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

Barak Obama: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Karl Marx: "Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."

Say what you want, but this is no coincidence. The point is that Obama's thoughts and words came from somewhere and I think it's his basic thought process, and when that thought process mirrors Karl Marx, we have a serious problem on our hands. Obama a socialist? You decide.

Tonight I watched the Democrat debate. Same old stuff. Blah, blah, blah, raise taxes...blah,blah...raise taxes only for the rich...blah, blah, unconditional immediate retreat from Iraq. But there was something that did catch my attention. It was a question directed at Hillary about Bill Richardson endorsing Obama. When he did this, Clinton told Richardson that Obama was unelectable. She didn't say why. The moderator asked her about this and Clinton backed away from the remark...a mistake in my mind. She is "clinging" to a fraction of a chance at this nomination and the only hope she has is to convince democrats that Obama is not electable. She missed an opportunity. I would have stood by the comments and reiterated his inexperience in foreign affairs and national defense. McCain is going to hammer him on these issues.

But the electability issue is intriguing, so I looked into it. I post this with little reservation since Obama has virtually wrapped up the nomination. So here goes.

Hillary may have some moronic ideas for America, and would certainly be a disaster for this country if she won, but she is very good at politics (not so much at debate). She played a central role in getting her husband elected twice, that in itself requires substantial talent. So when it comes to playing politics, she knows what she's doing. That's why I thought she may be on to something regarding Obama's electability.

When it comes to winning the presidency, nowadays it basically comes down to three states: Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. All the others are basically solidified as red or blue, with little fluctuation. History has shown that in order to win the White House, these three states are key, and winning the election means winning at least two out of three in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

If you look at national polls, you basically see Obama with a slight lead in a head-to-head contest with McCain. The same is true for Hillary. But these polls mean little in the face of the electoral college, where states are the key. And the "big 3" show some early unfavorable numbers for Obama. Here is the head-to-head data based on a conglomerate of independent polls as provided by Real Clear Politics:

In Florida, McCain leads Obama by as much as 15 points. McCain and Clinton are virtually tied.
In Ohio, McCain leads Obama by as many as 8 points. Clinton polls higher by up to 9 points over McCain.

And in Pennsylvania, Obama holds a slim lead depending on which poll you look at while Clinton leads McCain by as many as 11 points.

Basically, Hillary is saying that more of her supporters will vote for McCain over Obama than Obama's supporters would over her, and the polls (albeit early polls) seem to support her claim. Yet, she fails to point this out effectively. As a result, her chance at the nomination is virtually gone and her only hope now is to accept a running mate position which may or may not happen. Whether this will keep Hillary's folks from defecting to McCain is yet another question.

So I think she has a point about Obama's electability and I also think we're seeing a problem with the democrat party as a whole. Americans don't respond well to socialism. They do respond to moderatism. McCain is a moderate conservative, Obama is a socialist. That in itself is enough to question his electability.

Happy Tax Day!

Today is the day when most Americans officially pay our income taxes, or to be more accurate this is the day the government takes a certain percentage of our hard-earned income. Today, we Americans make a poor investment, with little chance of getting a good return on our dollars. Much of the money we send to Washington will likely be wasted on earmark spending, discretionary spending and failed social programs. And this spending will be done by politicians who openly complain about corporate corruption and all the waste, abuse and fraud in the corporate world that must be reined in by Washington. The difference between the two is that we voluntarily invest in corporations, and the corporate world pales in comparison to Washington when it comes to waste, abuse and fraud.

As we've all heard, the Democrats have a major problem with our current tax system. They feel the rich pay too little, and the poor pay too much. Their solution: "roll back" the Bush tax cuts, which would amount to a MASSIVE tax increase for all Americans. The truth is that the Bush tax cuts were a percentage, approximately the same for all taxpayers. Of course, the rich will pay dollar-for-dollar less money than they did before but that's obviously because they initially paid a much larger amount. The dems have latched on to this as a way to say that the Bush tax cuts have "unfairly favored the rich". Here are the facts, as of 2007:

-The top 20% of income earners pay 86% of America's income tax revenue
-The top 40% pay 99.4% of the tax revenue
-The bottom 60% pay 0.6% of the tax revenue

Can somebody explain how this unfairly favors the rich? What exactly do Obama and Hillary object to? Of course, they object to the notion of Americans paying less in taxes...period. The less we pay, the less control the government has on our lives, which is a cornerstone principle for the democrats. Their contention that the current tax system unfairly favors the rich is an outright lie! So Hillary and Obama have the same ideas, more government programs and higher taxes. Same song, different verse.

