POLITICALLY INCORRECT VIEW POINTS???

YOUTH WASTED ON THE YOUNG

2010-01-15T15:36:00.005-06:00

FRONTPAGEMAG.ORG

Geert Wilders (a good Dutchman like me) is absolutely right in his warnings.

"I think it's completely wrong that someone who promotes racism and intolerance should be given a platform at this university," said Temple student Josh Rosenthal. "It's hate speech disguised as free speech." Idiot.

Another student, Joseph Rodrigues, said that being able to voice unpopular opinions is a freedom not to be taken lightly. "I might not like what he said, but I think it's important that he be allowed to say it," he said. Intelligent.

Terrorism Awareness Project
Home News Multimedia Links TAP YouTube Channel About
Anti-Islamic Dutch Lawmaker Event at University Cut Short as Crowd Turns Nasty

"Where Islam sets roots, freedom dies," Geert Wilders told the students during his 30-minute address organized by a new student group called Temple University Purpose and funded by the California-based David Horowitz Freedom Center, a foundation that promotes conservative scholarship.

His remarks were met by a mixture of applause and boos, and occasionally gasps — particularly when he stated that "our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture and we should defend it."

He decried as a "disgrace" a resolution co-sponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, and backed by the U.N. Human Rights Council earlier this month, deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right. Wilders also criticized President Barack Obama for his efforts to extend a hand to the Islamic world, saying that such appeasement marks "the beginning of the end."

If the spread of Islam continues unabated in the Western world, "you might at the end of the day lose your Constitution," he told the assembly. "Wake up, defend your freedom."

He also touched on common themes in his speeches, including calling for an end to Muslim immigrationand referring to the Muslim holy book, the Quran, as "an evil book" that promotes violence and intolerance.

A question-and-answer session was cut short after the tone of the event began to turn nasty, when some in the crowd of several hundred students began shouting jeers. Wilders' security detail quickly ushered him from the room.

"In order to improve our understanding of others, we need to learn," said Alvaro Watson of Purpose, the student group. "We can't fight for something if we only know one side."

Before his remarks at Temple, a public university serving about 34,000 students, Wilders showed his 15-minute anti-Islam film, "Fitna," which juxtaposes passages from the suras, or chapters, of the Quran with images of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, beheadings, shootings and speeches from clerics advocating violence against non-Muslims.

"I think it's completely wrong that someone who promotes racism and intolerance should be given a platform at this university," said Temple student Josh Rosenthal. "It's hate speech disguised as free speech."

Another student, Joseph Rodrigues, said that being able to voice unpopular opinions is a freedom not to be taken lightly. "I might not like what he said, but I think it's important that he be allowed to say it," he said.

Temple officials issued a statement saying the university "is a community of scholars in which freedom of inquiry and freedom of expression are valued."

"We respect the right of our student organizations to invite people who express a wide variety of views and ideas," the school said in a statement.

British officials once banned Wilders from visiting for fear it would spark violence. He successfully sued the government and visited Friday.

Wilders is scheduled to speak at Columbia University in New York on Wednesday.

* About
* Links
* Events
* Contact/About Us
* Store
* Support Us

© 2007 Terrorism Awareness Project All Rights Reserved.
5,513,520 unique visitors since January 31, 2007

Marquisdejolie On Video: Contact PTSD

2008-12-12T01:00:00.000-06:00

Marquisdejolie On Video: Contact PTSD

American Revolution & Founding Era: Myths About the Founding

2008-11-09T08:04:00.000-06:00

American Revolution & Founding Era: Myths About the Founding

BLACK IS FOR MOURNING--NOT RACISM

2008-11-07T07:13:00.001-06:00

Mourning In America
Mike Gallagher
Friday, November 07, 2008

Just how strange has this week been?

Real strange.

Thursday morning, I appeared on Fox & Friends, the morning talk show on Fox News Channel. I was to “debate” Lanny Davis, the longtime Clinton loyalist.

Obviously, the show wanted a reaction to this week's election from a liberal like Lanny and a conservative like me. I thought I'd have some fun and at the last minute, affixed black duct tape to my right arm.

The way the week turned out for the GOP, I figured wearing a black armband on TV would be pretty appropriate.

Poor Lanny didn't seem to get the joke. “It's pretty silly to be listening to someone give advice to the incoming Obama administration while wearing a black armband”, he sputtered.

Liberals never seem to have much of a sense of humor, even in victory.

Besides, Lanny, I wasn't giving any advice, I was just expressing an opinion. Unless you guys get your wish and the return of the Fairness Doctrine knocks people like me off the airwaves for good, I think I'm still allowed to express some views, aren't I? But things really took a turn when I got to my radio studio office after the TV appearance and found a bunch of angry emails waiting for me.

The nature of the complaints? That I was a racist because I wore a BLACK armband as a way to express my dissatisfaction with the election.

I'm not kidding.

Here's a sample:

“Gallagher, you racist pig. How dare you wear a black armband on Fox? Do you not know what that means to black people? I'm glad your bigertery (sic) is finally on display for the world to see.

Cedric

Houston, TX”

And another: “I'm a little surprised you didn't wear a white hood on TV this morning, Gallager (sic). You are a big, fat, racist m***** *****r who needs to have his butt whipped.

Tonya

Los Angeles”

And one more gem:

“Watching you wear a black armband, which everyone knows insults black people, made me immediately wish for your painful death. I'd like to think that will happen, but it probably won't. I'm a pessimist by nature.

Bill L.

Orlando”

Wow. And I thought Lanny Davis was grumpy.

These angry people even motivated me to try and Google references to black armbands somehow being offensive to Black people.

All I found was precisely what I thought, that it's a symbol of mourning, a sign of grieving or sadness. Nothing at all about race.

Then again, there are people who manage to find racial turmoil everywhere they turn.

The great Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institution wrote a terrific piece after the election about how President-elect Obama managed to tap into the stigma that many White Americans feel about race. He opined that many people have been looking for something -- anything -- to relieve the burden felt by years of being blamed for racism.

What better solution than to elect a Black man president?

Naturally, race played a significant factor in this year's election. Finally, there is an answer to the rhetorical question, “Is America able to elect a Black president?”

And I expect that there is a pretty simple response to those who wonder if we can finally retire the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world and move beyond arguing about race relations incessantly.

Yes we can.

And we should.

Over and over, we were told that a vote for Barack Obama would be a way to “pay the debt” owed to millions of Black people. We would right the wrongs of the past; we would show the world how progressive we are.

I trust the debt has been paid.

Personally, I've always longed for the day when a Black person would be elected president.

Just not this Black person.

But by six percentage points, Americans elected Sen. Obama. Those of us who are the loyal opposition know that now, the battle begins.

We will do everything we can to encourage the Republican Party to rebuild itself. As Sen. Jim Demint (R, SC) told me, we need to find GOP leaders who are willing to adhere to the Reagan-era values that made many of us become Republicans in the first place.

We will challenge every crazy and wrong-headed move the Democrats come up with; we will follow the D.C. leaders closely and be sure to alert our readers, listeners and viewers to every misstep, every blunder, each and every attempt to run this country into the ground.

But for now, we will simply congratulate the other side for their victory. Sure, the mainstream media helped make it happen.

And of course the deck was stacked against Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin. But there's no sense crying in our soup. Come inauguration day, we just need to be prepared to take on the Democrat establishment.

As many parents have taught their children: never start a fight, but be sure to finish it. We shall do our best.

Just how strange has this week been?

Check this out: a listener to my radio show emailed me and claimed that the day after the election, the Illinois Lottery featured a creepy winning number and that I should check it out.

Sure enough, I confirmed the bizarre claim. On the day after the election, in the Evening Pick Three lottery drawing in Obama's home state of Illinois, the winning number was 666.

Don't believe me? See for yourself. www.IllinoisLottery.com Click on the “numbers/ jackpots” tab and look up Nov. 5, 2008.

I'm sure that's just a coincidence. I certainly don't believe those who fear that Obama is the actual anti-Christ.

Then again, what are the odds of the mark of the beast being Illinois' winning lottery number the day after the election?

I think I'll go back to wearing my armband. For a long, long time...

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

2008-10-29T22:32:00.000-05:00

Views: What Do Guns Mean to Americans? The NRA vs. the Brady Campaign
Americans revere their Constitution but they can vehemently disagree on how to interpret specific passages. The 2nd Amendment is a prime example of how individual rights, self-defense, violence and American culture can produce such passion and divisiveness. The non-partisan Web site Opposing Views asked the NRA and the Brady Campaign what guns mean to Americans.
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Click here to read more debates on gun rights and gun control.
The Freedom to Protect Yourself, Your Family, and Your Community
By Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA executive director
America's 80 million gun owners could give 80 million answers to this question. To hunters, guns mean a day with family and friends, enjoying the beauty of the outdoors. To gun collectors, they provide a connection to the inventors, craftsmen, warriors and pioneers of days gone by. To competitive shooters, they provide an opportunity for self-mastery, through the discipline of training and the forge of competition.
Most important, though, is that guns provide an effective means of exercising the God-given, individual right of self-defense. To America's founders, that right was a hallmark of individual freedom in our new nation. Thomas Jefferson -- an avid gun collector and hunter -- said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms," and Thomas Paine said, "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe."
While the founders were mainly concerned with "invaders and plunderers" of the political kind, the right is equally important in protecting individuals from the violent "invaders and plunderers" on our streets. In the recent case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized this, declaring that the Second Amendment protects "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
Indeed, the most comprehensive study of gun use to date, by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found that Americans use guns for self-defense against crime more than two million times per year. Certainly today, with 40 states having adopted laws that allow honest citizens to carry handguns for protection outside the home, guns mean much of what they meant to our founders: the freedom to protect yourself, your family, and your community.
We Must Make it Harder for Dangerous People to Get Dangerous Weapons
By Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
When I was 12, I earned an NRA Marksmanship badge at YMCA Camp. I enjoyed learning how to fire a gun at a target and worked at becoming better with practice. But I also took away a deep respect for how dangerous guns were.
Americans have a long history with guns. We used them to tame the frontier, and many Americans consider them important for hunting wildlife or managing pests. But Americans' views on guns often differ depending on where they live.
If you're in the bayous of Louisiana, or the plains of Montana, a gun can be your defense against predators. When the police are far away, you may feel strongly about needing a gun for self-defense. And if someone says we should restrict guns, you worry.
But in urban areas like Philadelphia or South Central Los Angeles or even my home town in Indiana, guns may be best known for injuring young people as a result of gang violence, or police officers at a traffic stop or domestic quarrel. But when you say "we need to controls the weapons available on the streets," other Americans misinterpret you as wanting to limit their rights.
This is why we've had a passionate debate about guns. Finding common ground may have been aided by the Supreme Court decision in June that Americans have a right to have a firearm in their home but that reasonable restrictions on gun access are also lawful.
Guns are always going to be available to law-abiding citizens. But we can take steps to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons.
To read about other issues on Opposing Views, click here

HOW TRUE!

2008-10-13T10:19:00.001-05:00

Intellectual Flyover Country
By Doug Patton
October 13, 2008

Columnist David Brooks is the sort of writer who passes for a conservative at The New York Times. In reality, he is an urbane, pseudo-erudite hack, as evidenced by his latest column.

Brooks contends that the reason conservatives are no longer winning elections is because we have eschewed intellectualism and promoted social class warfare, thereby "driving away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts." In the last two decades, according to Brooks, conservative politicians and "talk-radio jocks" have "divided the nation between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts."

Brooks also asserts that "George W. Bush restrained some of the populist excesses of his party." That argument is absurd. It is precisely because of Bush's excesses, not the GOP's, that he has a 29 percent approval rating: excesses in spending, a nearly trillion-dollar bailout bill, and lax border security. Bush deserves credit for three accomplishments in eight years: modest tax relief, a pair of solid Supreme Court appointments and especially for seven years of terror-free life for the American people. After that, the list of his accomplishments goes downhill quickly.

Yet Brooks lists "anti-immigration fervor" and "isolationism" as the "excesses" from which Bush supposedly saved his party. Question: In what world does David Brooks live that he believes such things? Answer: The solipsistic echo-chamber of New York City.

Brooks criticizes John McCain for choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, as if that is the source of McCain's current problems. He seems to believe that Palin adds to the GOP's exclusion of the groups he thinks have been driven from the party. "Nobody," Brooks writes, "so relentlessly divides the world between the 'normal Joe Sixpack American' and the coastal elite."

But the most astounding part of Brooks' analysis is his statement that Republicans are guilty of alienating whole professions - lawyers, doctors, tech executives, even bankers - all of whom now donate overwhelmingly to Democrats.

As a lifelong resident of flyover country, I hardly know where to begin to refute Brooks' snobbery. So let's stop dancing around the subject. The reason these groups feel alienated from the Republican Party is that they are embarrassed by those of us who want to defend innocent human life and traditional marriage. They simply cannot believe that these issues are more important to us than a temporary drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

But their embarrassment goes much deeper than that. The gulf is primarily a spiritual one. Those of us who believe in fighting for the defense of life and - dare I say it? - for the preservation of normal, traditional, monogamous human sexual relationships do so out of a belief that someone much greater and wiser than we are, namely the Creator of the Universe, has said this is how we should live. This is not an arbitrary position we have taken in order to deny "reproductive rights" to women or "equal rights" to homosexuals. These are strongly held views given to believers by God, universal truths, if you will. No religious tradition in the world believes in killing babies or in homosexual marriage.

So let's be totally honest. George W. Bush has failed the Republican Party and, more importantly, the American people, in almost every regard. He has spent our money in a manner that would make a drunken sailor ashamed, grown the federal government at a faster rate than any president since FDR, colluded with Ted Kennedy and his ilk on education policy, and given us stimulus checks with the caveat to spend them on plasma TVs and IPhones, rather than existing debt (or the terrorists win). And he has spent eight years asleep at the wheel on illegal immigration.

The Republican Party has not rejected intellectualism. The definition of the word has been hijacked by the William Ayer' and the Ward Churchill's of the world, with their pithy rejoinders that 9/11 victims were "little Eichmanns." One need only read Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn or Christopher Buckley to know that conservative intellectualism is alive and well.

