me I'll be waiting a long time before I get an answer from the Dems Manchurian Candidate other than the obligatory "yes we can". But I'll wait. Meanwhile, I'm gonna try to isolate the antibodies in General Petraeus bloodstream since he seems to be immune to the global Obamitis pandemic that has engulfed our world. Perhaps I am legend after all.

Today, the New York Times refused to publish an op-ed piece by John McCain. McCain's piece was written as a response to Barak Obama's column that was published by the Times 2 weeks ago. Unless you watch or read Fox News, you probably haven't seen anything about this story...no surprise there.

The Times released a statement saying they will not publish McCain's column unless he meets certain pre-set criteria as deemed appropriate by their editors. Whether or not Obama was given these criteria is unknown.

The column Obama wrote is basically the speech he is giving on his recent Obama-palooza tour across the middle east. So, the Times pretty much printed an Obama campaign speech. The McCain column is available online and I have included it here on this site. The reader can form their own opinion about the Times, most of us already have.

By Sen. John McCain

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City — actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war — only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Exposing Al Gore as a fraud has almost become too easy, but I think I'll jump in anyway. One year ago the Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported that Mr Gore was an energy glutton, basically consuming 20 times the national average at his Tennessee home. Gore was, of course, appalled and promised to change this. Well, that same group has done a follow up after giving the global warming guru an entire year to clean up his act, and guess what they found?

Gore's energy use in his home has actually INCREASED by 10%.

Mr Gore has no doubt taken the term "hypocrisy" to new levels. Meanwhile, he continues to tour the world raising alarms about global warming and calling on others to conserve energy and change their lifestyles. One wonders why anyone still takes this guy seriously.

Not enough? Well, consider his recent calls for more laws that would provide subsidies and mandates for the alternate energy industry. He names a few companies of this industry: Smartcar, Altra biofuels, and Ausra solar technology to name a few. Then, no kidding, he goes on to say: "Here are just a few of the investments that I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these."

As a side note, it's important to mention at this time that Gore has accumulated a fortune of over $100 million since leaving public office in 2001.

Is it just me or did Gore let the proverbial cat out of the backyard compost pile? He actually admitted that he has personally invested money in companies that stand to profit a great deal if the world buys his chicken little routine, all while he has INCREASED his own personal energy use at home. I'm no genius, but I can spot snake oil when it's being pushed on me. Gore doesn't appear to be nearly as concerned about the environment as he is about his own bank balance, or so it seems to the commoner.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for smart energy. We should maximize renewable energy, conserve as much as practically possible and do whatever it takes to become energy independent. But I for one am a bit tired of Gore's antics. The guy is a phony and it is slowly becoming evident that this enviro-crusade of his basically boils down to his own personal get-richer scheme. The man has no credibility in my eyes and I will consider anything that comes out of his mouth a lie until proven otherwise.

I think the wise man would do the same.

The "100 years" war

If you follow the news, especially the New York Times or CNN, then you certainly have seen John McCain's comment about America's future in Iraq. It happened at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire in January. A voter said to McCain that Pres. Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years. McCain's response was: "make it a hundred". This is what all the media outlets have pounced upon, and what Obama (who claims to practice a "new" kind of politics) has adopted as a quasi-campaing slogan. Of course, there is little mention of what McCain said immediately afterward: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

McCain is right. There is nothing about his statement that is inappropriate or inaccurate. America helps protect its allies with a military presence. We're also based in the UK, Germany, Turkey, Guam, and many former Soviet republics. It's a fact and there is no reason to assume that we wouldn't have a permanent military presence in Iraq once the fledgling democracy is on its feet, especially given Iraq's strategic importance. The MSM has misrepresented McCain's comment, as has Obama (who claims to practice a "new" kind of politics), as some kind of endorsement of 100 years of war in Iraq without end. This is dishonest to say the least, and Obama should know better since he has been the victim of similar misrepresentations, ie the "typical white person" comment. The non-partisan watchdog group factcheck.org has said that "Obama's claim that McCain wants 100 years in Iraq is a serious distortion to the point of rank falsehood". Obama is getting muddy and it's not becoming of him, especially since he claims to practice a "new" kind of politics.

McCain isn't backing down and he has challenged Obama on the deliberate misrepresentation. Obama's response was that we have no business in a country that has nothing to do with the war on terror. This caught my attention, and warrants a response from WEP.

It's true that I've grown tired of trying to explain to liberals why war in Iraq was necessary...tragic but necessary. Either you get it or you don't, the debate is basically fruitless. They always come back with this ridiculous assertion that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, and they think that our presence there detracts from the "actual" war on terror and ties up badly needed resources. I wonder who they think we're fighting in Iraq? I always thought we were fighting Islamic terrorists.

If you ask a typical liberal about the war on terror (or the "so called war on terror" as they like to say) you will discover that this war begins and ends with Osama Bin Laden. Apparently, once we capture him it is all over. All we need to do is withdraw from Iraq, focus all our efforts on Bin Laden and we can end this so called war on terror and get back to our ipods and Sex in the City reruns. Simple enough, right?