And today, John McCain announces his plan. Before I get into it, I'll repeat my previous position that the government already has plenty of our money, taking more is simply out of the question. If they need money for something, they need to find it by cutting spending somewhere else. That's the main thing I like about McCain's plan. Here are the details:

-doubling the federal income tax exemptions for dependents, from $3,500 to $7,000
-declare a summer gas-tax holiday, suspending the 18.4-cent gas tax and 24.4-cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day this year (I like this because the dems love to complain about gas prices, but McCain seems poised to put it to a Senate vote, no doubt putting his opponent to the test)
-offering people at risk of foreclosure a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage loan backed by the federal government (not sure I like this, but I'll tolerate it if it means passing the rest of his plan)
-phase out the alternative minimum tax (an absolute must, the AMT is ridiculously unfair)
-tweak the prescription drug benefit to exclude taxpayers who can afford medicine without government assistance
-overhaul the tax code, close "costly, unfair" corporate loopholes and veto every bill containing earmarks (this is a promise that I truly believe)
-use the money saved via his proposals to ease the burden on employers by lowering the business income tax from 35 percent to 25 percent
-one-year pause in discretionary spending while the government conducts a "prompt and thorough" review of each department's and agency's budget. Military spending and veterans benefits would be exempt (it's about time someone actually looked hard at how our tax dollars are spent)


This is a sound plan. It is fair. It does NOT raise taxes and it would be the first step in cutting back on the wasteful spending, something that is long overdue. The idea is that the government can afford more tax cuts by becoming more efficient in how it spends money...what a refreshing concept! It's better than anything either dem candidate has to offer and, best of all, it's realistic. I'm tired of hearing the dems promise tons of government programs while claiming the can pay for it by only raising taxes on the rich. They obviously think we voters are incredibly stupid. McCain takes a different approach and I think it will be well-received.

I also like reducing the corporate tax rate. The dems have long complained about the outsourcing of US jobs to foreign countries (as evidenced by Obama's recent "cling" comments), yet they seem to think that free trade is the reason for this without even mentioning our corporate tax rate. The fact is, free trade is a detriment if we are trading with countries who have lower corporate tax rates. It's inevitable that corporations will pack up and move away to avoid our outrageous taxes, taking the jobs with them. Who wouldn't? We have the world's second-highest corporate tax rate and if that doesn't change we will continue to lose industry and jobs to foreign countries that promise NOT to punish corporations for setting up shop. Decreasing from 35% to 25% (the international average) would be huge in stopping this trend, but you'll never hear the dems admit this. In their eyes, business is evil and must be taxed to the brink of bankruptcy no matter how many people they employ. That way they can tax businesses while complaining about the common man losing their jobs to foreign competitors. This is to their benefit since they can then step in and make promises to this common man that the government will "take care" of him, a cornerstone in socialist thinking.

So bravo for Senator McCain. I support his plan 100%. I'm okay with paying taxes, but I'm not okay with Congress wasting my money. It's about time someone actually changed things. It's about time someone offered a sound plan, free of fancy speeches, that promises less government and more individual liberty. Now, let the attacks from the Left begin.

Open mouth, insert foot

By now I'm sure everyone has heard or seen the latest big news in the political arena. I'm referring, of course, to Senator Obama's recent statement in California. You know, the whole "cling to guns, or religion..." comment. Here are my thoughts:

As a small-towner with strong Constitutional and religious beliefs and no anti-immigrant or racist sentiments, I found his remark incredibly offensive...and I'm not one who gets offended easily. Let's put aside the obvious broad generalization and stereotype and focus on the things that I think most people would find offensive about what he said.

First, he's speaking to a group of high-society Californistan smarmies who, as a general rule, tend to look down their cosmetically-enhanced noses at us ignorant small-town folks, which basically means that Obama was pandering to his audience. He took a cheap shot at working class citizens in order to gain a few favor points with the Calisocialists. Most small-town midwest people don't relate well to the Cali crowd and certainly don't share the same values, so when a candidate makes a back-handed comment about the hicks of America to get a few chuckles from his high-society Left Coast audience, it's generally not going to go over well on Main Street USA. Granted, giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, that may not have been his intent. But, nonetheless, that's how it looks and we all know in politics that perception is very much reality. Bill Clinton won twice with this notion.

Second, Obama's comment once again shows a disconnect between the working class and the Democrat party, which is supposed to be THE PARTY of the working class. The working class tends to be religious, and faith is very important to their culture. To the Dem elites, this is a mystery, since religion is usually viewed as archaic...implying a certain degree of ignorance or lack of enlightenment and sophistication. Religious people simply don't know any better and they should be pitied for it. We should seek to teach them, enlighten them, show them the "truth". And the government should take the lead in this. Religion is the dividing issue between democrats and the middle class. Dems don't get it, don't support it, don't understand it, don't relate to it, seek to minimize it and, as a result, lose votes because of it.

Us hee-haw folk are just ignornt backwoods hick fools who dont know no better, we just love Jesus and shoot our guns and hate the colored folk and it's all 'cause the govment took our jobs and left us without no pot to pee in. This is basically what Obama said, whether or not he meant it, that's what he said and that's what many people heard.

Obama continues to disappoint me. He's championed himself as the voice of change, of hope, of reform, but these recent comments were spoken in the voice of a pompous, elitist ass...for lack of a better term. He issued his usual obligatory explanation, thin on apology and heavy with exasperation, as though it's the fault of those he offended for being offended by his remarks. How dare they? They should know what he "meant" and leave it at that.