What sets conservatives, and by extension the GOP, apart is that we have always encouraged vigorous debate and the civil discourse necessary for the continuation of this American experiment. It is the foundation of our republic and the catalyst to our best ideas. But we succeed in our intellectual pursuits only because they stand firmly on the solid rock of our morality, our spirituality and our admission of and submission to the God that grants our souls the right to breathe. The sinking sand of liberal dogma will never be a suitable substitute.

---

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

Islam In Action: U.S. Muslims Attack gay man in Washington~Video

2008-10-11T20:10:00.000-05:00

Islam In Action: U.S. Muslims Attack gay man in Washington~Video

2008-10-11T19:20:00.000-05:00

Islam In Action: U.S. Muslims Attack gay man in Washington~Video

Islam In Action: Islam4UK: Out With UK law, in With Islamic law

2008-10-06T00:24:00.000-05:00

Islam In Action: Islam4UK: Out With UK law, in With Islamic law

DOUBLE STANDARDS

2008-09-10T09:00:00.003-05:00

Sisterhood Of The Protected Female Liberal Journalists
By Michelle Malkin
September 10, 2008

Let’s talk Mommy Wars, double standards and the media elite. Last Friday, Howard Gutman, a member of the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee, attacked Sarah Palin’s ability to be a good parent and have a high-powered public life at the same time. In a finger-wagging appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio show, Obama’s operative scolded the Republican mother of five children for not putting her professional career on hold.

“Your responsibility is to put your family first,” Gutman lectured as he singled out Palin’s Down Syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter. “The proper attack is not that a woman shouldn’t run for vice president with five kids, it’s that a parent, when they have a family in need” should get out of the public sphere and stay home.

The Gutman standard has now been proffered by countless Obama hacks and water-carrying commentators. Damningly, it’s high-powered working mothers in the journalism business who are helping to broadcast the anti-Palin slams or doing nothing to defend her.

How would Katie Couric like the Gutman standard applied to her? Her husband died at 42 when her daughters were 6 and 2 years old. With two young children devastated by the loss of a father, she opted not to quit journalism. She anchored NBC’s “Today Show” through his illness and death, continued working an intensive, time-consuming schedule as one of America’s most visible broadcast journalists while a single mother with two fatherless children at home, and then jumped to CBS News, where she maintains a rigorous on-air schedule, travel plans and an off-air social calendar. Where are the finger-waggers?

How about CNN’s Soldedad O’Brien? She’s been working overtime covering the presidential campaign season, anchoring daily coverage and nighttime conventions, and producing documentaries that require large chunks of time away from home. Disney’s Family Parenting website lauds her as “a modern mom balancing a thriving career as one of America’s top news anchors along with her four children” — two daughters now ages 7 and 6 and twin boys who are 4. Where are the Palin-bashers to lambaste O’Brien’s professional pursuits?

Also at CNN, Campbell Brown flew to Las Vegas last year to moderate a political debate while 8 and a half months pregnant. Fox News host and left-wing blogger Alan Colmes, last seen questioning Palin’s commitment to prenatal care because she worked and traveled late in her pregnancy, had no comment. When Brown initially left the “Today Show” in 2007, she said she was stepping down to devote more time to family and baby. She immediately turned around and jumped ship to CNN, where she has anchored wall-to-wall CNN Election Center coverage and will launch a new nightly show in November.

At NBC, famous balancer of work and motherhood Meredith Viera replaced Couric on the “Today Show.” She has three children at home and a husband who has battled multiple sclerosis and two bouts of colon cancer. By the Gutman standard, Viera should have left the business years ago to tend to her family in need.

As a working woman in the media for 16 years and a working mother in the media for the last eight, I know the commitment and energy it took for these women to get to the top. I’ve filed columns from hospital beds, written books while nursing, brought my toddlers to TV studios, and told bedtime stories on the cell phone while boarding planes. I’ve worked hard to strike the “balance” we all seek. I’ve made good choices and bad choices, and have no regrets about the opportunities I’ve taken or the opportunities I’ve rejected. I couldn’t have done it without a supportive husband willing to forego his own career goals — the kind of spouse the media has ignored in Todd Palin and the kind of spouse I’m sure the Sisterhood of the Protected Female Journalists all have.

I don’t challenge the commitment these fellow working mothers in the media have to their home lives. What I challenge is their silence and complicity as the Palin-bashers impose a “Family First” double standard on conservatives. The sorority is closed to the Right.

—

Michelle Malkin is author of “Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.” Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

PALIN A GOOD CHOICE

2008-08-30T19:02:00.003-05:00

McCain VP Pick No Friend to Polar Bears
By Sarah Lai Stirland August 29, 2008 | 1:18:52 PM Categories: Election '08
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has ignored research showing that polar bear populations are declining in the quest to plumb new sources of energy, according to scientists, and environmental groups who fought to put the bears on the endangered species list.
Sen. John McCain tapped Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential candidate Friday. Palin is only the second woman to be on a major party's ticket as VP -- the first was Geraldine Ferraro, who ran with Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, pictured here, disagrees with John McCain on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She's for it, he's against it.

"The governor's going to support senator McCain's policies," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior campaign advisor.

Photo: Associated Press/Al Grillo
The 44-year-old Palin, a beauty pageant winner and former mayor of a small town in Alaska, is an advocate of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has infuriated environmentalists for her support of the aerial shooting of wolves as a way to build up herds of moose and caribou. She's also sued the Interior Department for putting polar bears on the endangered species list.

In the lawsuit, filed this month in federal district court in the District of Columbia, Palin argues that the government's move to list polar bears as endangered is not based on sound science, and restricts oil and natural gas development. The Interior Department had put the bears on the list in response to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups, who argued that the bears are being threatened by global warming.

In an interview on the conservative CNN talk show hosted by Glenn Beck earlier this year, Palin said that she was worried that environmentalists are using the Endangered Species Act to block the extraction of oil and gas.
"In fact, the number of polar bears has risen dramatically over the past 30 years," she said. "Our fear (is) that extreme environmentalists will use this tool, the ESA, to eventually curtail or halt the North Slope production of very rich resources that America needs."

But biologists who have studied polar bear populations counter that the facts simply do not support Palin's assertion that polar bear populations are on the rise.
"Polar bear populations have not been increasing for the past 30 years, and that's a well-known fact," said Ian Stirling, an emeritus scientist with Canada's Department of the Environment and an adjunct professor at the University of Alberta in an interview. Stirling has studied polar bears for 37 years -- the longest of anyone.
In fact, the polar bear population has actually declined by 20 percent in Alaska's Southern Beaufort Sea since the mid-1980s, he says, referring to peer-reviewed research that he's conducted with other scientists for the US Geological Survey. The reason: Loss of their habitat in the form of melting ice.

The population decline in the area is one of six documented declining populations. In all, there are 19 distinct populations of polar bears, but not all of those populations have been surveyed.
The research reports with this information have been available to Palin for more than a year, Stirling says.

"There is currently no way to drill for oil in polar bear seas without imperiling the polar bears," said Kassie Siegel, climate program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Polar bears that come into contact with spilled oil will become coated with oil, will attempt to groom themselves to remove it... and will almost certainly die."

Palin has stated that her opposition to the polar bear listing is based on a scientific review from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Yet documents released by a FOIA request show that the state's biologists agreed with the Interior Department about the polar bear's habitat.
Senator McCain believes that protecting polar bears is important, but that using the endangered species act may not be the best approach to solving the problem -- rather enacting climate change legislation is, says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior advisor to McCain. He added that Palin will support McCain's policies.

"McCain has said many times that policy must be based on sound science," he said. "We will see a difference from the past eight years."
"The governor is going to support senator McCain's policies," Holtz-Eakin said in an interview.
In a statement on the Palin pick, the McCain campaign called her a "tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president, and that "she has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her administration and has a record of delivering on the change and reform that we need in Washington."
The McCain campaign also praised Palin for being independent-minded and standing up to oil companies, yet at the same time "fighting for the development of new energy resources."

Conservative blogs hailed the choice Friday, gleeful at the outrage Palin's election sparked among liberals. The mood around the offices of Townhall.com is sort of like that of Christmastime," wrote blogger Matt Lewis. "Everyone is ecstatic. The pick was perfect, and the execution flawless ... You can tell this is a good pick by the way conservatives love it -- and by the way liberal blogs hate it!"

As the governor of a state that's renowned for valuing civil liberties, Palin received praise from the American Civil Liberties Union this May for letting a bill pass that prohibits the funding of the implementation of REAL-ID, a federal law that requires states to comply with certain technical standards when issuing drivers' licenses.

Governor's Information
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
Born: February 11, 1964
Birth State: Idaho
Party: Republican
Spouse: Todd Palin
Family: Married Todd Palin; five children
Religion: Christian
School(s): University of Idaho
Address: State Capitol
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK
99811-0001
Phone: 907/465-3500
Fax: 907/465-3532
Governor Sarah Palin made history on Dec. 4, 2006, when she took office. The 11th governor of Alaska, she is the first woman to hold the office.
Her top priorities are resource development, education and workforce development, public health and safety, and transportation and infrastructure development. Under her leadership, Alaska invested $5 billion in state savings, overhauled education funding, and implemented the Senior Benefits Program to provide support for low-income older Alaskans. She created Alaska's Petroleum Systems Integrity Office to oversee maintenance of oil and gas equipment, facilities and infrastructure, and a Climate Change Subcabinet to prepare a climate change strategy for Alaska.
Palin's administration passed major legislation that began a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline and overhauled state ethics laws. Palin is chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a multi-state agency that promotes conservation and efficient recovery of domestic oil and natural gas resources while protecting health, safety and environment. She also serves as chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resources Committee. Prior to her election as governor, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as the mayor/manager of Wasilla. During her tenure, she reduced property tax levels while increasing services and made Wasilla a business friendly environment, drawing in new industry. She has served as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's most valuable non-renewable resources. She was elected by her peers to serve as president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

Sarah Heath Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. She received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987. Palin, who graduated from Wasilla High School in 1982, has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. She is married to Todd Palin, a lifelong Alaskan who is a production operator on the North Slope and a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snow machine race. Todd and Sarah fish in Bristol Bay with their children – Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig. Through Todd's Yup'ik grandmother, Alaska's Native heritage plays an important role in their family. Track enlisted in the U.S. Army on Sept. 11, 2007.
Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA and enjoys hunting, fishing, Alaska history, and all that Alaska's great outdoors has to offer.
________________________________________

MORE ON OBAMA

2008-08-01T22:11:00.000-05:00

August 01, 2008
Why I'm Thanking God for Obama
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
Every day, for the past several months, I've made a habit in my morning prayers of thanking God for the emergence of Barack Obama. Not because my hope is in Obama, but because my hope is always, unequivocally in God.

As so many have noted, 2008 is not an ordinary American election.

Rather than two people with different policy positions vying for the President's job, we have one man who understands he's a mere mortal like the rest of us, and one man, who seems to think he is a god.

And y'all know what I'm talkin' about here.

Many of Barack's followers manifest troubling signs of regarding him as at least a demigod. Even while refraining from saying outright that they think he's a god, their belief comes through in the strange messianic iconography of their Obama-glorifying posters, videos and music. Belief in the godlike nature of Barack's powers comes through in their faith in the vast promises he or his surrogates make about the change that's going to come about, not if, but when he becomes president, not just of our Country, but the whole darned world, oceans and all. Or so he seems to think.

The seas will recede. The planet will heal. Everyone will love America again. The sick will all be cured by socialized medicine. The poor will cease to exist. The rich will give all their money to Africa. The government will become efficient. Sin won't happen. The yellow brick road will lead to the White House, not a fantasy land. And the Emperor's clothes will suddenly materialize so that the whole world will actually see something there.

The bottom line here is that Barack Obama does not seem to be running against John McCain. He seems to think he's too big for that. As he told a roomful of Congressional Democrats this week, behind closed doors, he is no longer a mere man, he's "become a symbol of the possibility of America." Considering the scope of the promises he is making and the hope he is offering not only America, but the rest of the world to boot, Barack Obama seems to be running against a far higher power than himself.

Barack Obama actually appears to be running against God. By claiming that he can do things only God can do, like heal "broken souls" and fill up "holes" in people's hearts, make all "divisions" go away and disperse with all inconvenient "distractions," Barack Obama claims power that no mortal man, and certainly no mere president has ever had, or ever will have, no matter how much money he has to spend or how brilliant or how able he may be.

Most rational human beings know this without thinking hard.

That's why this isn't an ordinary election, and why it is becoming more absurd by the hour.

But this is a terrific opportunity for all of us mortal Americans who still love this Country and happen to think that our Founders were onto something quite exceptional in the history of human civilization. This election will not pit Democrats against Republicans, but those who love America against those who just love Barack and think he is the one they've been waiting for to finally close the deal and secure their love for an America perfected by the politics of Barack Obama.

Utopian Claims that Materialize as Misery

For years now, I've occasionally fallen victim to discouragement over strides the rainbow Marxists have made in America and around the world. The Berlin Wall was barely in its shallow grave before communism's sepulchral cries of resurgence began to be heard in places far and near. The Soviet Block was barely broken before western Europeans began doing their best to emulate it and enshrine another form of it's tyranny by binding treaty.

The greatest single Marxist victory has been the systematic re-write of the movement's own bloody history, carried out by leftists in America and western Europe. After WWII, Hitler's Germany was scrubbed clean of its National Socialist underpinnings, and entire generations have been told that Fascism was the polar opposite of Communism. For the past eight years, with the new resurgence of American conservatism, leftists have bombarded the public from sympathetic press pulpits and university lecterns with their "Bush is Hitler" agitprop. And a great many fools have swallowed this lie whole hog.

As Pope Benedict foretold in 2003, in his treatise on the sleeping ambitions of worldwide communism:

"Let us not forget that Marxism, as the one great political force of our twentieth century, made its appearance with the claim to be bringing a new world of freedom and of free people. This very promise of knowing the scientifically guaranteed way to freedom, and of creating the new world, drew to it many of the boldest spirits of our age; ultimately it even appeared as the force through which the Christian teaching of redemption could be transformed into a realistic practical means for liberation - as the force that could bring the Kingdom of God as the true kingdom of men. The collapse of realist socialism in the East European states has not quite laid aside all such hopes, and here and there they still subsist, silently awaiting some new form."
-- Pope Benedict XVI; Truth and Tolerance; p. 233; emphases mine.