Well, I'm sorry, but fighting a complex war like this is not the same as playing a game of Stratego, which is basically what Obama's military strategy would be. Bin Laden is one of many Islamic terrorists who want all of us to worship their god or die. Yes, he is high profile but capturing or killing him would hardly end the war. Victory only comes with a change in mindset, governance, and perception in a culture that knows much of violence and little of tolerance. Bin Laden's capture wouldn't do much in that regard. If anything, it would inspire more fight in our enemies since they so admire the whole martyrdom thing.

So while Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, saying it has nothing to do with the war on terror reflects a jaw-droppingly vast and dangerous lack of understanding of this conflict. Our troops are actively engaged with the enemy and they are winning. We have established a front line of battle in the war on terror and it is very far from main street America where the terrorists would prefer to fight. Where once they were hiding in the shadows, our conflict in Iraq has drawn them into a fight with our military, where they are greatly overmatched, as opposed to killing unarmed and untrained civilians as they would prefer. The enemy's focus is on driving our troops out of Iraq, more so than attacking our families here at home, and they are fighting this battle at great cost. Disengaging in Iraq would mean losing that front line and our enemies would creep back into the shadows looking for their next target, likely somewhere on main street America.

I think someone should sit down with Obama and explain this to him because he has no business being our next Commander in Chief if he doesn't understand such a fundamental military concept. Against a guerrilla enemy, it is much better to establish a line and provide them motivation to attack you and thus draw them into you strength rather than seek them amongst the shadows in their line of strength. The enemy's strength is their anonymity and invisibility which is lost when they are attacking our line of strength. Basically, our troops are fighting over there so we won't have to over here. It's simple, and believe me no one understands this more than the troops who are doing the fighting.

Obama clearly doesn't get it and neither do most libs who say Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.

We have paid a dear price in this fight. We've lost many brave soldiers and spent large amounts of treasure. But what is the alternative? Are we to simply give up and stop fighting altogether? Yes, we could disengage in Iraq and focus our efforts on seek-and-destroy missions, kill a terrorist here, capture another there. But we wouldn't come close to inflicting the kind of damage on these networks that we are currently inflicting in Iraq, not to mention the most damaging of all...establishing a democratic Islamic state in the heart of the middle east. When we began this fight in September 2001, President Bush said it was going to be long, costly and difficult. Were we not listening? Did we not believe him?

We've lost over 3,000 Americans in Iraq in 5 years of fighting. We lost more than that in one day on 9-11. We have options but to me the alternative to what we are currently doing seems much worse. It's the lesser of two evils once again. In 1945, Truman faced something similar and he chose to inflict misery on the enemy rather than allow the enemy to inflict misery on us. What are we to do today? Obama? McCain? This is the most important question of this year's election.

Progress in Iraq

In a recent report to Congress, the Bush administration reported that Iraq has now made satisfactory progress on 15 of 18 benchmarks. This is nearly twice the progress that was reported one year ago. If you were unaware of this, that's probably because NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and the New York Times all completely ignored the story. That's right, none of these major news outlets felt Iraq's progress on meeting political benchmarks was worthy of reporting. But the full story can be found here.

This is no doubt bad news for Barack Obama, who is depending on US failure in Iraq to help him get to the White House. Perhaps that's why the aforementioned news agencies haven't reported on this. Obama has committed to immediate, unconditional withdrawal of US troops and it's a position that he can't reverse. So, the worse things are in Iraq the better he will look when he gives that order, which brings me to another issue.

During a debate, Obama was asked if he would still withdraw US troops EVEN if his top military advisors told him such a withdrawal would be disastrous. Obama answered yes, saying that the Commander in Chief has ultimate authority and is not bound to what his advisors say. This is where I have a problem.

Obama has no military experience. He knows nothing about military tactics or strategy. Yet, he hopes to command the greatest military force on the planet. That's fine. But it seems to me that someone in his position would listen carefully to his military advisors. After all, they know what they're talking about, he doesn't (at least when it comes to military issues). The idea that he is going to do what he wants to do - damn what his advisors say - is a bit frightening. It's just another example of Obama's arrogance, and it reflects a reckless military policy.

I for one am happy to see the Iraqi government making progress. In one year they have doubled the number of benchmarks met. We have given them freedom, then security, and it appears they are responding. Progress is slow, but we are heading in the right direction. It's my hope that America won't turn its back on the people of Iraq when they are so close to succeeding at building their democracy.

That will be up to the voters.

What happens when political correctness and enviro-extremism go haywire? It's called the Democrat National Convention. This article by Stephanie Simon of the Wall Street Journal is laugh-out-loud funny. Here is a sample with the link to the full text and new terms like Director of Greening. Just remember, these are the same buffoons who want to take over OUR health care system and promise to save social security. Enjoy!

DENVER -- As the Mile High City gears up to host a Democratic bash for 50,000, organizers are discovering the perils of trying to stage a political spectacle that's also politically correct.