As far as political ramifications, I think this will hurt Obama, probably more in the general election than the primary. Pennsylvania is over. I don't think he has a chance. But it doesn't matter, he doesn't need Pennsylvania to win the nomination. However, he very much needs it to win the general election. His image as a voice for the common man has been tarnished and it will be tough to repolish.

Maybe one day the Dems will get it. Maybe they'll understand that people don't "cling" to religion like a crutch, they adhere to it because it is a central, vital part of their lives. And our affinity for guns is simply part of our culture. It doesn't go hand-in-hand with racism or xenophobia. And it has nothing to do with the status of the economy. We believe in gun rights and adhere to a deep faith and always will, regardless of what the economy is doing.

And, no, we're not bitter. We're hard working American citizens who (as Alan Jackson says) bow our heads to Jesus and stand up for Uncle Sam. We don't need your pity. We don't need to be enlightened. But a little respect and understanding would be nice.

I have included a link to a story about ABC News and their recent interaction with US troops in Iraq. Basically, ABC conducted a poll of US troops to determine their voting preference and, of course, "discovered" that the majority of troops are split between Hillary and Obama. The poll was not scientific, just based on "random" interviews.

Immediately, I question the results. The military has traditionally been strongly supportive of conservative candidates somewhere in the range of 70-90%. The idea that this year they have somehow flipped completely into the liberal camp is more than suspicious. But no one has ever accused ABC of being fair and balanced.

But there is another big issue here, and that has to do with ethical journalism. What ABC News did was extremely unethical, perhaps even against the law (I'll let the legal folks debate that). But the ethics here (or lack thereof) aren't debatable. ABC has put these troops in a bad predicament. The UCMJ is clear on this issue. A US soldier can not endorse a political candidate from behind the uniform while on active duty service. And a soldier is not allowed to use their military status, on or off duty, as a means of supporting a candidate. On their own time, apart from military duty, a soldier is free to do what they want provided it does not conflict with Dept of Defense or US policy.

For example, an off-duty soldier can't participate in a rally advocating the overthrow of the US government. That's an extreme example, but you get the point. A soldier, even in civilian attire, can't say "I am a Captain in the US Army and I support Obama". That's using your status in the military to support a candidate. Leave the "I am a Captain in the US Army" part off, and it's okay. And if the soldier is on duty, wearing the uniform, they are NOT allowed to formally endorse a political candidate. They can attend an Obama rally in civilian attire, but not in their military uniform. You get the point.

ABC News surely was aware of this, yet they asked the question anyway. I doubt these troops will face significant disciplinary action, but they could if the military so decided. Granted, it's the duty of ALL soldiers to know the boundaries and limitations regarding their own conduct, but I still have a big problem with what ABC News did. They were wrong and these troops may pay a price for it.

Jay Rockefeller, a democrat Senator and avid Obama supporter, is the latest Democrat leader to blatantly insult the military. His comments, directed at John McCain, follow:

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues," Rockefeller said.

I don't have to say how despicable this is. Rockefeller may have thought he was only taking a shot at McCain, but the truth is he just slammed every man and woman who puts on the uniform on a daily basis.

McCain has responded with anger, but don't be fooled. There is nothing better for McCain than making this election about prior military service and national defense. I'm sure McCain was loving every word of Rockefeller's comment. Keep it up, libs. There is no better way to get a Republican elected.

How exactly do you insult a man for his service when that man spent 6 years in a Vietnamese prison camp? I'm not exactly sure what his intentions were, but his opinion on America's military is quite obvious. Indeed, America's democrat party has left little to question in this area.

--John Kerry basically calls the military uneducated and claims they are terrorizing Iraqi civilians in the middle of the night. This is years after he testifies before Congress and claims the military is guilty of crimes reminiscent of Genghis Khan

--Dick Durbin compares our troops at Gitmo to the Gestapo

--Hillary Clinton accuses the commanding General in Iraq of lying

--Barak Obama suggest the military is just "air raiding villages and killing civilians"

--Harry Reid labels General Peter Pace, a commander greatly respected among his peers, as "incompetent". Reid is the same person who declared defeat in Iraq as our soldiers were actively engaged with the enemy

And now, Senator Rockefeller weighs in. He has since issued the obligatory bland apology, no doubt under pressure from Obama who is looking to avoid further labels of weak and anti-military. Senator Obama has issued a statement that he disagrees with Rockefeller's comments, but stopped short of condemning his key supporter.

But remember.....they support the troops!

April 6, 2008 -- Hillary Rodham Clinton "misspoke" again on the campaign trail - and a distraught Ohio family is furious about it. Several times in recent months while talking about her plan for universal health care, Clinton told a tale of woe about a young pregnant woman who sought medical care at a local hospital and was turned away for lack of insurance - and both she and the baby died. But the family of the 35-year-old woman - Trina Bachtel - says the story is simply not true. "Trina had good insurance. She was a good girl, and she worked hard. That story made her look like she was a welfare bum," her 80-year-old grandmother May Mayle told The Post yesterday. FULL STORY

The hits just keep coming for Clinton, who continues to have problems telling the truth. But what kills me about her whoppers is how she dismisses the gaffe by saying she "misspoke". Huh?