Just because this monstrous system puts on a new and younger face does not render it more benign.

Empty Resume, Empty Promises

Obama has arisen from nothingness, from one accomplishment-free political gig to another, propped up by leftists adulators and sycophants, to offer a perfect portrait of socialism's eternal snare. Forget God; put your hope in mankind. Human arrogance and narcissistic pride. From the fall in the Garden to the present, from generation to generation, Satan's delusion holds sway with many.

Barack Obama is walking, talking, breathing narcissism. The iconography of his campaign is nothing, if not the glorification of Obama, a solitary, quite mortal man. They must glorify Obama's image because, in reality, he has no accomplishments that bear mention.

Obama struts his nothingness with grace; even his detractors admit that.

What could more openly and more amply demonstrate the absolute emptiness of socialism's promise than the perfectly empty resume of its newest hero?

What could possibly more adequately prove the personalized utopianism of his followers than that they believe in a man who has borne no fruitful action?

Barack Obama offers "collective salvation" in the form of socialist government interventions in every sphere of life, from starting-at-birth state education, to socialized, universal health care, to a tripling of the already failing AmeriCorps. This socialist answer to all that ails mankind isn't anything new. It's old, tried, and just as untrue now as in its beginning.

Beware the man who promises what man simply lacks the power to bestow.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it."
-- H. L. Mencken

Time and time and time again, this has proven true. Time and time again, new men arise in varying disguise, making the same promises, urging the same change.

God or Barack? This ain't rocket science.

The lesson in socialism's long, failed and scandalous history is actually very simple, I think, not rocket science at all.

Life, as God created it, is basically unfair.

Beginning at the very reality that each human being is unique, without exact duplication anywhere, anytime. Even in the case of identical twins, uniqueness begins at the moment of birth, as each twin experiences a separate reality in his or her environment. With uniqueness comes individuality and at every moment of life, unfairness.

No matter the measure one chooses, whether genetic beauty or physical strength, native intelligence or agility, inherited wealth or power, the benefits bestowed by one's parents or the lack of these. In every single aspect of human life, no matter where one is born or what happens thereafter outside one's control, life is not fair.

I perceive that within the heart of every socialist lies an insurmountable resentment over this basic fact, which is always aimed squarely at God, who made things this way. Arrogant man wants to be like God and design things his own way.

Two thousand years ago, however, Jesus of Nazareth offered the eternal solution to the paradox of unfairness and inequality:

Speaking of God's judgment, Jesus said,

From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.
-- The Gospel of Luke 12:48 (New Revised Standard Version)

All who follow the same God, whether Jewish or Christian, see plainly that God's judgment has nothing whatsoever to do with one's station or gifts in this life, but only with what each individual does with what he is given.

It is certainly no accident that socialism has made its greatest advances among secular people, divorced from God by their own choice, and that today in America, it is the progressive secularists, the hardened socialists and communists, and many radical elements in our society that back Barack Obama's rise. For many of these people, hope in God died long ago.

The salvation that Obama offers comes in the form of radically changing America to a utopian state, which he contends will fix our "broken souls." That simply is not within the province of his abilities.

As Pope Benedict has so wisely and emphatically stated:

Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
-- Truth and Tolerance; p. 116

Barack Obama stands front and center now, offering the age-old false promise that mankind can save itself through "collective redemption," and simply because he employs Christian language and symbols, no genuine lovers of God will be fooled.

Hope in God?

Or hope in Obama?

I thank God every day for giving us Americans such a clear and easy choice. Perhaps He is simply using Barack Obama to separate a bit of chaff from the grain.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent citizen journalist and a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/why_im_thanking_god_for_obama.html at August 01, 2008 - 11:09:52 PM EDT

LIBERALS AND THE OIL-GAS CRUNCH

2008-07-20T16:44:00.005-05:00

TO: President George W. Bush
The Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives: The Hon. Mitch McConnell, The Hon. Jon L. Kyl, The Hon. John Cornyn, The Hon. John Ensign, The Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, The Hon. John R. Thune, The Hon. Richard Burr, The Hon. Norm Coleman, The Hon. Larry E. Craig, The Hon. James M. Inhofe, The Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, The Hon. John E. Sununu, The Hon. David Vitter, The Hon. Jim DeMint, The Hon. John A. Boehner, The Hon. Roy Blunt, The Hon. Eric I. Cantor, The Hon. Adam Putnam, The Hon. Kay Granger, The Hon. John R. Carter, The Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter, The Hon. Tom Cole, The Hon. Robert C. Byrd, The Hon. Harry Reid, The Hon. Richard J. Durbin, The Hon. Charles E. Schumer, The Hon. Patty Murray, The Hon. Charles E. Schumer, The Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, The Hon. Debbie A. Stabenow, The Hon. Jeff Bingaman, The Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Hon. Blanche L. Lincoln, The Hon. Barbara Boxer, The Hon. Thomas R. Carper, The Hon. Bill Nelson, The Hon. Russ Feingold, The Hon. Nancy Pelosi, The Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, The Hon. James Clyburn, The Hon. John Lewis, The Hon. Rahm Emanuel, The Hon. John B. Larson, The Hon. Xavier Becerra, The Hon. Rosa DeLauro, The Hon. George Miller, The Hon. Chris Van Hollen, The Hon. Joseph Crowley, The Hon. Diana L. DeGette, The Hon. Ed Pastor, The Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, The Hon. John S. Tanner, The Hon. Maxine Waters, The Hon. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, The Hon. G.K. Butterfield

President Bush announced on Monday that he would lift a long-standing executive order banning offshore oil drilling and he essentially dared Congress to do the same!

A Little Recent History Is In Order...
Here's what our liberal legislators have done over the past several weeks.
First, liberals attempted unsuccessfully to pass the so-called Boxer Climate Bill.
But it wasn't a "Climate Bill" at all. In actuality, it was really just a huge liberal plot to increase taxes. Here's how Sen. Mitch McConnell described it:
"It is, at its heart, a stealth and giant tax on virtually every aspect of industrial and consumer life. It would result in massive job losses. And it seeks to radically alter consumer behavior, without any measurable benefit to the environment in return."

"And that's why it's so hard to comprehend the Majority's decision to move to a bill, at the start of the summer driving season, that would raise the price of gas by as much as $1.40 a gallon, home electricity bills by about 44 percent, and natural gas prices by about 20 percent."

"Overall, it's expected to result in GDP losses totaling as much as $2.9 trillion by 2050."
Yup, leave it to Barbara Boxer and other liberals in Congress to increase taxes when the price of gasoline at the pump is almost beyond the ability of most Americans to afford it!

But fortunately, because patriotic Americans like you made your voices heard, that bill died an unceremonious death!
But then -- without missing a beat -- several days later, Senate liberals tried to slip through ANOTHER TAX BILL-- masquerading as energy policy.
What were they thinking: Did they wink and chuckle at each other and say:
"Now that the Boxer Bill has failed, they won't be expecting another attempt so soon?"
Fortunately, that measure failed as well!

Meanwhile... In the House of Representatives...
On the House side, Congressman John Peterson introduced an amendment that would have extended the limits of offshore drilling.

Surely, Peterson thought, liberals had gotten the message. The crisis facing our nation was too grave, too painful for "politics as usual." This time he was certain his amendment would pass. It didn't. After the defeat of his amendment, Peterson said: "I was stunned today. I didn't expect this to happen. A lot of Democrats who supported us voted against the amendment. All six Republicans voted 'aye' and all nine Democrats voted 'nay.' I think 'Pelosi Power' was lurking. They were strong-armed from above." These days, Pelosi Power rules Capitol Hill. San Francisco values are the values of today. It's DOWN with people and UP with the snail darter, the Wyoming toad, and the Colorado squawfish.

Left-wing fanatics and environmental whackos are thumbing their noses at their fellow citizens -- a growing number of whom can barely afford to drive to work.
And, as analyst Stephen Schork recently predicted,
"If you think your gasoline bills are expensive now, wait till you get your home heating bill this winter."
As a consequence of Pelosi-Reid-inspired policies, the time has come to put middle-and lower-income Americans on the Endangered Species list.

But Here's The Icing On The Cake...
Senator Obama and a gaggle of liberal legislators started stumping for a windfall tax on oil... a strategy guaranteed to do only one thing... raise the price of gasoline.
A generation ago, the Carter Administration imposed just such a tax and the results were disastrous: a reduced incentive to drill for oil, a drop in domestic production, severe shortages, and long lines at the pump.

Obama was a teenager at the time, but you'd think he'd remember.
These actions raise a chilling question: "Are liberals actually TRYING to drive up gas prices?" For years the Greenies have been down on their knees, begging for higher gasoline prices. In the Energy Bulletin, Hamish McRae published an article with a title that says it all:

"Oil at $100 a barrel will do more to save the planet than all the wind farms in the world."
With the price of oil hovering around $140 per barrel, is the earth safe yet?

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter wrote:
"Democrats couldn't care less about high gas prices. The consistent policy of the Democratic Party, going back at least to Jimmy Carter, has been to jack up gas prices so we can all start pedaling around on tricycles."

"Environmentalists are constantly clamoring for higher gas taxes as the cure-all to their insane global warming theory. Clinton proposed a 26-cent tax on gas. John Kerry said it should be 50 cents. Gore endorsed the Malthusian proposal of Paul and Anne Ehrlich in 'The Population Explosion' that gas taxes be raised gradually to match prices in Europe and Japan."

"Democrats have worked hard to ensure that Americans pay as much for gas as Europeans do. After a quarter-century of gas tax hikes, a ban on drilling for oil and a complete destruction of the nuclear power industry in America, I guess liberals can declare: Mission accomplished! "

"In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, 'We can't drill our way out of this crisis.'

"What does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, 'You can't eat your way out of being hungry!' 'You can't water your way out of drought!' 'You can't sleep your way out of tiredness!' 'You can't drink yourself out of dehydration!'

"Seriously, what does it mean? Finding more oil isn't going to increase the supply of oil?

"It is the typical Democratic strategy to babble meaningless slogans, as if they have a plan."
In other words, the higher the price at the pump. the fewer the drivers on the road.

Of course, those who can no longer afford gasoline will inevitably be the poor.
But, as Al Gore would say, "Let them ride buses."

Yours in Freedom,

Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.orgCenter for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus Street, Suite 310
Alexandria VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with
the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights
in the legal, legislative and educational arenas. Contributions to CFIF are
not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions may be deductible as a business expense.

HOW THE LEFT WAS WON

2008-07-20T08:53:00.003-05:00

How The Left Was Won

An In-Depth Analysis of the Tools and Methodologies Used by Liberals to Undermine Society and Disrupt the Social Order

Combining a series of unique insights with an entirely new set of analytical techniques, How the Left Was Won systematically dismantles each and every element of modern-day liberalism ranging from the justifications behind all of its flawed social and political policies to the most basic assumptions regarding the ideology itself.

In order to achieve this goal, the author first introduces a new framework which segments and isolates all liberal behaviors and beliefs into the most objective and discrete elements possible. He then goes on to provide numerous examples of how liberals relentlessly employ this simple set of tools and methodologies over and over again and then discusses the resulting effects they have on our society. Some of these strategies include:

● Promote and Exploit Divisiveness: Learn why liberals should thank God every day for differences between people and how without them, liberalism would be dead in the water.

● Bad Competition: Learn why practically all liberal policies create success only through the impairment of others and exactly where this dynamic must necessarily lead.

● Relevancy and Proportion: See why the vast majority of what liberals say has absolutely no meaning whatsoever and learn a simple way to prove it every time.

● Implicit Assumptions: Explore the assumptions liberals use to shape public policy and see why the arguments supporting them are ultimately nothing more than a house of cards.

● Groupdividual: Find out how liberalism has distorted the differences between groups and individuals and why this continued distortion is the basis for all flawed social policies within the United States.

● The Perpetual Motion Machine: Learn how the vast majority of liberal programs are based on the scientific impossibility of getting something for nothing.

● A Swarm of Ants: Find out the real reason liberalism continues to permeate more and more elements of our society and why there just may be no way of stopping it.

“Mgrdechian does an excellent job of dissecting the strategies liberals use...”

— Jonathan Garthwaite,

Editor-In-Chief, Townhall.com

"...a must-read for conservatives and independents alike."

— The Iowa Voice

"I highly recommend this book."

— Kelvin Moxley, The Conservative Spectator

"...exactly what Conservatives have been trying to say for years..."

— The Guardian Watchblog

"Extremely valuable."

— Danny Carlton, Jacklewis.net

"For anyone who wants to gain insight to the mind of liberal politics…"

— Bookviews.com

THIS IS BOTH SAD AND OUTRAGEOUS

2008-07-19T23:10:00.004-05:00

Blue Summer
Hollywood is peddling sex like crazy this season even though the sexualization of our culture is exacting a fearsome toll, especially on young girls.

By Brian Fitzpatrick
Culture and Media Institute
July 19, 2008

Hollywood seems to have sex on the mind this summer. From pop music to reality shows to dramas, the sexually charged material currently being offered up by the entertainment media is making Woodstock look like a Boy Scout jamboree.

That Hollywood peddles sex is not exactly news. What is news, though, is the increasing evidence that our society’s libertinism comes at a steep price. In addition to soaring cases of sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancies and abortions, the sex culture is inflicting a wealth of emotional injury on teenaged girls.

A new study by the Mental Health Foundation in England reports that young girls are being victimized by premature sexualization, commercialization and alcohol abuse, resulting in high levels of stress and unhappiness. According to the study, “Sexual advances from boys, pressure to wear clothes that make them look too old and magazines and Web sites directly targeting younger girls to lose weight or consider plastic surgery were identified as taking a particular toll.”

The statistics are shocking: 40 percent of the 10- to 14-year-old girls surveyed said they know someone who has “self-harmed,” and nearly that many know somebody who has experienced panic attacks. A third have a friend suffering from an eating disorder.