Consider the fanny packs.

The host committee for the Democratic National Convention wanted 15,000 fanny packs for volunteers. But they had to be made of organic cotton. By unionized labor. In the USA.
Official merchandiser Bob DeMasse scoured the country. His weary conclusion: "That just doesn't exist."

Ditto for the baseball caps. "We have a union cap or an organic cap," Mr. DeMasse says. "But we don't have a union-organic offering."

Much of the hand-wringing can be blamed on Denver's Democratic mayor, John Hickenlooper, who challenged his party and his city to "make this the greenest convention in the history of the planet."

Convention organizers hired the first-ever Director of Greening, longtime environmental activist Andrea Robinson. Her response to the mayor's challenge: "That terrifies me!" FULL TEXT

More insanity...

Further supporting the suspicion that the global warming debate is degenerating into the Salem witch hunt of the 21st century, here is a recent story from Fox News:

The heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," according to a leading climate scientist....."Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future," Hansen writes in an opinion piece posted on the institute's Web site. "Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming." FULL STORY

Hansen provides no proof of his accusations, only a typical "I told you so" and a "last warning". He goes on to say that in the next 5-10 years, the arctic will be completely free of sea ice in the summer months. And even though he calls for prosecuting the oil barrons, he makes no mention of the environmentalists who repeatedly lobby and block expanded nuclear enery.

On the flip side of this, here is a link to a petition urging the US government to reject the Kyoto Treaty along with the ideas behind human induced climate change. The petition states:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists, all of whom have almost certainly been bought off by the oil industry...at least that's what the Left would have us believe, since they constantly tell us that human induced climate change is the consensus opinion of the scientific community.

My opinion on human induced climate change has been thoroughly documented on this site. It interests me that this issue is as polarizing as any political issue in America today, even though the scientific evidence is hardly conclusive. Still, people who believe in global warming defend it as furiously as they defend a woman's "right to choose", as if there is no debate and no question in the scientific data. That suggests a certain arrogance, yet small-mindedness, among the Leftist elites.

No wonder they nominated Barack Obama.

I posted this to exemplify the global warming crowd. This NASA nut wants to prosecute people for crimes against humanity without providing a shred of evidence of such crimes. But, hey, who needs evidence? It's never been of much importance to the "believers".

WEP is relocating due to recent change in jobs, so my posts will be a bit less frequent until things get settled. But this is one I've been wanting to write for a while, and Congress's recent vote to NOT drill for offshore oil is a perfect opportunity. This is the second bill they've recently debated on the Hill, the other being a motion to restrict emissions and implement a new carbon credit system for pollution. In light of Congress' action, I am reminded that politics will always be politics. Very few of our representatives actually want to solve problems since such problems are why we vote people into office to begin with. Thus, solving a problem would potentially threaten the need for their existence. Be they Republican or Democrat, our representatives are impotent when it comes to action. So, I have a few words of advice for either President McCain or President Obama. If they truly want to solve our energy problems, it starts with these steps. I call it the WEP-Plan.

First, oil is a commodity, which means that it's price is determined mainly by 2 factors: supply/demand, and speculators who wager on what supply/demand will be like in the near and distant future. So here's how we reduce the price of oil, for our economy, for the environment, for energy independence. Here is the bipartisan WEP-Plan.

1) Drill. Yes, we must tap our own natural resources. I acknowledge that oil is a finite resource and that we must find a renewable alternative to ensure our long-term survival. Yes, I get it. But that doesn't help us in the short-term. Simply demanding that people stop using so much gas is impractical. People have to work. So, let's increase oil supply and drill, both off-shore and in ANWR. The beach bums in Florida and caribou in Alaska will have to deal with it.

2) Build more nuclear power plants. Again, I realize this may not be the long-term solution, but nuclear power is cleaner and more efficient than what the majority of us use now. There is no reason for us to NOT build more of these power stations.

3) Build more refineries. See number one. The environmentalists will have to live with it.

4) End grain subsidies. Obviously grain subsidies don't lower the price of oil, only raise the price of grain. So now we pay more for both gas AND milk (as well as other grain-based products).

That's the easy stuff. The hard part comes next, mainly because of the nasty politics that would be involved.

5) Close ALL government offices every other Friday. The military does this at some places. You basically work at 10 hour day, and every other week is a 4 day work week.

6) Adjust the thermostat in ALL government buildings. No less than 73 degrees in the summer, no more than 68 degrees in the winter.

7) Deliver the US mail only on Monday, Wed, Friday. And only deliver to rural routes 2 days a week. Eliminate package delivery service, UPS and FedEx can take care of that stuff. The USPS should only deliver envelope-type mail. That way, the suburban mail carrier can be resurrected, walking the route on foot.

8) Lower the federal speed limit back to 55mph.

9) Release 10% of the strategic oil reserve into the market. If anything, this will scare the speculators.