Misspoke means you said the wrong date, or didn't pronounce someone's name right, or said the wrong time or place. What Clinton is doing is far from mis-speaking. She's telling lies that would make a third grade child or an amateur fisherman proud. But let's put aside the lies for a moment. After all, if you're surprised that the Clintons are liars then you aren't too fast on the uptake in the world of politics.

Instead, let's focus on the intelligence, or lack thereof, in her tales. First, the sniper incident. Did she really expect us to believe this one? If the first lady had landed under hostile fire it would have made every newscast across the country and people would still talk about it today. The commander at the respective facility, along with the pilot, would have faced some tough questions and probably disciplinary action. It would have been a big deal, and not something easily forgotten by the American people. Clinton overshot a bit with this one. Maybe she should have said she visited a place that just one week prior was under sniper fire. That one she could've gotten away with.

Now, the heartbreaking tale of the woman and her baby who died simply because they didn't have health insurance. This, of course, fits Hillary's agenda. She would have us believe that people are dying every day because of lack of insurance. The truth is, hospitals can't and don't turn people away because of inability to pay. If there is a medical emergency, the hospital is obligated to treat it. That's why hospitals along the border are closing their doors. Too many people walk across the line and show up in the ER for "free" health care. So when Hillary told this story I immediately knew it was crap, and the family later came out to verify it. Turns out the woman did have the money to pay, and did have very good health insurance. Her death was an unavoidable medical tragedy, not George Bush's fault.

So Hillary continues to get caught lying. These aren't accidents. They're not gaffes, or examples of mis-speaking. They are bold-faced lies and she appears to be losing her edge a bit. But one really has to question the intelligence here. Yes, the lies are bad, but they are stupid lies at that, not something we would typically see in a presidential candidate.

As originally posted by John Lott on Fox News.com

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn’t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought that the economy was fine. But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were in a recession even while the economy was still growing. Gas prices are going up. The economy is slowing. Talk of recession is seemingly everywhere. While the majority of people rate their personal finances positively, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged to a 16-year low, well below what it was during the last year of the Clinton administration when we were in a recession. A Nexis search on news stories during the three-month period from July 2000 through September 2000 using the keywords “economy recession US” produces 1,388. By contrast, the same search over just the last month finds 3,166. Or, even more telling, take the three months from July through September last year, when the GDP was growing at a phenomenal 4.9 percent. The same type of Google search shows 2,475 news stories

FULL STORY

I always appreciate it when the mainstream media gets caught doing what they adamantly claim they don't do, which is show bias. For the past several months, every time I turn around I hear the word "recession" even though I don't really see any evidence around me that the economy is going backwards. Nevertheless, these so-called objective journalists continue to report about the recession.

I like what Lott did with his Nexis search. Most people would say that the last time we were in a recession was during Daddy Bush's last term. Actually, there was no recession during the Bush presidency and the last time we were in an actual recession was during Clinton's last year in office. Funny how the media seems to have so much power over our perception.

And Senator Obama has joined the mix: “As most experts know, our economy is in a recession.” Well, this is not true. Isn't doesn't take an economic expert to know that a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We have yet to experience one quarter of negative growth, so it's pretty foolish to speculate that we are in a recession. And notice that Obama doesn't mention who these "experts" are that he refers to. Either Obama doesn't know how a recession is defined or he is being rather reckless with his verbage. Either way, it really makes me wonder if the whole "inexperience" attacks on him may have some merit.

Well, for Obama's sake, here are the facts about our economy as cited by Lott:

-- The average unemployment rate during President Clinton was 5.2 percent. The average under President George W. Bush is just slightly below 5.2. The current unemployment rate is4.8 percent, almost half a percentage point lower than these averages.

-- The average inflation rate under Clinton was 2.6 percent, under Bush it is 2.7 percent. Indeed, one has to go back to the Kennedy administration to find a lower average rate.

--seasonally adjusted civilian employment is 650,000 people greater than it was a year ago. Personal income grew at a strong half of one percent in just February.

And yet, most people seem to believe that the economy was SO much stronger under Clinton. Too many people believe what they read in the newspaper, and when you couple that with biased journalism it makes for some dangerous politics. Seek the facts, people. You may be surprised at what you find.

BEIJING (Reuters) - At least two people have died in fresh protests in a Tibetan part of western China, reports said on Tuesday, as authorities made arrests in Tibet's capital Lhasa in an effort to reassert control over the restive region. State media said one police officer was killed and the exiled Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy reported one Tibetan protester shot dead and another critically hurt after unrest in Sichuan's Ganzi (Garze) Tibetan Prefecture. "The police were forced to fire warning shots, and dispersed the lawless mobsters," the brief Xinhua news agency report said, without mentioning any deaths of protesters, who it said attacked with rocks and knives. FULL STORY

The "lawless mobsters" attacked the mightly Chinese military with rocks and knives. State media says this lawless mob killed one police officer. State media does not mention how many of the lawless mobsters were killed in the Chinese military response to their assault with rocks and knives. And since China has banned international media from the area, we may never know just how bad this has gotten. Are we looking at another Tiananmen Square on a grander scale? Who knows?