The head of the Mental Health Foundation told Life Site News, “Girls and young women are being forced to grow up at an unnatural pace in a society that we, as adults, have created and it’s damaging their emotional well-being.”

Hollywood’s studio execs, producers and writers should sit up and take notice. may attract adult audiences, but children are watching too, and it’s too much for many of them to handle. In addition to robbing kids of their innocence, the constant sexual images and allusions are creating a cultural environment that makes demands on children that they are not ready to meet and should not have to think about. Children’s innocence is a valuable commodity that society ought to guard jealously. Hollywood moguls have children too, and their children are not immune from Tinseltown’s destructive cultural influences.

HOW DO YOU-WE-STOP THIS MADNESS

2008-07-19T20:53:00.003-05:00

Barry Goldwater once talked about the various levels of government and identify THE MOST DANGEROUS level

The first level is the visible level, our elected officials. They were sent to Washington by WE THE PEOPLE. The next are those appointed to positions by the President with the advise and consent of Congress (an increasingly near impossible task). The lowest. and most dangerous is composed of paid, tenured, civil servants who hold their jobs until they die or retire. These are the people charged with writing the rules and regulations and those who have to enforce those rules, regulations and laws. Do you see a danger here? WE THE PEOPLE are expected to believe that these civil servants are loyal, honest, trusted people. Right? WRONG!!!
they are flesh and blood human beings just us, and we all know about US. "US" are not perfect and neither are all those civil servants. They can screw up in more different ways than Jimmy Carter has peanuts.

During the FDR and Harry Truman liberals and communists invaded various levels of government (like the State Department) and started writing policies and laws that undermine the Constitution and the Rights of WE THE PEOPLE. FDR was a bully. A smooth, slick bully who ramrodded these policies, etc, down Congressional Throats and WE THE PEOPLE are still paying the price for the acts of FDR, Truman, Johnson and Clinton.

WE THE PEOPLE bear the responsibility for allowing this to continue on and the only way to stop it is to vote these clowns out of office (and not vote anymore into office).

192.168.1.100

600 U.S. Taliban?

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT

War On Terror: After 9/11, Pakistan promised to close its radical madrassas as part of anti-terror reforms. Now we learn they're not only still open, but also recruiting and brainwashing American boys.

Read More: Global War On Terror

All told, 600 American children are being indoctrinated into jihad in 22 madrassas across Pakistan. A U.S. filmmaker stumbled on them while tracing the path of the London suicide bombers. He discovered they attended the same radical Islamic schools. A congressional delegation has confirmed his findings.

One particularly radical school in Karachi freely displays a banner at its main gate urging Muslims to join the Taliban. At least 80 Americans are enrolled at Jamia Binoria, an international school. Many of its graduates joined the Taliban and became commanders.

Another jihadist seminary in Pakistan connected to Jamia Binoria brainwashed John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban now serving time for attacking U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

The mullahs who run these terrorist hatcheries come to America to recruit boys, many of them from Lindh's home state of California. Jamia Binoria's headmaster, Mufti Mohammad Naeem, travels to the U.S. each year during Ramadan to meet with Muslim parents — like a college football coach recruiting prospects.

They hope Naeem will teach their kids to memorize the Quran, a high honor in Islam, so the whole family can get into Paradise. They also want them protected against "corrupting" Western influences.

The pupils, some as young as 8, spend years locked inside these cults reciting the Muslim holy book for hours on end. They learn "Islam, only Islam," the mufti says.

An English translation of his school's mission statement reveals its goal is to send Western students back to their home countries to spread extremism. "The outgoing scholars of the Jamia are fighting a crusade against infidels and pagans," Naeem states.

Astonishingly, the U.S. has the most enrollees at the nine madrassas run by Jamia Binoria of any country outside Pakistan.

The outrage raises a number of questions, including:

Why has Naeem's U.S. visa been renewed each year? For that matter, why isn't he on the no-fly list? Why aren't we demanding Islamabad stop renewing the visas of American students to his madrassas? What share, if any, of the billions in U.S. aid to Islamabad is used to support these madrassas? Who is monitoring these radicalized graduates as they return to America to preach or partake in jihad?

Pakistan's prime minister is visiting Washington on Monday. President Bush should raise these issues near the top of their meeting.

MORE FROM BILLY GRAHAM

2008-07-13T23:16:00.001-05:00

Billy Graham
For You
Monday July 14, 2008

* What Should We Look for in a New Pastor?
* Free Comics for the Whole Family

What Should We Look for in a New Pastor?
By Billy Graham, Tribune Media Services

Q: Our church is looking for a new pastor, and I've been put on the search committee (something I've never had to do before). Our first task is to come up with a description of the kind of person we should look for. What advice would you give to a committee like ours? -- M.J.

A: You've been given a very important responsibility -- and the best advice I can give you is to seek God's will as you seek to fill this position. Pray for God's guidance in your committee, and encourage your whole church to be praying as well.

After all, someone might meet every standard on your list -- but if they aren't the person God wants in that position, their ministry will not make its maximum impact. Remember: God is even more concerned about your church and its ministry than you are, and He has already chosen the person best equipped to lead your church in the future.

What kind of person should you seek? You know your church's needs, of course, and your description will take those into account. But first of all seek a person of godly character -- someone who reflects Christ in their daily life. Paul urged his young pastor friend Timothy to "pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness" (1 Timothy 6:11).

Second, seek someone who will make the Bible the foundation of their teaching and preaching. Paul's example is a challenge to every pastor: "You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you. ... For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God" (Acts 20:20, 27).

========

Send your queries to "My Answer," c/o Billy Graham, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, 1 Billy Graham Parkway, Charlotte, N.C., 28201; call 1-(877) 2-GRAHAM, or visit the Web site for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association: www.billygraham.org.

ANOTHER HERO HAS DIED

2008-07-13T09:28:00.003-05:00

July 13, 2008, 12:27AM
Dr. Michael DeBakey: 1908-2008
Houstonian called the 'greatest surgeon of the 20th century' dies at 99
By TODD ACKERMAN and ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

Dr. Sherwin Nuland, medicine's best-known historian, was visiting with Dr. Michael DeBakey three years ago when the then-96-year-old surgeon left the room to attend to some business.

Taking advantage of the moment to tour the room's extensive collection of memorabilia — the honors, photographs and mementos from an illustrative career that spanned eight decades — Nuland stopped to reflect on two antiquarian charts of the history of medicine.

"As I studied the charts, it occurred to me that no face on them was any more important in the history of medicine than DeBakey himself,'' said Nuland, a retired surgeon at the Yale University School of Medicine and author of Doctors: The Biography of Medicine. "I can't think of anyone who's made more of a contribution to the field of medicine.''

Michael Ellis DeBakey — internationally acclaimed as the father of modern cardiovascular surgery and considered by many to be the greatest surgeon ever — died Friday night at The Methodist Hospital in Houston. He was 99.
Methodist officials said DeBakey died of natural causes. He was taken to the hospital after his wife, Katrin, called 911, and he was pronounced dead shortly after arriving, said Dr. Marc Boom, executive vice president of Methodist.
DeBakey is to lie in repose within the rotunda of Houston City Hall from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Tuesday, officials at Baylor College of Medicine said. Funeral services are planned for Wednesday.

Chancellor emeritus of Baylor College of Medicine and a surgeon at Methodist since 1949, DeBakey trained thousands of surgeons. During his career, he estimated he performed more than 60,000 operations. His patients included the famous — Russian President Boris Yeltsin and movie actress Marlene Dietrich among them — and the uncelebrated.

"He was a great contributor to medicine and surgery," said Dr. Denton Cooley, president and surgeon-in-chief at the Texas Heart Institute in Houston and a former rival of DeBakey.

"But he left a real legacy in the Texas Medical Center and at Baylor College of Medicine, where he's brought so much attention," Cooley said. "Together, we were able to establish Houston as a world leader in cardiovascular medicine."
Dr. George Noon, a cardiovascular surgeon and longtime partner of DeBakey's, said he "single-handedly raised the standard of medical care, teaching and research around the world. He was the greatest surgeon of the 20th century, and physicians everywhere are indebted to him for his contributions to medicine."

DeBakey almost died in 2006, when he suffered an aortic aneurysm, a condition for which he pioneered the treatment. He is considered the oldest patient to have both undergone and survived surgery for it.

He recovered enough to go to Washington earlier this year to receive the Congressional Gold Medal, one of the nation's two highest civilian honors.
He remained vigorous and was a player in medicine well into his 90s, performing surgeries, traveling and publishing articles in scientific journals. His large hands were steady, his hearing sharp. His personal health regimen included taking the stairs at work and a single cup of coffee in the morning.
DeBakey's death was mourned by the leaders of Methodist and Baylor.
Methodist President Ron Girotto said: "He has improved the human condition and touched the lives of generations to come. We will greatly miss him."
Baylor President Dr. Peter Traber added: "He set a standard for pre-eminence in all areas of his life that those who knew him and worked with him are compelled to emulate. And he served as a very visible reminder of the importance of leadership and giving back to one's community."

Built a reputation
DeBakey was born in Lake Charles, La., in 1908, a month before Ford began making Model Ts and a quarter-century before the discovery of bacteria-fighting drugs. While still in medical school, he developed the roller pump for the heart-lung machine. DeBakey invented many of the procedures and devices — more than 50 surgical instruments — used to repair hearts and arteries.
He is widely credited with laying the foundation for the Texas Medical Center in Houston by recruiting doctors and researchers and giving the city an international reputation for leading-edge health care. He was a maverick, running afoul of the Harris County Medical Society for insisting that surgeons be certified by the American Board of Surgery. At the time, it was common for general physicians to operate.

"DeBakey built a department of surgery at Baylor and at The Methodist Hospital, which was to become one of the most celebrated in the world, a galaxy of young stars," the late author Thomas Thompson wrote in 1970 in Hearts: Of Surgeons and Transplants, Miracles and Disasters Along the Cardiac Frontier. "In a city where 25 years ago there was practiced medicine of the most mediocre sort, there sprung up in a swampy area 6 miles south of downtown ... one of the handful of distinguished medical centers in the world."
DeBakey invented and refined ways to repair weakened or clot-obstructed blood vessels using replacements made from preserved human blood vessels and, later, with artificial ones. He is credited with the first successful surgical treatment of potentially deadly aneurysms of various parts of the aorta. In 1939, he co-authored one of the earliest papers linking smoking and lung cancer.

During World War II, while he served in the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, DeBakey's work led to the development of mobile surgical hospitals, called MASH units. He helped President John F. Kennedy lobby for Medicare; he recommended creation of the National Library of Medicine, subsequently authorized by Congress. In 1963, DeBakey won the Lasker Award for Clinical Research, considered the U.S. equivalent of a Nobel.

"At times he could act like the meanest man in the world. He didn't let you breathe," said Dr. John L. Ochsner of New Orleans, who trained under DeBakey and whose father, Dr. Alton Ochsner, was DeBakey's mentor at Tulane University School of Medicine.
"The thing that made him so mad all the time was he was trying to conquer the world, and every minute was so important to him. He didn't have time for frivolity at all," he said.

Two sides
Patients and their families saw him otherwise.
To them, DeBakey was a healer with quiet authority who seemed to work miracles. Enfolding a patient's hands in his, the patient's face would relax, some recalled.
He was pained by the breakup in 2004 of the 50-year marriage between Baylor and Methodist, which dissolved over disagreements about the future of the institutions. DeBakey said the breakup made no sense and hurt both parties. Friends described him as "heartbroken" about the split. In an interview earlier this year, DeBakey said the description was not inaccurate.
In 2003, his MicroMed DeBakey LVAD was implanted in a 10-year-old girl, the youngest patient in the world to receive the device, which boosts the heart's main pumping chamber. In 2004, a child-sized version became available for children as young as 5. DeBakey had developed the device in collaboration with heart surgeon Noon and NASA.
In his prime — and it was an unusually lengthy prime — DeBakey, with his sharp-nosed profile and dark-brown eyes, had the power to intimidate and awe his acolytes. In surgery, DeBakey was famous for his withering remarks, delivered in a velvety Louisiana drawl, directed at the anxious and ambitious residents operating alongside him.

John Ochsner recalled how, if an operation was going slowly, DeBakey might ask, ''Am I the only one here doing anything?"
Or a clumsy resident might prompt DeBakey to say, ''Do you have two left hands?"
DeBakey's trainees cringed at his criticism, but among themselves they recounted the barbs in a sometimes dead-on imitation of the revered surgeon. Ochsner, now chairman emeritus of the Department of Surgery at Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans, said DeBakey's stern manner came from a desire to prepare his students for the demanding career ahead.

Family life
DeBakey was the eldest of five children born to Lebanese immigrants Raheehja and Shaker Morris DeBakey.

Shaker Morris DeBakey was a businessman and pharmacist in Lake Charles who invested in real estate and rice farming. Michael DeBakey grew up with his brother and three sisters in a large house with maids, butlers and gardeners.
The DeBakeys ate healthy foods — fresh vegetables, fresh fruit, seafood, rice and beans. They didn't smoke or drink. At dinnertime, the family chatted about things that happened at the drug store or the doings of politicians who sought out Shaker's advice.

"You could not get a word in edgewise until one of our parents announced who had the floor," DeBakey recounted to a reporter in 1997. "It was very stimulating."
On Sundays after services at their Episcopal church, the DeBakeys would take clothing to a nearby orphanage. One time, the giveaway bundle included DeBakey's favorite cap. When the youngster protested, his mother sat him down and said: "You have a lot of caps. These children have none." "It made a great impression on me," he said.

DeBakey's mother also taught him one of his future career's essential skills — sewing. He would help her repair items headed for the orphanage. He also learned to tat, using a little bobbin to make lace. Years later, in the 1950s, DeBakey would introduce artificial arteries made from Dacron; he sewed the prototype on his wife's sewing machine, using fabric purchased at Houston's downtown Foley's.

He went to medical school at Tulane after graduating as valedictorian from his high school class. During his senior year in medical school, he developed the roller pump, a device that two decades later became a crucial component of the heart-lung machine used on patients during open-heart surgery.