10) Encourage police departments to increase foot-patrols, decrease cruisers on the street, more motorcycles, more horses.

11) Implement an "energy independence" holiday. This is a day where businesses will be encouraged to close, and local communities encouraged to plan activities that would contribute to energy independence, with the major goal of this day being as many Americans as possible stay home, on foot or bike and do NOT buy gasoline. Again, sounds cheesy, but will likely scare the speculators.

That's the WEP-Plan. Not perfect, but it's a start. Do these things, and the every day American will see more affordable oil and it will buy us more time to develop better alternatives. But this won't happen without bipartisan cooperation, which makes it unlikely for Obama.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times...and then just expect that other countries are going to say 'OK'...That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

This was a statement made by Senator Obama last week during a campaign stop in Oregon and, not surprisingly, it didn't get a whole lot of press coverage. I think it should have because I think this statement says a lot about Obama's mindset and how he views America. One has to ask: What is he saying here?

For a moment you may think that he is trying to solidify the radical Left vote. These are the true hate-America folks. These are the ones who think that America is bad and will always be until we voluntarily surrender our global role as economic, political and military superpower while also transferring our wealth to the third world. These are the folks who love Obama's above statement. But, in truth, he already has them solidly in his corner. It's been a long time since the kooks have been so fired up over a candidate. So there's no need to pander to them with dumb statements like this...unless Obama really meant what he said, and then we have a problem. In that case, Obama may be grouping himself with those folks, and that makes me a bit nervous.

Before I get into all that, I want to make a few points so that my readers can soak up Obama's words with the proper perspective, something other than "America is the root of all evil". First, the US economy is the largest in the world. No other country even comes close. And since our economy is so big, that means that we have the greatest impact on global markets. As our economy goes, so goes the world. Consumerism is a big part of our economy. Strong consumers mean a strong economy, which means a strong global market. So maybe Obama shouldn't be too critical of America's spenders. This is a simplification, of course, but you get the basic point.

Second, the US is the world's leading food producer, again by a wide margin. Today, most of the world's nations depend on food imports to feed their people so, again, if our economy goes bad then many bad things will happen to many people worldwide. Third, America is the most charitable nation in the world. For example, private American citizens gave $1.8 billion in tsunami aid, dwarfing what any government, including the US government, contributed. We gave $78 million in earthquake aid to Pakistan, at a time when that nation has been less-than-cooperative in the war on terror. Annually, private American citizens donate one-quarter of a trillion dollars to charity, and this DOES NOT include what's given at their places of worship. This kindness is unprecedented in human history. No other group of private citizens has ever been so generous with their time and money. Suggesting we are gluttonous and greedy is unfair.

And fourth, let's not forget the other sacrifice we make for the world, that of giving our sons and daughters for liberty. We send our soldiers to die so that other people, who sometimes don't even like or appreciate us, can have freedom. Every person on this planet who lives in freedom does so because of the blood and treasure sacrifice of the American military. This is a simple fact that is all-too-often overlooked or forgotten. Now, back to the Senator's comment.

As I said, for a moment it appears that Obama considers his fellow Americans to be gluttonous, greedy and selfish. He appears to have a problem with our consumerism and he opposes our behavior for the sake of America being more appealing to "other countries".

In light of the fact that we drive the world's economy (where would China be without the American consumer?), feed the world with our crops, protect the world with our soldiers and bring aid to the world in times of need, I personally think that the approval from other countries is a given. If it's not, then we're probably talking about countries that are unappreciative, are basic enemies of America, seek to weaken us, are themselves very greedy, or simply just don't like us and probably never will. In that case, why care if they are "OK" with our lifestyle? Chances are they won't approve of us regardless of what we do. So what's Obama saying?

Well, if you know his political philosophy (and sadly many of his supporters don't) then you know that he is very much a government-solve-the-problem kind of guy, which again bothers me given the above statement. So I think he's driving at government action here. I'm wondering if Obama is somehow suggesting that we should regulate (through some governmental way) what kind of vehicles people drive, how much they eat, and how much energy they consume at home. You can decide that for yourself.

At any rate, Obama apparently thinks the world doesn't like us and, despite my facts, he seems to understand and empathize with them. Again, you can decide whether or not to agree. And don't worry, I won't ask what Obama's thermostat sits on at home, even though I'm sure it's not higher than 72 degrees.

Americans consume a lot, that's true. But we also produce a lot. So I'd say our consumption falls within the "our fair share" range of things. And we donate MUCH more than our fair share, especially considering the lives we give for others around the world. In light of this, all in all I'd say the "other countries" of the world come out pretty good in the deal. Obama thinks we should back off and consume less than our fair share so these other countries will approve of us. I guess that will be up to the voters.

Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, and the prognosis is not likely to be favorable. WEP would like to extend our thoughts and prayers to Senator Kennedy and his family, may they feel the Lord's strength and comfort in this difficult time.