French President Sarkozy has not ruled out an Olympic boycott. President Bush maintains his intention to have America at the Beijing games. As for me, I think the discussion needs to begin.

It has always been a firm inherent belief of mine that ALL men are entitled to liberty. This is an American principle and it is a Christian principle. No one should be forced to be part of a nation they don't want to be part of. No one should be enslaved to another. No one should be forced to serve another against his will. People have the right to govern themselves as they see fit. As Jefferson once wrote, I believe liberty is a God-given human right. The people of Tibet are protesting for independence. They are protesting for liberty. Therefore, they have my full support and should have America's full support since the liberty of men is as fundamentally American as it gets.

China has responded as predicted, with military might. They have built up their forces in western China and if these protests continue you can be certain that China's response will be swift and brutal. Capitalism has taken hold in China and with that comes a gradual loss of power among the communist elites. Communism and capitalism simply can not coexist for long. China's communist days are numbered and their party leaders surely see that, and they won't go down without a fight. Not that the Tibetan protests have anything to do with capitalism, those people simply want independence. My point is that Chinese communist leaders are surely getting trigger happy and won't have much tolerance for any unrest in their country. I am deeply concerned for the Tibetan people and I fear they are facing something terrible. Some people may think that China won't take such bold action this close to their spotlight Olympic games. I disagree. Desperation is a fierce motivator.

I feel that President Bush should sit down with Congressional leaders and start talking about options. Granted, we must tread lightly given China's economic might, but we can't allow that to keep us from advocating for liberty. I don't think threatening a boycott is appropriate. That would simply put the Chinese leaders on the defensive. They won't respond well to threats. But our political leaders must be prepared to boycott the games if China reverts to military brutality in Tibet. This discussion must happen now so that if and when China takes action, we can respond the very next day. I simply don't see how we can possibly send an Olympic team to China so soon after a bad outcome in Tibet. It would violate everything America stands for.

My sincere hope is that China's communist leaders read the tea leaves and see that inappropriate action in Tibet will threaten their beloved games. My hope is that they allow the protests and allow the international media access to the area. It will go a long way in improving China's image just as they prepare to host the world in Beijing.

He is Risen!

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to aniont Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb?"But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him, just as He told you.'"

Mark 16:1-8

"typical white person"

"Typical white person" - This is the phrase Barack Obama used to describe his grandmother when asked to explain comments he made in his speech. Basically, Obama was saying that sometimes white people, especially older generation white people, fear blacks. When he used the phrase 'typical white person' there was a bit of a gasp in some news organizations. It's a good thing he didn't call grandma a 'silly cracker'.

As a white person, I can proudly say that Obama's 'typical white person' words did not offend me at all. Give me a break. The political correctness in this country has eclipsed the point of ridiculous. We are in territory not yet defined, and things have gotten out of hand. Senator Obama was making a simple point. I don't think he was bashing white folks or suggesting anything racist. There's no need to get bent out of shape about it.

However, I am a bit intrigued by the irony at play. First, the double standard is obvious. While there were a few ripples of offense from Obama's remark, it isn't nearly as bad as the thunderous condemnation that would have echoed had a Republican said something similar about blacks. Let's be honest, is it possible to utter the words "typical black person" in any context without being immediately branded a racist, bigot, etc? And if it were John McCain uttering those words? Well, his campaign for president would be over. But the double standard will always be the rule.

I also found it ironic that the day before this Obama gave a speech about racism, part of which blasted conservative pundits for being dishonest in claiming that reverse discrimination occurs here and there. And the next day Obama utters a phrase that is basically stereotyping white people. It's almost too good to be true and I'm sure the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world appreciated it.

Again, stereotyping isn't always a bad thing and I don't think we should beat Obama up about it. I am guilty of doing it from time to time. For example, I may say that Democrats tend to believe in Marxism, moral relativism, income redistribution and full government control of just about everything in society. That hardly makes me a bad person or narrow-minded.

So let's be realistic. Barack Obama may be many things, but I don't think he has a problem with white people. However, I did appreciate the irony in his comment.

Barack Obama gave a hair-raising speech about race relations in America yesterday. As expected, the Left and his supporters continue to swoon and sing his praises while the Right says it wasn’t enough and continues to ask many tough questions. I found it typical for him, a great speaker but an empty suit. Obama consistently displays a talent for pointing out America's flaws and describing the utopian society that comes after those flaws are corrected. Yet, he consistently falls short of explaining his plan for correcting things, and how he plans to take us to that utopia. What he says sounds wonderful, until you ask how he plans to do it. Meanwhile, in the wake of the recent controversy regarding Jeremiah Wright, non-partisans and moderates are left asking just one simple question…What does race have to do with it?