'A work of art'
As a surgery resident at New Orleans' Charity Hospital, DeBakey caught his first glimpse of a living human heart — pink and pulsating in the chest of a knifing victim.
''I saw it beating, and it was beautiful, a work of art," DeBakey said in 1987. ''I still have an almost religious sense when I work on the heart. It is something God makes and we have yet to duplicate."

Later, at Charity Hospital, DeBakey experienced a potentially catastrophic near-miss — he accidentally punctured a patient's aorta — which gave him an appreciation for the steadying influence of his mentor, Alton Ochsner.
He and Ochsner were operating in an amphitheater with a full audience of visiting surgeons. DeBakey was on one side of the patient, Ochsner on the other. DeBakey was attempting to lift up the aorta, which had been weakened by infection "when I suddenly realized, with a gripping terror, that I had entered the aorta."
DeBakey whispered this to Ochsner, who calmly instructed DeBakey to leave his finger over the hole. Ochsner stitched it up, and no one realized a near-fatal accident had occurred.

During the late 1930s, DeBakey married his first wife, Diana, a nurse he met in New Orleans. They had four sons: Michael, Ernest, Barry and Denis. When DeBakey came to Houston in 1948 to head Baylor's surgery department, he moved his family into a home near Rice University, only five minutes from the Texas Medical Center, so he wouldn't waste time commuting. He never moved from that home.
Diana DeBakey died of a heart attack in 1972. They had been in Mexico for a medical meeting, staying with a close relative of the president of Mexico. They ate well and stayed up late, and when the DeBakeys returned home, Diana was complaining of an upset stomach.

At that time, gastrointestinal problems were not widely recognized as a heart attack symptom in women. When her discomfort worsened, DeBakey had her admitted to the hospital to find out what was wrong. While DeBakey was in surgery on someone else, he got a call that there was an emergency. When he reached his wife's bedside, she had died.

Three years after her death, DeBakey married German film actress Katrin Fehlhaber, whom he met through Frank Sinatra. They had a daughter, Olga.

Health-conscious
The workaholic DeBakey rarely slept more than five hours a night, awaking at 5 most mornings to write research papers or read medical journals. He rarely drank, never smoked, ate sparingly — mostly salads, late in life — and didn't watch television. He spent much of his adult years in light-blue scrubs and wore a pair of gleaming-white cowboy boots for the operating room.

In 1948, when DeBakey came to Houston, he had turned the Baylor job down twice. The fledgling school had moved to Houston from Dallas just five years earlier, and Baylor students were scattered all over the city doing their clinical rotations, a situation that didn't appeal to DeBakey. He finally was persuaded to come when Hermann Hospital promised the school a 20-bed surgical service, according to Ruth SoRelle's history of Baylor,

The Quest for Excellence.
The Hermann deal fell through, and DeBakey nearly left. But the Truman administration asked DeBakey to transfer Houston's Navy hospital into a Veterans Administration hospital, an idea championed by DeBakey that evolved into the national VA system. There, DeBakey's students started the city's first surgical residency program.
One of the most talked-about events of DeBakey's life was his legendary feud — more Arctic freeze than hot-tempered spat — with Cooley, his one-time close collaborator.
DeBakey hired Cooley in 1951 after the Houston native finished his training at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

In 1965, DeBakey participated in a federally funded program to design an artificial heart.
Within a few years, he had a device that some physicians felt was ready for human trials, but DeBakey believed it needed more work.
Then, to international acclaim in 1969, Cooley performed the first implantation of an artificial heart into the chest of 47-year-old Haskell Karp, a dying heart surgery patient. Karp lived with the heart in his chest 65 hours before dying shortly after a heart transplant.

A bitter feud
Cooley's fame was quickly tarnished after DeBakey said the heart was identical to one under development in the Baylor labs and that Cooley had used it without permission.
Cooley said he and Dr. Domingo Liotta, who also designed artificial hearts in DeBakey's lab, had built the heart privately and that he had no choice but to use the heart because the patient's life was in jeopardy.

After the incident, the American College of Surgeons voted to censure Cooley, and, amid a dispute with the trustees of Baylor, Cooley resigned from the institution.
The two men stopped collaborating and rarely spoke. DeBakey changed his focus and decided funds would be better spent developing pumps to assist failing hearts. Such devices became the mainstream treatment for patients with failing hearts.

The episode ''stole DeBakey's shot at a Nobel Prize," Methodist heart surgeon Mike Reardon said in 2004. ''What Mike needed was one crowning event to make him a candidate. And that was going to be the artificial heart."
The two buried the hatchet last year. Cooley inducted DeBakey into his surgical society, and DeBakey accepted, telling his former colleague he was touched by the gesture.

Earlier this year, DeBakey returned the favor, granting Cooley membership in his surgical society.

In April, when DeBakey was given the Congressional Gold Medal, Cooley made the trip to Washington, too.
"I feel a sadness over his passing," Cooley said. "It represents the end of an era. We were at one time colleagues, and then we were competitors, and then finally we restored our friendship."

A fight against death
For a man who outlived most of his peers, DeBakey seemed unphilosophical about death, appearing to view it as a personal enemy.
Losing a patient put him in a black mood and set his mind spinning with thoughts of what he might have done differently.

''You fight (death) all the time, and you never really can accept it," he once said. ''You know in reality that everybody is going to die, but you try to fight it, to push it away, hold it away with your hands."
DeBakey was preceded in death by his sons Houston lawyer Ernest O. DeBakey, who died in 2004, and Barry E. DeBakey, who died in 2007; and a brother, Dr. Ernest G. DeBakey, who died in 2006.

In addition to his wife, Katrin, and their daughter, Olga, DeBakey is survived by sons Michael DeBakey of Lima, Peru, and Denis DeBakey of Houston; and sisters Lois and Selma DeBakey, both medical editors and linguists at Baylor.
todd.ackerman@chron.com
eric.berger@chron.com

At long last, has the Associated Press lost all sense of decency?

2008-07-12T23:09:00.002-05:00

Classless AP Takes Cheap Shots at Just-Passed Snow
Photo of Tom Blumer.
By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
July 12, 2008 - 09:03 ET

The AP's story (saved here for future reference in case the wire service is embarrassed into revising it; you might consider saving it too as Exhibit A on how far over the cliff the dinosaur media has driven itself) by Douglass K. Daniel, with Jennifer Loven contributing (I might have known), gets in at least three cheap, fundamentally untrue, and totally uncalled-for shots at Tony Snow, who died earlier this morning.

I won't sully NB's front page with any of them. They follow the jump:

With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses.

..... During daily briefings, he challenged reporters, scolded them and questioned their motives as if he were starring in a TV show broadcast live from the West Wing.

Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation. He was the first press secretary, by his own accounting, to travel the country raising money for Republican candidates.

Godspeed Tony. I'm sure God will take an objective view of your life, and you'll waltz right in to be with Him for eternity.

Otherwise, words fail. How dare they

BILLY GRAHAM

2008-07-12T10:33:00.003-05:00

Billy Graham
For You
Saturday July 12, 2008

* Is the Devil Trying to Turn Me Away From God?
* Tips for What to Do After an Accident

Is the Devil Trying to Turn Me Away From God?
By Billy Graham, Tribune Media Services

Q: A year ago I accepted Jesus into my life, and for a time I really felt He was with me. But now I find myself wondering sometimes if God even exists. This scares me, because I don't want to miss going to heaven. Why has this happened? Is the devil trying to turn me away from God? -- Q.S.

A: The devil will always try to turn us away from God; after all, this is the main thing he wants to accomplish in our lives. And one way he does this is by probing for our weak spots and trying to take advantage of them.

But don't blame everything on the devil; he doesn't deserve all the credit! The real problem, I suspect, is that after you gave your life to Jesus you thought this was the end, and it was all you needed to do. You knew your sins were forgiven, and you knew as well the reality of the Bible's promise that "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life" (1 John 5:11-12).

But afterward you never did anything to strengthen yourself spiritually -- and over time you became spiritually weak. Just as a newborn baby needs food and warmth in order to survive and grow, so you needed spiritual food and warmth -- the "food" of the Bible and prayer, and the "warmth" of fellowship with other believers. If these were missing, your spiritual life inevitably suffered.

God has not abandoned you; He loves you and yearns for you to grow stronger in your faith. Confess your weakness to Him, and then take time each day to be alone with God in His Word and in prayer. In addition, ask Him to lead you to a church where Christ is central, and where you can grow in your faith.

========

1ST CORINTHIANS 6:9

2008-07-10T22:50:00.003-05:00

Bible Publishers Sued for Anti-Gay References

Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:51 AM

By: Rick Pedraza

A Michigan man is seeking $70 million from two Christian publishers for emotional distress and mental instability he received during the past 20 years from versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler, a gay man, claims his constitutional rights were infringed upon by Zondervan Publishing Co. and Thomas Nelson Publishing, both of which, he claims, deliberately caused homosexuals to suffer by misinterpretation of the Bible.
Fowler, 39, is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson.
According to a USA Today report, Fowler's two separate suits against the publishers claim the intent of the Bible revisions that refer to homosexuals as sinners reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion.
Fowler says the deliberate changes made to first Corinthians, chapter six, verse nine *caused him "or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."
Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, claims the publishers are misinterpreting the Bible by specifically using the word homosexuals, which made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of demoralization, chaos and bewilderment.

'These are opinions based on the publishers and they are being embedded in the religious structure as a way of life," he tells a local NBC TV station affiliate in Grand Rapids.
Fowler admits that every Bible printed is a translation that can be interpreted in many ways, but he says specifically using the word 'homosexual' is not a translation but a change.

Fowler says Zondervan Bibles published in the '80s used the word homosexuals among a list of those who are ‘wicked' or unrighteous and won't inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Zondervan, for its part, issued a statement to the Grand Rapids press stating it does not translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations it publishes
‘We rely on the scholarly judgment of the highly respected and credible translation committees behind each translation and never alter the text of the translations we are licensed to publish,’ the statement reads.
‘We only publish credible translations produced by credible Biblical scholars.’
U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr., who will hear Fowler’s case against Thomas Nelson, says the court ‘has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of [Fowler’s] claims."

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
• 1ST Corinthians 6:9: do you not know that the wicked shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not misled: neither the immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor the corrupt nor men who sleep with men.
• HOLY BIBLE FROM THE ANCIENT EASTERN TEXT
• GEORGE M. LAMSA’S TRANSLATION FROM THE
• ARAMAIC OF THE PESHITTA.

1ST Corinthians 6:9-10 Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit the God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others or rob—these people will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
THE HOLY BIBLE
CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS
NEW CENTURY VERSION PUBLISHED BY
NELSON BIBLES. COPYRIGHT 2005. PRINTED IN
BELGIUM.

1ST Corinthians 6:9-11 .Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
The Greek terms translated male prostitutes and sodomites do not refer to “homosexuals,” as inappropriate older translations; “masturbators” and male prostitutes might be a better translation. While continuing the emphasis on economic offenders, the list expands the sexual offenders (see 5.10-11n.), anticipating 6.12-20.
THE NEW OXFORD ANNOTATED BIBLE,
New Revised standard Version (THIRD EDITION)
AN ECUMENICAL STUDY BIBLE.

The word/term homosexual was not even coined until the mid-late 19th century by an early day liberal/socialist. The Z Bible does actually use the word homosexual and in my mind that shows poor scholarship on their part (my personal opinion, not necessarily anybody else’s.)

So, does the guy have a valid complaint? Maybe. Is this a frivolous lawsuit? Definitely. If he had a problem why did he wait 20 years? He is serving as his own attorney? Who was it that said, ‘a man serving as his own attorney has a fool for a client’?

What if they called an election and no one showed up

2008-07-09T22:18:00.001-05:00

date Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:16 PM
subject What if they scheduled an election....
and no one showed up. I never could vote for a Democrat for president and this year I might just have to vote for Micky Mouse or None of the Above instead of John McCain. I have nothing against LEGAL IMMIGRATION, nothing at all. However, I do have a serious problem with my tax dollars spent on 'La Raza' programs, policies and idiocies. The late, great, singer and Congressman Sonny Bono was once asked how he felt about illegal immigration. His response, "It's illegal". As in, it is against the law.

For 'La Raza,' Trouble Begins With Its Name

By MICHELLE MALKIN | Posted Wednesday, July 09, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Only in America could critics of a group called "The Race" be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all opposition as "hate."

Both Barack Obama and John McCain will speak this week in San Diego at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, the Latino organization whose name is Spanish for, yes, "The Race." Can you imagine Obama and McCain paying homage to a group of white people who called themselves that? No matter. The presidential candidates and the media have legitimized "The Race" as a mainstream ethnic lobbying group and marginalized its critics as intolerant bigots. The unvarnished truth is the group is a radical ethnic nationalist outfit that abuses your tax dollars and milks PC politics to undermine our sovereignty.

Here are 15 things you should know about "The Race":

15. "The Race" supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

14. "The Race" demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

13. "The Race" opposes cooperative immigration enforcement by local, state and federal authorities.

12. "The Race" opposes a secure fence on the southern border.

11. "The Race" joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent the feds from entering immigration information into a key national crime database.

10. "The Race" opposed the state of Oklahoma's tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions and strengthened local-federal cooperation.

9. "The Race" joined other open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Prop. 227, California's bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.

8. "The Race" bitterly protested common-sense voter ID provisions.

7. "The Race" has opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.

6. Former "Race" president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton's Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: "U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks." He was referring to U.S. English, the nation's oldest, largest citizens' action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the U.S. "The Race" also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while avoiding the terms "illegal" and "amnesty."

5. "The Race" gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or MEChA. The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized MEChA as "a radical racist group . . . one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West."

4. "The Race" is leading a smear campaign against immigration enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves — in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes. The New York Times reported current "Race" president Janet Murguia believes "hate speech" should "not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights."

3. "The Race" sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: "Ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo-liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction."

2. "The Race" has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal "mortgage counseling" grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.

1. "The Race" thrives on ethnic supremacy — and the elite's unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: "(The) organization's very nomenclature 'The National Council of La Raza' is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of 'race' in Spanish, not 'the people' — and that's precisely why we don't hear of something like 'The National Council of the People,' which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism."