So much politics, so little time to post. Barack Obama continues to provide folks like me stuff to post about, and since I've lost all respect for the man I certainly don't mind taking what he gives me. Two things today:

First, a little thing. Today Obama tells the GOP to leave his wife alone, claiming that their "attacks" were "low class". To that I say, "okay, then tell her to stop making stump speeches". He was referring to the Tennessee GOP airing an ad that takes exception to Ms Obama's "proud of my country" comment. You see, there are quite a few Americans who didn't appreciate what she said and the GOP is taking advantage. It was a mistake, and the Obama's are paying a price. In my opinion, a candidate's spouse has the option of taking on a supportive role versus something more active. Ms Obama has chosen the latter, which means that what she says is open to criticism. Why would Obama expect anything different? Are we to grant his wife a free pass to say and do anything simply because she is his wife? Once again, the elitist arrogance of those two is astounding. The GOP is not out of bounds here. They did not "attack" her, as Obama says. There was no personal attack. I mean, it's not like they made fun of her for being a stay-at-home mom (I wonder if Obama would consider THAT to be low class?). They took exception to something she said. That's politics, and if Ms Obama can't handle it then perhaps she should reconsider the job she's applying for.

Second, a much bigger issue. President Bush gave a speech to the Israeli parliament and during that speech he said appeasement is bad, referring specifically to Iran and how some people feel we should deal with them. Obama and many other democrats are irate. Joe Biden even called it "bullshit". Excuse the language, his words not mine. The interesting thing about this is that Bush didn't mention any names. He didn't even mention any one particular political party. He said appeasement was bad, and the democrats apparently have a major problem with that.

The dems say that it was wrong for the president to play politics in a foreign country. Of course, it's okay for Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, but not for Bush. In my mind, it's very appropriate for the US President to tell Israel--one of our most loyal allies--that he disagrees with appeasing a dictator that has openly advocated for wiping Israel off the map. Not sure what the dems object to there.

But I found it both entertaining and informative when the dems seem to collectively object to the president condemning appeasement. I mean, what exactly are they objecting to? If there is anything more telling about how the dems approach foreign policy then I haven't seen it. Senator Obama would have been much better served if he simply agreed with what Bush said unless, of course, he disagreed with what Bush said in which case the Senator was right to take issue with it.

However, Obama has decided to keep Iran in the political spotlight and he is sticking to his guns. He defends his position that the US President should hold unconditional unilateral talks with Ahmadinejad. The basis of his opinion is that we did the same with the Soviet Union. That's right, Obama doesn't see any difference in the two. This reveals much about his vast lack of understanding, experience, knowledge, whatever you want to call it...who knows? Regardless, the fact that he considers the two to be about the same is gaspingly ridiculous. Even the most junior of junior senators should be able to discern the two and know better than this. If he does become President, it is my sincere hope that he learns as much as he can about foreign policy in the next 6 months or we'll be in bigger trouble than I thought (And I won't bother explaining why this is so gaspingly ridiculous. Either you get it or you don't and if you don't then you are probably an Obama supporter, in which case the man can do no wrong in your eyes and you will never take issue with him no matter what I or anyone else says. I saw it today, Obama basically saying "we talked with the USSR" and his minions just mindlessly nodded in support. No gasps, no wide eyes, they just lapped it up without actually thinking about what he said).

Obama also defends his position by saying that McCain is just an extension of Bush's foreign policy. Wrong again, Senator. Unbelievable. Someone needs to inform the Senator that since this country was founded it has ALWAYS been US policy to NEVER negotiate with terrorists, and there is a pretty good reason for it. This is not a George Bush concept. Apparently the good Senator plans to do things differently. Obama says he is all about change. Well, I guess I can't argue with that. Each day that goes by this guy gets more and more scary.

But what Obama hasn't done is tell the American people what he plans to say to Ahmadinejad. I, for one, would like to know. He's attacked Bush for not doing it right. He's attacked McCain for just doing what Bush is doing. But he hasn't told us what he plans to do, other than have private talks with a terror-supporting dictator who denies the holocaust and wants to destroy Israel. What will he say that hasn't already been said? What can one say to someone who is clearly off the proverbial rocker? What fresh new conversation will he have that will convince Ahmadinejad to abandon his terrorist ways? Or does Obama plan to offer something in return? It's a fair question.

Eventually, Obama will have to answer these questions, even though the mainstream media is not likely going to ask them. Still, this issue won't go away and we, the voters, have the right to know what Obama plans to say to this man, and will it be worth the price we pay for granting Ahmadinejad status as a world leader.

Today's hot button issue is the recent California Supreme Court ruling that any law limiting marriage to one man and one woman is discriminatory, and therefore has opened the way for gay marriage in California. If you haven't heard about it, you will.

I'm not going to address the gay marriage issue. It's one of those things that, like abortion, never gets solved. It can be argued all day and no one will change their position or see any merit in the arguments of the other side. We all have our own opinion on it and our opinion doesn't matter to California because the people of California have already settled the issue. In 2000, the voters went to the polls and voted to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The matter was concluded, or at least it should have been. So if you support or oppose gay marriage, I don't care. That's not the issue here.