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with what Obama said in his speech. Yes, race continues to be a heated political issue. Yes, it is divisive. Yes, we need to maintain healthy dialogue and unite to heal our racial divisions. That’s all great and I’m all for it. But what does that have to do with the issue at hand? Unless I’m mistaken, the discussion has been Obama’s ties with a controversial anti-American preacher. Perhaps that preacher has made some racially charged statements, but race is not the driving issue here. The driving issue is how we perceive our country. Is it good or is it bad? Are we right or wrong and where have we sided historically in that great conflict between good and evil? This is a fundamental question that, in many ways, is more divisive than race. Some Americans believe this country is inherently bad and is in need of drastic reform (ie, socialism and Marxism) while MOST Americans feel we are inherently good and have been throughout history. That’s what the issue is. Yet, for some reason, Barack Obama continues to make race a major issue in this campaign and I don’t understand why.

Someone needs to explain to the Senator that the majority of Americans don’t have a problem with the fact that he is black. If he wants to heal our racial divisions, I think it starts with that simple admission. Most Americans would vote for a black candidate if he were qualified. Most Americans would not vote against a qualified candidate simply because of his/her race (or gender for that matter). For someone who insists that his candidacy is not about race, he sure is making a big deal about his own ethnicity.

Once again, as is often the case, a Democrat politician has completely missed the point. Obama is losing favor among moderates and independents because of his affiliation with Rev Jeremiah Wright. That is a fact. And he isn’t losing favor because Wright is black, or because Wright makes racially charged comments. He’s losing favor because Wright is making anti-American comments. That’s the fundamental problem here, and Obama has completely ignored it.

The fact is, most Americans think favorably of their country. Most Americans believe America is a nation that has made mistakes, but is overall a nation of good. Yes, there are many in this country who think America is bad or evil or whatever, but they tend to be radical Leftists and are clearly the minority. Rev Wright is one of these people, and his comments reflect it. THAT’s what makes people mad and that’s what has turned moderates and independents away from Obama. We don’t care that Wright is black. We don’t care that Obama is black. We do care that a sitting Senator and presidential candidate affiliates himself with someone who sees the US and Al Qaeda on equal ground and says there is no moral difference between Hiroshima and 9/11. That kind of statement may find favor and agreement among the radical Left, but it is highly offensive to most Americans. Race has nothing to do with it. If Obama’s pastor were white and still saying these things, Obama would still be facing the same problem.

But, Obama’s speech yesterday focused on race and not the anti-American sentiment voiced by Wright. It is a major oversight and will prove to be costly to Obama. It shows that, as with most Democrats, he just doesn’t get it. The Democrat party has time-and-again sided with the anti-American crowd, dating back to the Vietnam and Cold War days. If there is a cry against America, it is usually coming from our Leftist population and, frankly, that is the major reason why people vote against (or sometimes for) Democrats. That party has slowly become synonymous with anti-Americanism and it has hurt them in the past two presidential elections and will likely hurt them in this one. Anti-American rhetoric is rejected by the vast majority of citizens and this is no different. That’s why I say the Wright issue won’t hurt Obama in the primary season but will certainly hurt him in the general election. We are already seeing it happen.

Senator Barack Obama is a black man and he needs to get over it. Instead of pointing this out repeatedly, he needs to explain why he is qualified to lead the most powerful nation on the planet as Commander in Chief, and he needs to explain why he lends his stature to a man who holds vile contempt towards his country. So far, Obama has failed to do this and if he continues to make his race a primary issue in this election, while ignoring the true issues at hand, he will certainly lose.

We don’t care that you’re black, Senator. Please explain why you associate with and support a man who sees no moral difference between Hiroshima and 9/11.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright. If the name doesn't sound familiar, then do an internet search and pay close attention to what you find. The name will certainly become more familiar in the media, especially if Barack Obama wins the Democrat nomination and we get closer to the general election.



Rev. Wright is Barack Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor. He presided over Obama's wedding. He baptized Obama's children. Obama has been a member of his church for nearly 20 years. And he has a history of saying some vile things about America. Some of these things include statements that America is no better than Al Qaeda, that the US government has facilitated the spread of AIDS to kill minorities, that America has "raped" every corner of the globe, and one of his sermons includes the phrase "God damn America" multiple times. Supporters will defend the remarks and say they are taken out of context. I personally find it hard to take a claim that the US is deliberately killing blacks with AIDS out of context. But that's what they say.



In Obama's defense, he states that he was only recently made aware of Wright's remarks and that he adamantly disagrees with them. He stands by Wright as a friend and spiritual mentor, but he denounces the man's anti-US rhetoric. Fair enough.



Pundits say this is going to hurt him badly. Tonight, O'Reilly cited a recent poll showing a 5% drop in Obama's favorability rating since the story broke. And now for my observations:



First, Hillary Clinton is noticeably silent on the issue. She hasn't responded and she doesn't have to. The story speaks for itself. The less she says the better for her. John McCain has made a statement that everyone has friends with whom they don't always agree. He has decided not to get muddy. The GOP in general has also remained silent. Rest assured, that won't last as we get closer to the general election.