The fringe is the center. The center is the fringe. Viva La Raza.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, In
--
"The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism.... It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn." --George Washington

--
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask
another man to live for mine."

— John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. — Thomas Paine

NYT STRIKES AGAIN

2008-07-07T22:53:00.000-05:00

McCain Speeches Are "YouTube Fodder" -- But Obama Never Makes Gaffes?
Another story on McCain's verbal gaffes -- but the Times has yet to mention Obama's claim to have visited 57 states, or any of his other odd statements.

Posted by: Clay Waters
7/7/2008 2:32:26 PM

John McCain's struggles in formal speaking environments prompted a front-page Sunday story by Mark Leibovich, "McCain Battles a Nemesis, the Teleprompter." Leibovich opened with the candidate's latest futile struggle against what is apparently his greatest enemy:

Senator John McCain was performing relatively smoothly as he unveiled his energy plan.

He managed to limit the mechanical hand chops and weirdly timed smiles that can often punctuate his speeches. He delivered his lines with an ease that suggested a momentary peace with his longtime nemesis, the teleprompter. (He relied on a belt-and-suspenders approach, with text scrolling down screens to his left and right, and on a big TV set in front of him.)

But when Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, came to the intended sound bite of his speech -- the part about reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil -- he hit a slick.

“I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lex-eegton Project,” Mr. McCain said, drawing a quick breath and correcting himself. “The Lex-ing-ton Proj-ect,” he said slowly. “The Lexington Project,” he repeated. “Remember that name.”

In a town meeting in Cincinnati the next day, Mr. McCain would again slip up on the name of the Massachusetts town, where, he noted, “Americans asserted their independence once before.” He called it “the Lexiggdon Project” and twice tried to fix his error before flipping the name (“Project Lexington”) in subsequent references.

Mr. McCain’s battle of Lexington is part of a struggle he is engaged in every day. A politician who has thrived in the give-and-take settings of campaign buses, late-night TV couches and town meetings, he now is trying to meet the more formal speaking demands of a general election campaign.

To prove his point that McCain is not a natural at the podium, Leibovich forwarded insults of McCain from the liberal comedy show "The Colbert Report." Then he replayed some of McCain's greatest gaffes.

[Campaign adviser Mark] Salter bemoans the current environment, in which, he said, “the press creates the expectation that you better not stumble on a word, or tell a joke that Mr. Rogers wouldn’t tell, or you’re going to be in trouble.”

There are any number of Web videos of Mr. McCain to prove the point. They include the moment he playfully called a young man a “jerk” at a town-hall-style meeting in New Hampshire last year after he asked Mr. McCain if his age made him a candidate for Alzheimer’s disease in the White House (Mr. McCain typically uses jerk as a term of affection), or when he suggested to Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” that he brought him a special gift from Iraq -- an improvised explosive device.

Small misstatements become instant YouTube fodder -- as when Mr. McCain vowed to “veto every single beer” that included lawmakers’ pet spending projects (he meant “bill”) or when he said the government should have been able to deliver “bottled hot water” to dehydrated babies in New Orleans. (It is fortunate for Mr. McCain that there was no YouTube in the 1980s when he jokingly referred to the retirement community Leisure World as “Seizure World.”)

The Times has shown consistent interest in John McCain, Republican gaffe machine -- but has yet to mention in its news coverage Barack Obama saying he had visited "57 states" during the campaign (a clip also on YouTube, since that seems to matter to the Times). Nor has the paper mentioned Obama seeing "fallen heroes" in a Memorial Day crowd or thinking that Hitchcock actually filmed the climactic chase scene in "North by Northwest" at Mt. Rushmore, as opposed to a studio set.

JESSE HELMS, R.I.P.

2008-07-07T21:56:00.000-05:00

Jesse Helms' "Hard-Edged Conservatism" Opposed to Everything Good
No love for the "right-wing" senator from North Carolina: "Jesse Helms...whose courtly manner and mossy drawl barely masked a hard-edged conservatism that opposed civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art, died early Friday. He was 86."

Posted by: Clay Waters
7/7/2008 10:59:21 AM

On Independence Day, Americans were greeted with the news that Jesse Helms, one of the nation's most influential lawmakers, had died. The Times joined the rest of the media in portraying the former Republican senator from North Carolina through a liberal prism, in a strongly unfavorable light.

Steven Holmes is author of the Helms obituary that appeared on Saturday's front page (The bulk of Helm's obit was penned some time ago, as is customary; Holmes is now an editor for the Washington Post.) The initial online headline, "Battled Against Civil Rights and Foreign Aid," was transformed in Saturday's print edition to the less-hostile "Jesse Helms, Unyielding Beacon of Conservatism, Is Dead at 86."

Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator whose courtly manner and mossy drawl barely masked a hard-edged conservatism that opposed civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art, died early Friday. He was 86.

Mr. Helms’s former chief of staff, Jimmy Broughton, told The Associated Press that the former senator died of natural causes in Raleigh.

In a 52-year political career that ended with his retirement from the Senate in 2002, Mr. Helms became a beacon for the right wing of American politics, a lightning rod for the left, and, often, a mighty pain for Presidents whatever their political leaning.

Ronald Reagan, a friend who could thank Mr. Helms for critical campaign help, once described him as a “thorn in my side.” Mr. Helms was known for taking on anyone, even leaders of his own party, who strayed from his idea of ideological purity.

“I didn’t come to Washington to be a yes man for any President, Democrat or Republican,” he said in an interview in 1989. “I didn’t come to Washington to get along and win any popularity contests.”

Perhaps his most visible accomplishments in the Senate came two decades apart. One was a 1996 measure that tightened trade sanctions against the Marxist government of Fidel Castro in Cuba. The other, a 1973 amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, prevented American money from going to international family planning organizations that, in his words, “provide or promote” abortion. He also introduced amendments to reduce or eliminate funds for foreign aid, welfare programs and the arts.

David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, said recently that Mr. Helms’s contribution to the conservative movement was “incredibly important.”

Even when Helms did what liberals consider the right thing (supporting anti-AIDS measures in Africa), the Times spun it as a Helms' slam against gays:

In campaigns and in the Senate, Mr. Helms stood out in both his words and his tactics.

He fought bitterly against Federal aid for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from “unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior.

“Nothing positive happened to Sodom and Gomorrah,” he said, “and nothing positive is likely to happen to America if our people succumb to the drumbeats of support for the homosexual lifestyle.”

In his last year in the Senate, he decided to support AIDS measures in Africa, where heterosexual transmission of the disease is most common.

Strangely, the Times almost skips Helms' pro-life views, reducing his advocacy for the unborn (one of his chief domestic concerns) to a single mention.

No Helms obit would be complete without a discussion of the bluntly anti-affirmative action ad the campaign ran against a black Senate opponent in 1990:

Trailing in a tough re-election fight in 1990 against a black opponent, Harvey Gantt, the former mayor of Charlotte, Mr. Helms unveiled a nakedly racial campaign ad in which a pair of hands belonging to a white job-seeker crumpled a rejection slip as an announcer explained that the job had been given to an unqualified member of a minority. Mr. Helms went on to victory.

Holmes does eventually reveal another side to Helms:

But as tough as he could be in the political theater, Mr. Helms could exhibit a softer, warmer, even impish side in his personal dealings, even with political adversaries.

In 1963, after 21 years of marriage, Mr. Helms and his wife, Dorothy, adopted a disabled child, Charles, after they read a newspaper article in which the child, who was nine at the time, plaintively said that he wanted a mother and father for Christmas.

The story attracted a predictable but still-disheartening bevy of charming comments from the paper's hard-left liberal readership, the majority of which are gleeful over Helms' death and gloating about what Jesus will have to say to him (the senator's death having worked the miracle of transforming secular leftists into believers in a judgmental God).

LIBERALS AND ONE WORLDERS STRIKE AGAIN

2008-07-06T16:49:00.003-05:00

Washington Post Tells the Truth about ‘Safe Sex’ -- Then Ignores It
A guest columnist exposes PC ideologues jeopardizing an effective morality-based AIDS prevention program in Uganda, while a house editorial calls for more of the failed condom approach here in the U.S.

By Robert Knight
Culture and Media Institute
July 2, 2008

“We understand that casual sex is dear to you, but staying alive is dear to us.”

The Washington Post provided a rare service on Monday, shining light on an unfolding scandal of deadly political correctness in Uganda.

The quote above is from “Let My People Go, AIDS Profiteers,” an op-ed column in the Post by the Rev. Sam L. Ruteikara, co-chair of Uganda’s National AIDS-Prevention Committee.

Ruteikara details how Uganda’s successful ABC campaign (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms as a last resort) recorded huge advances in reducing infections from 1991 through 2002, but was subverted by an AIDS establishment that dislikes Uganda’s emphasis on marriage and faithfulness.

HIV rates plunged from 21 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in 2002 in Uganda during the stricken nation’s campaign to restore traditional morality. Meanwhile, as Western nations dropped more than 2 billion condoms on Africa, other nations suffered an unabated epidemic. Uganda stuck out as the grand exception.

While the media largely ignored this singular success story, AIDS bureaucrats, furious at this living rebuke to their condom-based campaigns, worked to bring Uganda into the “safe-sex” fold.

In March 2007, Washington Post writer Craig Timberg in “Uganda’s Early Gains Against HIV Eroding” described how the initial, “fear”-based approach, which yielded impressive results in the early ’90s, gave way to the more typical condom-based approach in Uganda. He quotes Sam Okware, “a top Ugandan health official who designed early, frightening anti-AIDS campaigns. ‘It has adapted too much to international guidelines instead of sticking to our own methods, which were very controversial at first but which worked.’”

In his June 30 column, Ruteikara relates, “I have seen the process sabotaged. Repeatedly, our 25-member prevention committee put faithfulness and abstinence into the National Strategic Plan that guides how PEPFAR [President’s Emergency Plan for HIV-AIDS Relief] money for our country will be spent. Repeatedly, foreign advisers erased our recommendations. When the document draft was published, fidelity and abstinence were missing.”

It gets worse: “And somehow, a suspicious statistic attacking marriage appeared. The plan states that the HIV infection rate among married couples is 42 percent, twice as high as the rate among prostitutes. …in fact, the 2004-05 Ugandan HIV/AIDS Sero-Behaviorial Survey found that HIV prevalence among married couples is only 6.3 percent…. As fidelity and abstinence have been subverted, Uganda’s HIV rates have begun to tick back up.”

Now, shouldn’t this be a major news story? Billions of dollars, not to mention millions of lives, are at stake, and someone is committing outright fraud?

But you’ll search in vain for a media story about this. In fact, directly opposite the column, over on the editorial page, a Post editorial peddles the same old “safe-sex” medicine to young, homosexual men in America.

In “A Persistent Scourge: HIV-AIDS continues to ensnare young gay men,” the Post sounds the alarm with recent CDC stats showing a 12 percent rise in HIV infections among 13-to-24-year-old males, and between 2001 and 2006, a 22 percent increase among black men who have sex with men. The Post says these grim stats are “a reminder that the work of keeping people HIV-negative and getting those who are HIV-positive into treatment is never done.”

The editorial then lists “a variety of efforts” to stem the tide: “condom giveaways, in-clinic counseling and needle exchange programs,” to making “voluntary testing in emergency rooms and storefront clinics.”

The editorial concludes by advocating “continuous education. An informed populace is the best defense against this ferocious epidemic.”

Okay. Then why continue to promote failed approaches from the “safe-sex” lobby, whose hostility to teaching traditional sexual morality and whose dependence on condoms has doomed countless souls to a future full of handfuls of daily, anti-HIV drugs and premature death? The “safe-sex” approach has also doomed millions of women to a lifetime with incurable STDs such as human papillomavirus, against which condoms provide virtually no protection.

And what about that spike in HIV among young men who have homosexual sex? Could it have something to do with the fact that the media, pop culture and educational establishments are openly promoting homosexuality and that more kids are experimenting—with deadly consequences? The stat for “young gay men” begins with 13-year-olds. Think about that for a moment. But we are not supposed to be concerned about the aggressive gay movement that has persuaded the larger media culture to embrace homosexuality and to condemn anyone alarmed by the trend as “hateful” or “bigoted.”

If an informed populace is the best defense, then why aren’t the media, including the Washington Post, telling kids the truth about the huge number of consequences from homosexual behavior and promiscuous sex? Why is gay sex, in the absence of conclusive genetic science, being presented as a biological imperative, and a benign one at that?

Rev. Ruteikara has it right: the people promoting the “safe-sex” agenda in the face of massive evidence that it doesn’t work must be more interested in preserving casual sex than in saving lives.

How else to explain it?

Robert Knight is director of the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.

MIXED BAG

2008-07-04T22:21:00.002-05:00

Cindy on Newsweek cover -- Obama’s presidential seal, plus his 15-point lead over McCain … Play book weddings
By: MIKE ALLEN on June 21, 2008 @ 7:42 AM

Good Saturday morning. Cindy McCain, in a lovely pink suit, is on the cover of the Newsweek issue that closes today. “Behind That Smile: Understanding Cindy McCain,” by Holly Bailey tells about the time the McCain's adopted daughter, Bridget, Googles herself, learns about the South Carolina smears from 2000, and comes to Cindy to ask: "Why does President Bush hate me?"

Editor Jon Meacham quotes Holly Bailey, who covers McCain for the magazine, as saying: “People always talk about how rich she is or how plastic she seems. But watching her interact with people, especially her kids, it was always clear there was more to her than this caricature that has really come to define her over the years.”

Meacham writes: “Holly finished up her reporting in Vietnam last week. In a hospital, a little girl and her family ran up to Mrs. McCain and hugged her. Mrs. McCain told Holly later that she had taken the girl and her mother in a few years ago, letting them live with her in Arizona for several months while the girl’s cleft palate was fixed. (She had learned of the girl’s plight from a waiter at her favorite Vietnamese restaurant in Phoenix.)”’