The issue at hand regards who or what holds absolute power in this country. If you want to join in the discussion, it begins with this simple question: Do Americans have the right to govern themselves?

The Californistan Supreme Court looked at the law created by the people and had to decide whether or not it was Constitutional. For most people, the answer would be clear after reading the first 3 words of the Constitution...We The People. That would do it for me, but not for the 4 activists that apparently sit on the court.

The Constitution begins with We The People. It does not say we the courts, or we the judges, or we the congress or we the politicians. It says We The People. We are the ones who established the law, we are the ones who govern this land. Granted, we appoint people to establish, enforce and interpret the law on our behalf, but the ultimate authority belongs to We The People, and there is no governmental or judicial entity with the power to dispute or overturn that authority. This is a very basic, yet critical premise for our democracy.

In 2000, the people of California established, by majority rule, a law regarding marriage. Millions voted. Today, four individual judges determined that those who voted were wrong, and overturned the will of the people based on, of all things, the argument that their will was unConstitutional. The way I see it, there is nothing more unConstitutional than four people overturning the will of millions, yet that's exactly what happened. And despite how you personally feel about gay marriage, the idea that four people wrongly exercise a perceived power and over-rule the majority should be disturbing to all. Today you may agree with their opinion, but what happens when you don't agree? Four judges do not, and should never, have the power to over-rule the people. Every time that happens, our democracy weakens.

The people of California have spoken. They have determined how to define marriage for their state. That simple fact is what makes it Constitutional. The law is not discriminatory because the people have said so, and it's the people who have ultimate and absolute authority in this country.

Here are two separate stories with links included.

US to add polar bears to "threatened" species list


Polar Bear numbers are increasing in the eastern arctic


Global warming strikes again. I'm not going to comment any further. I think the stories speak for themselves.

From a recent article in Nature (May 1 issue), the UN IPCC has apparently begun to conjure up explanations for why their doomsday forecasts for the earth aren't actually panning out. After adjusting the IPCC's climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years they came to the following conclusion:

"global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations … temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

So the IPCC now says that global warming may not actually happen in the next ten years because mother nature will temporarily correct the problem. How convenient. Just to be clear, the IPCC says that man (especially those in America) is destoying the planet. They say that things like the Kyoto Treaty (which would weaken America) will help solve the problem. They have spotty evidence at best to support their claims, and now they say that even though the danger is imminent we may not see evidence of it over the next ten years. But we should all take their word for it. This looks a lot like a street corner shell game to me.

So following this reasoning, I am apt to beging advocating for more carbon admissions. It seems that mother nature is hell-bent on cooling the planet and the only thing that is stopping her is man's greenhous gas emissions. I don't want another ice age, so maybe we should crank up those coal-burning power plants. That's IF we want to follow the IPCC's reasoning, which we would be foolish to do. My guess is that the enviro-whacks will eat this up and soon add a note of gratitude to their message of doom..."thank goodness mother nature has granted us more time to fix the problem." I just wonder what they will come up with ten years from now when things still aren't falling in line as predicted.

I've long given up on global warming as an actual scientific issue. In my mind, just like anything else, it is a political issue. The global warming fanatics are really anti-capitalism more than they are pro-environment, or else they would be targeting China more than America for their demonizing. Global warming is the "cause" they manipulate as an effort to weaken America, which is why the third-world-dominated UN is so adamant that we (ie, America) take action right away to offset the crisis, and any action short of reducing our GDP and slowing down our economy is simply unacceptable. This is the only way to explain why "global" warming is really America's problem more than it is the globe's.

Until the UN and the enviro-whacks begin focusing their efforts on China and India as they do America, and acknowledge the simple fact that the evidence of man-made climate change is lacking, I will continue to consider this nothing more than politics as usual. I see no evidence that man is capable of actually altering the earth's climate. However, I see plenty of evidence of the earth's third-world countries looking for ways to topple the last-remaining super power. They can't do it with military might, so their weapons of choice are biofuels and carbon credits.

"I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got, the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that. It's, it's not as bright. So, that's my little commercial for that."

--writer Stephen King speaking to a group of high school students

It's long been my belief that elite liberals look down on the military and in many ways despise the military and its members. I emphasize the word elite. These are the extreme Left, the bona fide tree-hugging, "Imagine"-singing, god-hating, UN-loving, environazi socialist radicals who hate everything about traditional America and want nothing more than to see the destruction of capitalism and individual liberty. They are out there and they have a lot of power in the democrat party. I'm not talking about the mainstream democrats who tend to respect, admire and truly support the military. I'm talking about the nuts, and Stephen King belongs in that category. He is a genius writer, but still a political nut. And he is taking some criticism for these remarks, rightfully so since this statement is very offensive to someone who has chosen an admirable career like military service.