I don't think this will hurt Obama in the remainder of the primary race. Granted, many Latinos will reject Wright's rhetoric, and many Jews will not be comfortable with the man's close association with Louis Farrakhan, but Obama's support among those groups wasn't very high to begin with. The fact is, many on the Left and in the Democrat party actually agree with Wright's remarks. There is strong anti-US sentiment on the Left, so I don't see Obama losing that much support among the Left. However, if this story resurfaces during the general election, it WILL hurt Obama. Mainstream Americans will reject this mess and rightfully so.



There is something that bugs me about this. Obama has been a member of this church for 20 years and yet claims he knew nothing about Wright's opinions. I find that impossible to believe. If even my most casual of acquaintances held Wright's beliefs I would pick up on it. And this man has been Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor for the past 20 years who has repeatedly spewed his hatred from the pulpit. These aren't isolated comments. There is no way Obama wasn't aware of Wright's beliefs and rhetoric. For the first time in this campaign, I believe Obama is lying. And I've been more than fair towards him despite my disagreement with his politics, so my sentiments shouldn't be discarded as partisan. At the very least his judgment is in question if he is willing to closely associate, as a US Senator and presidential candidate, with someone who has such vile hatred of America. Is this the judgment of a US President?



But there's more. There was the story of Obama not wearing the US flag on his lapel. Then the story of him not properly covering his heart during the national anthem. Then the story of his wife's comments about being proud of her country. Independently these things may not be a big deal and I would generally dismiss them as isolated and anecdotal. But with the Wright issue, I'm beginning to wonder if there is a pattern here. Obama is adored by socialists and neo-Marxists, and the mainstream media (the center of American Marxism) has buried the Wright story. Is this a pattern? I can't help but wonder how Obama truly feels about America, despite having read one of his books. It certainly warrants discussion.



Obama is in a tough spot. The more he distances himself from Wright, the more he looks afraid of his pastor and friend for 20 years. There really isn't anything he can do to help the situation and is left basically hoping it goes away. I still think he wins the nomination without a problem, which may be a problem for Democrats because they know the GOP won't let this story die. Even if McCain won't do it, you better believe the GOP party will be airing Wright's comments all over the place. The Democrats are having a tough time shaking their reputation as being "anti-American" and this doesn't help. I'm sure there are many in the party wondering if they bet on the wrong horse. Putting this guy up against a bona fide war hero and former POW is going to be an electoral disaster for Democrats. That's fine with me. Minimizing socialism in American government is always a good thing. As for Obama, I'd like to know how he truly feels about America, because now I'm wondering just how truthful the man has been during his campaign.

Character attack x 2

The recent political races have gotten ugly and at the center of the ugliness are a few character attacks that I can't let go without comment.

First, Geraldine Ferraro. She makes a statement that some people disagreed with. I won't detail it but she basically says that Barack Obama would not be where is if he weren't black. I hear this and immediately agree with it. He is a first term junior Senator with zero national defense experience. His record is virtually nonexistant and he relies on incredible oratory talent rather than ideas and solutions to charm his supporters. His rise to the top of the ticket has been fueled by solidarity among blacks, something rarely seen these days. Because of this, he has dominated the southern states, a primary reason for his current lead. Take away the victories in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina and his lead vanishes. These are states with proportionately higher black populations. I strongly feel that a white junior Senator with the same talent and lack of experience would not have such solid support among blacks. Certainly not enough to overcome Hillary in these states. And a similar white candidate would have most definitely felt more scrutiny from the mainstream media for his lack of substance. Ferraro's comments were spot on and hardly abrasive or insulting.

However, the Obama campaign seized upon the moment to paint Ferraro as a racist. Of course, they didn't use those words exactly, but the implications were clear. Obama himself demanded Ferraro be removed from the Hillary campaign, all while maintaining his "high ground" position. This left a nasty taste in my mouth. I'm slowly losing my respect for the man. Geraldine Ferraro may be many things, but a racist isn't one of them. Yet she has been forced to defend her name and character for her insightful comment. This is most definitely a taste of things to come. My gut tells me that if Obama wins the nomination (which he likely will), the race card will be dealt many, many times...often from the bottom of the deck. This, of course, from a campaign who maintains that race is a non-issue in this election. Take it to the bank, ANY republican who criticizes Obama's record, lack of experience, or policy will feel the wrath of the racist witch hunters. Ferraro is just the first victim. Al Sharpton is quickly gathering his army of Betty Parrises and Abigail Williamses to launch their tirades against Obama's opponents. Bet on it.

The other victim of political spin is John McCain. Again, I have my differences with him but I do feel he is an honest man with a solid career and a solid record. I believe my tax dollars are safe with McCain, something I rarely say about any politician. The Air Force decided it was time to upgrade their fleet and, of course, Boeing was there ready to sign the contract. Boeing is an American company. McCain was bothered by the fact that Boeing was about to get a no-bid government contract. He felt that was unfair to American tax payers. So he takes action to get the Air Force to open the contract to bids. After all, competition lowers prices and the tax payers win. The Air Force listens and they open the bids, and European Airbus beats Boeing in the bid. And so the big stink begins. McCain is painted as crooked, as anti-American-business. He is criticized for "cheating" a US company out of a huge contract. His critics cry about the loss of US jobs, etc.