FINALLY -- “Obama backs FISA compromise,” Politico’s Ben Smith: “Breaking with the Democratic left and many civil libertarians, while forestalling security-focused attacks from the right, Obama says he supports the compromise in the House on wiretapping legislation.” Passed 293-129.

Politico’s John Bresnahan: “The transformation of Scott McClellan is now officially complete. The former White House press secretary — once the bane of the left for his steadfast defense of President Bush's administration — was embraced by Democrats and vilified by Republicans on Friday as he testified, voluntarily, before the House Judiciary Committee. ‘I am very proud of you as an American,’ gushed Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), a Bush basher from way back.”

DRIVING THE CONVERSATION – The N.Y. Times courageously gives a 4-col. lead headline (“Big Gains for Iraq Security, but Questions Linger”) to its deeply reported version of the turnaround story done earlier by ABC’s Jonathan Karl and The AP:

“Violence in all of Iraq is the lowest since March 2004. The two largest cities, Baghdad and Basra, are calmer than they have been for years. … There is a sense that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government has more political traction than any of its predecessors. … The most obvious but often overlooked reason for the recent military success has been an increase in the number of trained Iraqi troops.”

I’VE GOT YOUR BOUNCE RIGHT HERE – Newsweek.com: “Barack finally has his bounce. … A new NEWSWEEK Poll shows that he has a substantial double-digit lead, 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters nationwide. … The NEWSWEEK survey of 1,010 adults nationwide on June 18 and 19, 2008, has a margin of error of 4 points.”

IT’S THE FIRST HEAD-TO-HEAD POLL TO REFLECT THE COUNTRY’S TACTILE DISCONTENT.

Spoilsport Salena Zito of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review points out that a Gallup poll released in May of 1988 had presumptive Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis enjoying a 54 to 38 percent lead over George H.W. Bush.

Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown, “Obama campaign adds women to top ranks”: “After taking primary season criticism over the number of women in its upper ranks, the campaign of Barack Obama has significantly ramped up its hiring of women in senior staff positions. … Anita Dunn, a consultant who joined the Obama campaign in February as a senior strategist, acknowledged a problem but said it was one of perception, not reality. … In addition to Dunn, former television journalist Linda Douglass recently became a senior adviser and traveling press secretary …

“In the last week alone, three more women came on board: former Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, who will serve as chief of staff to the vice presidential nominee; Stephanie Cutter, the communications director for Democrat John F. Kerry's 2004 campaign, who will serve as a senior campaign adviser and top aide to Michelle Obama; and Edwards' Iowa state director, Jen O'Malley Dillon, who will be battleground states director. The campaign has also hired, but not yet announced, a woman to serve as director of rapid response, Dunn said. Politico reported earlier this month that it would be Christina Reynolds, Edwards' former research director.”

OBAMA’S NEW LOGO, per AP’s Nedra Pickler: “A new seal debuted on Obama's podium Friday as he held a round-table discussion with Democratic governors. [It sports] iconography used in the U.S. presidential seal -- the blue background, the eagle clutching arrows on left and olive branch on right -- but with symbolic differences. Instead of the Latin ‘E pluribus unum’ (Out of many, one), Obama's says ‘Vero possumus,’ rough Latin for ‘Yes, we can.’ Instead of ‘Seal of the President of the United States,’ Obama's Web site address is listed. And instead of a shield, Obama's eagle wears his ‘O’ campaign logo with a rising sun representing hope ahead.”

Politico’s Ben Smith says it’s for “events meant to feel presidential.”

ABC’s Jake Tapper is waiting for “a remix of ‘Hail to the Chief.’ ”

National Review’s Greg Pollowitz: “Audacity defined: Changing the seal of the United States of America and inserting the ‘O’ logo for the American flag.”

Rich Lowry, channeling Jonathan Martin: “Obama's own presidential seal. With its own Latin slogan. You can't make this stuff up.”

BETSY FISCHER, executive producer of “Meet the Press,” writes in an e-mail to viewers: “Friday morning of last week, Tim Russert was hard at work preparing for Sunday's upcoming interview with Senators Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden. … This Sunday, both Senators Graham and Biden have graciously agreed to appear here to have that Decision 2008 debate. It will be the debate that Tim was so looking forward to and it is the debate that I think he would want us to proceed with. We are fortunate that NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams will be here to moderate. We will also have a political roundtable with Andrea Mitchell of NBC News and John Harwood of CNBC and the New York Times. And to close the show, in memory of Tim, we will have a special look back at this week's services and tributes to our leader and friend.” (Hat tip: Politico’s Michael Calderone)

THE MAP – The Cincinnati Enquirer front-pages “The Ground Warriors” about the skeletal get-out-the-vote forces already staging in Ohio: “Ohio's March 4 presidential primary turned out to be a significant event in the contest between Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, which meant that the Obama campaign already has an army of tens of thousands of volunteers ready and waiting for their fall campaign assignments. … The McCain campaign, though, is catching up. It opened its regional headquarters Thursday in Columbus and, in the Cincinnati area, will soon begin working out of space in Rep. Steve Chabot's re-election campaign office in Cheviot and in storefront space the Hamilton County Republican Party has on Seventh Street downtown.”

NOTHING SUBTLE ABOUT DEBORAH SOLOMON’S WINKING AND NUDGING in her interview with Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who won’t be McCain’s V.P. pick but gets written about anyway: “You were married nearly 30 years ago, but the marriage lasted less than a year. … You can’t find one woman in all of Florida?”

CRIST: “Maybe I have. Stay tuned.”

BARRON’S SAYS OIL MAY BE PEAKING – Senior Editor Andrew Bary: “It's perilous to call the top in a booming market, but the price of oil may be peaking in the current range of $130 to $140 a barrel. Oil's sharp move up -- prices have doubled in the past year -- caught the world by surprise … In the next decade, oil indeed may hit $200 a barrel. But prices could fall to $100 a barrel by the end of this year if Saudi Arabia makes good on its pledge to increase production; global demand eases; the Federal Reserve begins lifting short-term interest rates; the dollar rallies, and investors stop pouring money into the oil market.”

N.Y. Post goes big with Mayor Bloomberg as “GAS BAG”: “Let the little people pay higher gas taxes. That was the harsh message for beleaguered motorists delivered yesterday by Mayor Bloomberg. With drivers around the country fuming about rising gas prices, Bloomberg dropped a bombshell into their tanks yesterday by calling for increased fuel taxes to cut consumption.”

NATION OF SISSIES? WORKING MAN’S TRUCK PUT ON ICE – Dallas Morning News, top of A1, “Ford's F-150 cutback hits heart of Texas”: “Friday, Ford Motor Co. put the brakes on the new F-150, delaying its much-anticipated launch until late fall. … The trucks symbolize the ‘the working man,’ said Brad Hawkins, general sales manager at Randall Reed's Prestige Ford in Garland. ‘These work horses are what a guy uses for his crops. He throws sheet rock in the back. You gotta have them.’ Michigan-based Ford blamed dwindling sales and higher gas prices for its cutback announcement, a move that not only hurts the automaker financially but also pains a state known as the truck capital of the world.”

NEXT ADMINISTRATION TO DECIDE BETWEEN NORTHROP and BOEING – Wall Street Journal A3 – “The Air Force is virtually certain to reopen its bidding on a mammoth tanker contract in the wake of a scathing government audit, which means that the service will be unlikely to meet a 2013 deadline for fielding the new planes, according to the Air Force's recently ousted civilian chief. Departing Air Force Secretary … said the Air Force would issue a new request for proposals from the two companies … [T]hese sweeping changes could take well over a year to implement, which means that the official who takes the reins at the Pentagon after the November elections will be charged with making the final decisions in a process that has dragged on for more than seven years.”

LOOKAHEAD, from AP's Matthew Lee: “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heads to Asia next week amid signs of an imminent breakthrough in efforts to get North Korea to abandon nuclear weapons and bring a formal end to the Korean War.”

MAY MONEY FIGURES OUT LAST NIGHT – L.A. Times’ Dan Morain: “For the first time in the presidential campaign, John McCain matched Barack Obama's monthly fundraising haul, as each presumptive nominee pulled in more than $21 million in May, campaign reports filed Friday show. … Political scientist Anthony Corrado, an expert in presidential campaign financing at Colby College in Maine, said he believed that May would be Obama's worst month of the campaign. Donations have probably flooded to the Illinois senator since he locked up the nomination when the Democratic primaries ended June 3, Corrado said.” He predicts “A MAJOR SURGE” in June and “expects that Obama will outspend his Republican foe and the GOP by as much as 2 to 1.”

Politico’s Jeanne CUMMINGS: “The surprising cash parity between McCain and Obama means the candidates begin the general more evenly matched than many experts expected, although things could change quickly given Obama’s ability to raise money quickly through small online contributions. According to Obama’s campaign, the drop in donations was caused in part by a shift in focus from bringing in big money to honing in on the delegates needed to clinch his party’s nomination. At the same time, he was forced to burn through his cash reserve in the final round of primaries, which were hotly contested by a significantly under-funded Hillary Clinton.”

AP’s $$$ CHARTS ARE PASTED AT THE BOTTOM.

THE BIG IDEA – OBAMA-CLINTON CAMPS STILL FROSTY – ABC’s Jake Tapper: “[W]hile the public face of the Obama-Clinton rapprochement is all smiles -- they will campaign together [next Friday] and Clinton will attend an Obama fundraiser [Thursday] at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC -- behind the scenes there remains much tension, sources involved from both camps tell ABC News. It didn’t go unnoticed in Hillaryland, for instance, that the first fundraising solicitation Obama sent out was not for Clinton but instead one to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

“To many Clinton supporters, Obama could easily send an email to his 1.4 million grassroots supporters asking them to help unify the part to retire Clinton's debt. … To Obama supporters, reaching out to Obama's email list would cheapen the brand of his grassroots appeal, and would likely offend some contributors who view Clinton -- and the campaign she waged against Obama -- rather unfavorably. … In short, though you will see smiles for the cameras next week, do not think smiles equal happiness.”

AP’s Jim Kuhnhenn: “Asked on Friday whether Obama's finance team had discussed ways to ease Clinton's debt when it met Thursday night in Chicago, Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said ‘those meetings have focused more on what these two can do together to bring the party together and move it forward than it has on these logistical details.’ ”

***TIME’s Mark “The Page” Halperin on why Obama opted out of public financing: “Obama will now be able to, say, spend $10 million on Texas television ads, giving McCain some tough choices to make. … No candidate has ever had as big a spending advantage as Obama will have for the final two months of the campaign.”

The NYT’s Michael Luo uses a FLOYD BROWN front-pager to reprise Jonathan Martin’s finding that Republican 527s are staying on the sidelines: “[I]f Mr. Brown’s struggles are any indication — he has so far failed to raise much money — it is not clear that Republicans will be able to repeat their successes in 2004, when independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had a significant role in undermining Senator John Kerry’s campaign.”

WashPost A1, top of page, “Big Promises Bump Into Budget Realities: New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say.”
.
“YOU” TRIUMPH: Jon Friedman, media columnist for MarketWatch.com, writes that he has “a confession to make”: “Time magazine was spot-on, dead-bang correct when it named ‘You’ as its Person of the Year for 2006. I knocked the inspired choice, and I was way off base. … Time magazine was clearly ahead of its time. … [T]hese 21st-century user-driven innovations - Facebook, Friendster, YouTube, MySpace, LinkedIn, Yelp (oh, yes) and others - are taking over the way people communicate with one another.”

Politico’s JAMES “SLASH” KOTECKI OPENS A BLOG: James, for once not dressed as Mr. Rogers, exults: “My title of ‘video blogger’ now finally makes sense!” To our befuddlement, it’s not called “Emergency Cheese,” but “James Kotecki,” which no doubt added a fortune to our NameLab tab. James opens what he likes to call “a new blogging frontier” right here, where you can see James with pipe and robe) in a “special blog intro video I made just for you (plural).”

MORE OBAMA CAMPAIGN:

--David S. BRODER’s Sunday column says Obama could be hurt by turning down McCain’s proposal for JOINT TOWN HALLS, which The Dean says “would be a real service to the public and that suspending the dollar-chase for the duration of the campaign, as McCain but not Obama will do, would be a major step toward establishing the credibility of the election process. By refusing to join McCain in these initiatives in order to protect his own interests, Obama raises an important question: Has he built sufficient trust so that his motives will be accepted by the voters who are only now starting to figure out what makes him tick?”

--Chicago Sun-Times Political Reporter Abdon Pallasch: “Noticeably absent from [Friday] morning’s panel discussion was the Democratic governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, who attended the private dinner of Democratic governors Thursday night but then left to tour flood damage in Downstate Alton during this morning’s public meeting. Did the campaign not want Obama photographed with the governor, referred to as ‘Public Official A’ in court papers that are part of an ongoing federal investigation of Blagojevich’s administration? A campaign spokeswoman said all 28 Democratic governors were invited. Blagojevich had already scheduled the Downstate visit, said his spokesman Lucio Guerrero.”

PRODUCERS/NATIONAL EDITORS – WashPost B2, “Class Action Filed Over Checkpoints”: “A civil rights group filed a federal lawsuit yesterday to halt the D.C. police department's new checkpoint initiative, arguing that it is unconstitutional to screen motorists and prevent some from entering certain neighborhoods. The Partnership for Civil Justice filed the suit on behalf of four District residents who alleged that the checkpoints, set up after a stretch of deadly violence in Northeast Washington, led to ‘widespread civil rights violations.’ The suit seeks to bar police from using the program anywhere in the city.”

MEDIAWATCH – AP, “Top European TV official says pre-game coverage problems could spill over to Beijing Olympics”: “Seven weeks before the Olympics open, television broadcasters are involved in a fight with Chinese organizers over coverage away from the sports venues. This involves moving satellite trucks around the city, deploying equipment and clear rules about where TV cameras will be able to film. … Shaken by protests on international legs of the Olympic torch relay following the outbreak of deadly rioting in Tibet in March, China's government seems to be backtracking on promises to let reporters work as they have at previous Olympics. … In recent months, the government has tightened visa rules, particularly targeting foreign students. The government fears many would side with activist groups if protests break out.”