I've visited a few different websites and I've seen some comments about King, basically what one would expect. The Left defends him, the Right roasts him. In his defense, people say King has freedom of speech, that he is allowed to oppose the Iraq War, that without the objector there would always be war, etc. King himself has fired back, basically blasting the Right for questioning his patriotism, which is the standard response by a Leftist nut every time someone takes exception to an offensive statement like the one King made. In their eyes, you're not allowed to object to their opinion because that's the equivalent of calling them unpatriotic. I for one can't fathom defending this kind of statement, no matter the speaker or the context.

For the record, as of 2004, 90% of those in the US military held a high school diploma, well above the national average of approximately 75-78%. Most recently, the recruiting class of 2007 was 79% high school graduates, a slight dip from before but still right at or just above the national average, which also had dropped. So Stephen King's claim is factually wrong, and THAT's why people are taking exception. Liberals despise the military so much that they can't comprehend why anyone would voluntarily join up unless they were simply dumb. Remember John Kerry's famous "stuck in Iraq" comment? Of course, they would never actually admit this, but the opinion often emerges in statements like the one above. So either Mr. King is ill-informed or he was taking a deliberate shot at those in uniform. Either way, he was wrong.

This does not equate to questioning his patriotism, this is simply correcting the record and pointing out the inaccuracy of his statement. Perhaps Mr.King will educate himself on the topic the next time he decides to speak to a group of students. Perhaps he will consider those who serve and show some respect rather than blatantly insulting their intelligence. Perhaps, but this blogger isn't holding his breath.

They got one right!

The Supreme Court has upheld an Indiana state law that requires voters to produce a government-issued photo ID to vote. Supporters say the law cuts down on election fraud. Opponents say it specifically targets the poor and the elderly in hopes of denying them their Constitutional rights. Here is what WEP says:

First, as a Federalist I support any state's right to regulate their elections process, as long as the laws don't target specific citizens or groups of citizens. This law does no such thing and so I support Indiana's right to pass it and enforce it. The argument that it targets the poor and the elderly is thin and weak. I can just as easily argue that a Wall Street executive who spends his day in the backseat of a limo is just as likely to not have a government issued photo ID. This poor and elderly thing doesn't stick with me. The ACLU says it could potentially disenfranchise tens of thousands and even though the law has been in effect for years they can't produce any of these people or prove the supposed bias. Again, Indiana has the Constitutional right to do this as long as it doesn't deliberately target a group of citizens. The SCOTUS felt there was no evidence of such a thing and therefore ruled appropriately. It's the court's job to interpret the law, not interject their personal views, as Justice Ginsburg has a reputation for doing.

The next argument is that the law makes voting more inconvenient for certain people. I say...so what? Voting is inconvenient for many people but that shouldn't stop us from doing our duty as citizens. The law requires that we register to vote and the law dictates what hours the polls are open. Based on the "inconvenient" argument I could easily say these things may disenfranchise some people. After all, if the polls close at 7PM the accompanying inconvenience could keep some people from voting. But that doesn't mean we should change the law. The right to vote is a right, but it is also a responsibility that should be taken seriously. If you can't get to the polls until after 7PM, then you have the responsibility to figure out another way. If you don't have a photo ID, then you have the responsibility to go get one. If you're not willing to put forth the effort to vote, then you obviously don't appreciate your rights and are probably better off not voting at all. Our rights come with great responsibility. Just my opinion.

Just because I have the right to own a gun doesn't mean I am allowed to be irresponsible with it. I have to register my gun, keep it properly stored, and not carry it in public without a proper license. This doesn't mean my Constitutional rights are being violated, it simply means there are rules that must be followed. The same goes for voting.

But, let's cut through the bull and get to the real issue here. In my mind, this law DOES discriminate against a particular group of people. Republicans will deny it. Democrats will deny it. SCOTUS will deny it. But common sense tells me this law is designed to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants and non-citizens to vote. This is a big voting bloc for the Dems, so they don't want any barriers between these people and the polls. If you're being honest, you know I am right here.

And that's just another reason for this law to stand. Not only is it Constitutional, but it also helps prevent illegals from interfering in our elections, and that is a good thing. Bravo to the SCOTUS. At last, common sense prevails and they get one right.

Global warming, ethanol and food riots

Hysteria and panic...History has taught us that these two things often lead to suffering, and the current global warming hysteria is no different. Part of our "avert disaster" strategy includes diverting food crops into biofuels which has contributed to a growing global food shortage. Granted, there are many factors at play in this, but one can't ignore the fact that more biofuel means less food. It's a simple inverse relationship. Here is the latest commentary from Fox News' junk science expert, Steven Milloy:

Food riots caused by rising food prices have erupted around the world. Five people died in uprisings in Haiti, perhaps the first of many casualties to come from the fad of being "green."
Food riots also broke out in Egypt, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal and Ethiopia. The military is being deployed in Pakistan and Thailand to protect fields and warehouses. Higher energy costs and policies promoting the use of biofuels such as ethanol are being blamed.