Well, McCain was right. When the government has a big contract they should open it to bids. The idea is to save tax payer dollars. McCain knew he was opening himself to criticism but he did the right thing despite the risk, and I stand by him for it. There won't be any loss of jobs. The planes will be built in Alabama by American workers. The problem is these workers won't be union, and that's likely why the Democrats are crying foul. This, along with the NY Times slander and Obama's recent behavior, has now put me firmly in McCain's corner in the upcoming election.

I'd also like to point out that the same people criticizing McCain for demanding bids on government contracts also attack Bush-Cheney for granting a no-bid contract to Halliburton (a US company) to do a job that only a handful of companies worldwide were capable of doing. They attack Bush for one thing, and attack McCain for the exact opposite. Where exactly DO the Democrats stand on government contracts?

These attacks absolutely sicken me. The Democrats have proven time and again that politics is a nasty game and there are NO limits to the depth they will stoop to gain political favor. They will eat their own if the need arises, Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton can now attest to that. The Democrat party has devolved into a party of pimps, hustlers and snake-oil salesmen in fancy suits. There is nothing these people won't say or do to win an election and the day America rejects them as a legitimate political party is the day America becomes a better country.

WASHINGTON — President Bush, dispatching Vice President Dick Cheney to the Middle East, said the goal is to get Israelis and Palestinians to hold firm to the promises they've made toward peace. FULL STORY

If this gives you a sense of deja vu, you're not alone. It seems to me that every time I look at the news, a politician or dignitary is visiting the Middle East in the latest attempt to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Am I crazy, or didn't Condi Rice just return from there not too long ago? Now, apparently, it's Dick Cheney's turn. I guess it's time to try something closer to a strong-arm tactic. Who knows.

I admire President Bush and I understand what he's trying to do. I've heard the skeptics scoff and say that he's desperately searching for a legacy. I disagree. Bush has always wanted to see peace in Israel and ever since his campaign in 2000 he has advocated for an independent Palestinian state. This is nothing new and it has nothing to do with a legacy. I feel his intentions are true and I respect and admire him for it. That's not to say that I agree with it. While pushing for peace in Israel and surrounding areas is admirable, I feel (like many leftist dreams) it is idealistic and far beyond America's responsibility. Basically, it's none of our business and we're better served by staying out of it. If peace happens, it's going to have to happen between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Our interference won't help the process.

Ever since Israel became a nation, American leaders have worked hard to bring peace to the area, more so since the Carter years, and so far our efforts have been futile. There is no reason to think that Bush's efforts would be different. While I would love to see peace come to that area, I simply don't think it's going to happen in our lifetime. Further proof of this was apparent the day after a gunman entered a Jewish religious institution and opened fire on several unarmed ministry students. The killings were random, the victims innocent civilians. The next day, the streets were full of Palestinians celebrating this horrendous act. That tells me that at least ONE of the involved parties is not interested in peace but would rather see their neighbors eliminated. Until that changes, until we see some evidence that the Palestinians are willing to coexist with Israel as a neighbor, then I don't think we have any business trying to negotiate peace between the two. Israel is busy fighting random acts of violence against its citizens, who are we to ask them to negotiate with those carrying out those acts?

Our areas of intervention should be limited to places that pose a risk of harm to us directly. The Palestinians pose no such risk. They want the extermination of the Israelis. Perhaps one day they will focus on us, but it isn't now. Therefore, we need to stay out of it. Let Israel take care of its own business while we deal with the Husseins, Bin Ladens and Ahmadinejads of the world. We can still be allies and strongly support Israel while taking as less active role in that nation's affairs.

The latest assault on individual liberty and parental rights has occurred in the People's Republic of Californistan. There a three-judge panel has ruled that parents must have a teaching credential to home-school their children, or face potential criminal prosecution. Although they don't say so specifically, this ruling effectively bans home schooling in an obligatory bow to the cornerstone of the Left...the teacher's unions. And they say politics stops at the courthouse doors.

We live in a time when people call for the President's resignation over wiretapping terrorists. Yet, here we have 3 judges mandating that our children can only be educated by government-approved teachers. If that doesn't disturb you, then you either have a problem with naivety or are due to renew your Stalin fan club membership. There are many parents who don't want their children in public or private schools and they have the right to make that decision without facing prison time. Once again, activists judges have chosen to invade and infringe upon the rights and privacy of the people. There is no need for this ruling and I doubt it will stand up on appeal (at least that's my hope). These judges have created law and thus overstepped their bounds, and the people of Californistan should not tolerate it. The precedent is clear, and very dangerous.

The location doesn't surprise me. California is one Bolshevik away from establishing the "people's party". But still, I am a bit shocked at the audacity of the judges, and the lack of outcry. If Bush does something like this in the war on terror he is compared to Hitler and butchered in the press. Yet these unelected judges blatantly assault our individual rights without so much as a whimper from the people and the mainstream media. How foolish we've become. A wise man once said that every time Congress meets, we all lose a little liberty. I think the same can now be said of our courts.