"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.