"When millions of people are going hungry, it’s a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels," an Indian government official told the Wall Street Journal. Turkey’s finance minister labeled the use of biofuels as "appalling," according to the paper.

Biofuels have turned out to be a lose-lose-lose proposition. Once touted by the greens and the biofuel industry as being able to reduce the demand for oil and lower greenhouse gas emissions, biofuels have accomplished neither goal and have no prospect for accomplishing either in the foreseeable future.

The latest research shows that biofuels actually increase greenhouse gas emissions on a total lifecycle basis. Add in that taxpayer-subsidized diversion of food crops and food crop acreage to fuel production has contributed to higher food prices and reduced food supply, and biofuels turn out to be nothing less than a public policy disaster.

The situation is not likely to get any better any time soon, as cutting the farm subsidies and tariffs on sugar cane-based ethanol imports that have fueled the ethanol craze seems to be yet another third rail of U.S. politics. Biofuel proponents hope the reliance on food crops to produce biofuels is temporary, and they point to a future where non-food biomass (such as corn stalks and grasses) is used to produce so-called cellulosic ethanol. But in addition to the fact that the technology for producing cellulosic ethanol on a cost-effective basis is nowhere near ready for prime time, the greenhouse gas footprint of cellulosic ethanol likely will be far worse than that of corn-based ethanol.

It’s one thing to transport relatively compact corn kernels to be processed into ethanol; it’s quite another to transport bulky biomass. The bulk problem would require a multitude of cellulosic ethanol plants to be built around the country — a project that could be quite costly and difficult to locate given the phenomenon of NIMBY-ism and the problem of plant emissions making it more difficult for states to comply with federal air quality standards.....

FULL STORY

For those who follow WEP, you no doubt have noticed that my opinion of Barack Obama has evolved a good deal over the past year. After reading "The Audacity of Hope" I came away thinking that Obama was an honest, wholesome family man with very different political views from myself. I would never vote for him, but I could see myself being friends with him. But this campaign has soured my opinion of him and it seems with each passing day my initial impression of him was way off. The way he has composed himself during this campaign has been horribly disappointing. To put it simple, I now see Obama as elitist, smug, arrogant and pompous. Despite how he characterizes himself, I don't think he has a clue about mainstream American life, and his behavior seems to reinforce that description. Most recently in North Carolina:

Just when you thought the Democratic race couldn’t get uglier, Barack Obama is being accused of giving Hillary Clinton the finger at a town hall meeting in North Carolina. The gesture — which may have been an innocent scratch of the face or, according to some, something more mischievous — came as Obama was complaining Thursday about the debate in Philadelphia the night before...Obama started his address in Raleigh, N.C., by complaining that the debate on ABC “set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people.”....“And I’d say Senator Clinton looked in her element,” he said. He paused. Then he raised his right hand and scratched his cheek with his middle finger. He smiled slightly, and the crowd cheered. FULL STORY

First, the middle finger. He can and will claim that it was innocent. I viewed it on youtube and can't say for sure whether that's true, you can decide for yourself. Obviously, if he meant to give Hillary the "bird" then it would be quite tacky. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, mainly because I can hardly fault someone for wanting to give Hillary the finger. But there is something else at play that does bother me. It has to do with what he said.

"...it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people..."

This is what I mean by pompous and arrogant. You see, attending a church for 20 years headed by a preacher that spews hatred, racism and anti-American sentiment while allowing Hamas to publish its terrorist manifesto in the church bulletin matters to the American people. Consorting with known terrorists like William Ayers matters to the American people. Characterizing someone's religious beliefs as a crutch matters to the American people.

That's what the debate questions were about, yet Obama feels compelled to dismiss it as politics, unimportant to the American people, a non-issue. Out of touch? I'd say so. I don't think Obama cares if these things matter to Americans. I don't think he feels obligated to explain himself and is obviously aggravated that it keeps coming up. Well, Senator, it keeps coming up because it matters to the American people. Giving an impertinent speech that makes the Obama lemmings swoon isn't going to change that.

Besides, I wonder what Obama expected the debate to be about. His record? That's a 15 minute conversation. They had to fill the extra time somehow. The issues? There's basically no difference between the two candidates in that regard, which means there's no debate to be had. The only real difference between the two is character, one candidate lacks it and the other doesn't seem to be completely honest about it. So, that's something to be debated and I think the moderators did an okay job.

As for Obama, he either doesn't know or doesn't care that a candidate's past, his friends, his words matter to Americans. And he obviously takes offense when people want to talk about these things, to the point of belittling those who bring it up. Pompous? You decide.

Hamas endorses Obama

"We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections. I understand American politics and this is the season for elections and everybody tries to sound like he's a friend of the Israelis. All that would change if Obama would get elected. I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse.... "

--Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas' top political adviser in the Gaza Strip


Perhaps Hamas is returning the favor from Obama's Trinity Church when it published the organization's terrorist manifesto as part of its church bulletin:

Sen. Barack Obama's Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group's official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America's Declaration of Independence. The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr...

FULL STORY