SPORTS BLINK -- John Clayton of ESPN.com gives a rave to Brett Favre’s successor at QB, Aaron Rodgers, who “has a cannon”: “According to some teammates, Aaron Rodgers' throws have more velocity than Brett Favre's. … The football explodes off his hand on each throw in practice. … right arm sets up naturally, and the ball comes out unnaturally fast.”

Wall Street Journal A1: “Seeking to end an embarrassing dispute that kept live pro football games out of many homes, the National Football League's NFL Network is in talks to form a partnership with Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN cable sports network, according to people familiar with the situation. An agreement would represent a big shift in strategy for the NFL: abandoning its effort to force cable operators into carrying its own network and thus paying it lucrative monthly fees. It would also send a message to other professional sports, which have enjoyed rising television fees for years, that even the biggest and most powerful league in the U.S. cannot launch a new channel without the consent of giant cable operators such as Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable Inc.

“For fans, a deal could close a bitter standoff between the league and four of the nation's largest cable operators that has left live games on Thursday and Saturday nights unavailable to many cable subscribers. One scenario that has been discussed would involve combining the NFL Network with the ESPN Classic network, which has relatively low ratings but wider distribution. ESPN would broadcast eight more games per season on ESPN Classic, and then attempt to wring higher subscription fees than the 16 or 17 cents it currently receives for the channel, according to Derek Baine, a senior analyst for SNL Kagan. Under such a scenario, ESPN and the NFL could form a joint venture and share revenue, or ESPN could take an equity stake in the channel.”

THE SHOWS, from AP:

ABC's "This Week" — Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.; American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Red Cavaney; Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

CBS' "Face the Nation" — Carly Fiorina, adviser to John McCain's campaign; Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M.

NBC's "Meet the Press" — Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

CNN's "Late Edition" — Govs. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn., and Richardson; Reps. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., and Eric Cantor, R-Va.; former Labor Secretary Robert Reich; Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain adviser; Ahmed Rashid, author of a new book on Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia.

"Fox News Sunday" — Former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.; former Gov. Tom Ridge, R-Pa.; Earth Day Network President Kathleen Rogers.

AP’s “CAMPAIGN MONEY” CHARTS:

BARACK OBAMA

Total receipts to date: $295.52 million, including $10.72 million for general election.
Total contributions to date: $287.5 million.
Total spending: $252.4 million.
May contributions: $21.9 million, including $687,000 for general election.
May spending: $26.8 million.
May transfers or loans: none.
Cash on hand: $43 million, including $10 million for general election.
Debt: $304,000.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

Total receipts to date: $238 million, including $23.3 million for the general election and $12.2 million loan.
Total contributions to date: $209.4 million.
Total spending: $207.6 million,
May contributions: $12.6 million, including $395,000 for the general election.
May spending: $19 million.
May transfers or loans: $2.175 million personal loan from candidate.
Cash on hand: $26.7 million, including $23.3 million for the general election that can't be used.
Debt: $22.5 million, including $12.2 million personal loan.

JOHN MCCAIN

Total receipts to date: $121.9 million.
Total contributions to date: $110 million.
Total spending: $90.3 million.
May contributions: $16.6 million.
May spending: $11.7 million.
May transfers or loans: $4.3 million — money raised through joint victory fund with Republican National Committee.
Cash on hand: $31.6 million.
Debt: $1.3 million.

SUPREME COURT ON THE BRINK? -- NOT!

2008-07-04T20:14:00.003-05:00

Unconstitutional Ignorance on the Editorial Page
The same court which last week held up a vital civil liberty -- individual gun ownership -- is accused of "stripping away civil liberties" in today's lead editorial.

Posted by: Clay Waters
7/3/2008 1:19:16 PM

Thursday's lead editorial review of the just-ended Supreme Court term, which laid down a puzzling mixed bag of decisions, some highly pleasing to conservatives (the gun-rights ruling), and some offensive ones (declaring the death penalty for child rape unconstitutional). At least this case the Times doesn't foolishly call this court "far right," as it did in last week's apoplectic fit disguised as an editorial on the Court's 5-4 decision upholding the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, although it did warn of the "far-right bloc" that would take command if McCain appointed judges.

In its latest editorial, "A Supreme Court on the Brink," the Times warned:

The Supreme Court abandoned its special role in protecting voting rights when it rejected a challenge to Indiana’s harshly anti-democratic voter ID law. Critics warned that the law, which bars anyone without a government-issued photo ID from voting, would disenfranchise poor people, minorities and the elderly, all of whom disproportionately lack drivers’ licenses. The critics were right. In the Indiana presidential primary, shortly after the ruling, about 12 nuns in their 80s and 90s were turned away at the polls for not having acceptable ID.

This seems to be the one verifiable case of vote deprivation that's coursed through the liberal press, even though the real story is a bit more nuanced than the "waterhoses and tear gas tone" adopted by the Times (for one thing, the elderly nuns had been advised earlier that they'd need updated ID in order to vote).

In a second capital punishment case, the court ruled that the death penalty cannot be imposed for the rape of a child. Horrific as that crime is, the court wisely drew a clear line and said that capital punishment can only be imposed for crimes in which the victim’s life was taken.

Note that the Times, with its selectively expansive view of the Constitution, would care, but the Constitution forbids the taking of a life only "without due process of law." The Fifth Amendment in full:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The editorial went through more cases from the concluded term, including liberal rulings that pleased them, but warned darkly that if McCain were elected, the "far-right bloc" would reign supreme.

In placing these rulings in the larger context of the court after two appointments by President Bush -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both dedicated members of the conservative movement -- it is important to note that the Guantánamo decision was 5 to 4. Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing justice, cast the deciding vote. In other cases, like the gun-control decision, the rulings might have been more sweeping and more damaging if the conservative bloc had not needed the moderate-conservative Justice Kennedy’s vote to form a majority. One more conservative appointment would shift the balance to the far-right bloc.

If that happens, the court can be expected to push even further in a dangerous direction. It would most likely begin stripping away civil liberties, like the habeas rights vindicated in the Guantánamo case. The constitutional protection of women’s reproductive rights could be eliminated. The court might well strike down laws that protect the environment, workers’ rights and the rights of racial and religious minorities.

A little Constitutional Studies 101 for the Times: The Constitution says not a word on the matter of abortion. And didn't this Court just uphold the important civil liberty guaranteed by the Second Amendment?

The editorial ended by exhorting Times' readers (not in so many words) to vote for Obama:

The court was teetering on the brink in this term. Voters should keep that firmly in mind when they go to the polls in November.

THEY NEED OUR HELP

2008-07-02T22:11:00.000-05:00

Chairmen of the bored: Idle days take toll on disabled vets
By CHRIS VAUGHN
McClatchy Newspapers
Article Launched: 05/24/2008 01:45:12 AM PDT

FORT WORTH, Texas — John Chrzanowski heads to the horse barn first thing in the morning most days.
He brushes, cleans out horseshoes, saddles and then grimaces to get up on top of his favorite, a sand-colored palomino named Sally, to ride around his property east of Dallas. Horses are new to Chrzanowski, who grew up in a Detroit suburb and spent most of his adult life as an Army infantryman.
But a roadside bomb in Iraq ended his combat tour early and left him a very different man, scarred and unfit for continuing duty.
What he was left with is a wife, a baby girl and five horses, all that he has to spend his time on. Every day is a day off.
He would prefer something else to occupy his mind, somewhere to go other than doctor's appointments and the feed store. He's 24 years old and can't fathom the rest of his life spent in leisure.
But no one, not even defense contractors who profit from the war, has expressed interest in hiring him.
"There really isn't much out there for a 24-year-old grunt fresh out of the Army with no college education," he said.
This kind of fallout from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has largely been overshadowed by the more outrageous tales of lapses in military medical care, inadequate death benefits and bureaucratic bungling in the Veterans Affairs Department.
When severely disabled veterans get forced out of the military, as thousands have since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they face the very sobering
realization that they may have nothing more to look forward to than a government check for the rest of their lives.
Government statistics from the Labor Department issued last month state that the unemployment rate in 2007 for disabled veterans from all wars was 3.4 percent and that almost 9 out of 10 disabled Iraq war veterans were working, both of which indicate there is not a problem at all.
Experts in the field, however, say that is not their experience. One recent report prepared by a disability advocacy group for the Army said there are no reliable statistics for the most severely injured, but that their unemployment rate was "staggering."
The government statistics "seem counterintuitive to me," agreed Dave Autry, a spokesman for the Disabled American Veterans group in Washington, D.C. "I don't think those numbers are really reflective of what's happening. Historically, severely disabled veterans have fared less well in the work force, and the higher the disability rating, the higher the unemployment."
Frederick Williams, a former noncommissioned officer in the 1st Cavalry Division with burns, shrapnel wounds and partial deafness and blindness, found out what it was like when he started calling and applying for jobs in Killeen.
He never received a single phone call from the private sector and never received a job offer from any government agency. Eventually, Williams, 46, a Louisiana native, landed a job with a nonprofit company that hires only severely disabled people, a job he loves.
But he hasn't forgotten how the private sector snubbed him.
The American people "don't owe us anything," he said. "This was our decision. But we did stuff they did not want to do, so morally, they should think about that and give us a chance. If we're OK to fight for you, it might be OK for us to work for you."
A week before Christmas last year, the Chrzanowskis closed on a two-story house and 16 acres in Hunt County, a bit north of Greenville.
Neither of them knew much about North Texas. Chrzanowski knew even less about life in the country.
He grew up in a place called St. Clair Shores, a small city outside Detroit and just across Lake St. Clair from Canada.
His wife, Tanis, called Corpus Christi home, 1,300 miles away and a lot closer to the United States' other border.
But after the Air Force had brought Chrzanowski to Texas on June 21, 2005, in the belly of a C-17 transport, so bandaged up he looked like the Michelin man, he couldn't very well leave.
"I wanted to go to Georgia," he said. "But I married a Texan, and they don't take kindly to leaving Texas."
The two met outside a barracks on Fort Sam Houston, where hundreds of sick and injured soldiers and Marines were going through rehabilitation and recovery.
Tanis, a medic in Iraq, had ended up at Brooke Army Medical Center because of a medical problem. Seven months later, they wed in a small and short ceremony at the Bexar County Courthouse, celebrating afterward at a Mexican restaurant on the River Walk with a handful of family members. (Seven months after that, they would ask a Catholic priest to bless their marriage to make it more official with God.)
Chrzanowski went under for 13 surgeries and endured thousands of sessions with rehab specialists. His medical charts coldly described his injuries — 62.5 percent of his body with third-degree burns, 15 percent with second-degree burns.
Only the top of his head, his face and the top of his feet escaped.
Two, sometimes three times a day he would go to rehab, trying to release and stretch the yards of scar tissue that formed all over his body. He still cannot find the words for the pain, only that it was "beyond any human comprehension."
"Bless them, the rehab people never give up on you," he said. "You could cuss them, and they'd always come back."
Twenty-three months after his flight landed in San Antonio, the Army cut Chrzanowski loose and retired him for medical reasons. They also made him a corporal.
"Pity promotion," he said.
Chrzanowski sometimes breaks things around the house so he can fix them.
He bought a boat so he could go fishing. He rides around in his tractor looking for a fence to mend.
When it's too hot outside, or too cold, or too windy, he has to come inside. He will forever be limited in how much exposure he has to extreme weather.
Maybe he will turn on the History Channel or play with his 10-month-old daughter, Audrey.
"I was raised in an old-fashioned family," he said.
"A man goes to work in the morning and comes home in the evening. He provides for his family. But when every day is Saturday ..." His voice trails off.
He won't say it but the truth is that Chrzanowski is bored, physically and mentally. It has been eight months since he has done anything but hang out with his wife and daughter every single day.
But trying to land a job has so far proved fruitless. He worked with job-placement centers, and he sent his resume to businesses in Greenville, McKinney, Bonham and Sherman. He applied for several jobs with area defense contractors L-3 Communications and Raytheon.
If the applications asked about his disability status, he told the truth. If the application didn't ask, he didn't advertise it.
But nothing has come of his job hunting, not an interview, not a phone call.
In the last couple of weeks, Chrzanowski has started to think about college, perhaps at Texas A&M at Commerce. He can see himself getting a degree in social work and helping returning veterans with problems they might have.
"I still would like to serve my country," he said.
He doesn't think he's college material, though. He is worried about whether he can learn in a classroom and do well, and he is concerned that he won't be able to take notes in class because of his hands.
Chrzanowski won't bow, he won't beg and he balks at anyone's pity. He didn't work so hard to live, to father a daughter, to get up on a horse to have it any other way.
"I refuse to let my enemies win," he said. "I can still do everything I could the day before I got hurt. It just takes me a little longer."
Reluctantly, Williams made a phone call one day to a business his wife had heard about.
He was sick of rejection, mad at just about everyone, but he called anyway and left a voice mail.
Later that day, the man called back.
Williams has not been the same since.
When he retired from the military, Williams began to fill out a lot of applications. He called a lot of businesses and talked to managers or human resources directors. He interviewed with a couple of places on Fort Hood.
He dutifully rattled off, either orally or in writing, his limitations — "I can't stand too long. I can't lift much. I can't hear well. I sometimes have memory problems. I can't travel a lot. I have VA appointments." On and on it went.
It was full disclosure to Williams. He wanted to be honest.
For nine months, though, nothing happened.
At first, Williams got mad.
"As much as I gave this country and they won't even give me a chance," he would mumble.
Then, he just flat gave up. He sunk into a depression and found himself needing therapy more and more. "I felt like I was a burden to my family," he said. "I always told my kids, 'Work hard, and you'll get things out of life.' But what kind of example was I."
When the project manager called him back that day in late 2006, Williams once again went through all his special needs.
"He said he'd work with me," Williams said.
Silence.
"What do you mean you'll work with me?" Williams finally said.
Williams is now a valued member of the team at TRDI Inc., a nonprofit company that has a government contract to monitor security at Fort Hood's airfield.
Surrounded by fellow disabled veterans, Williams watches TV screens much of the day, looking for unauthorized vehicles or people in a secure area.
He enjoys a newfound type of camaraderie, almost as good as the Army, he said, because they "ain't got to run."
"I've been in a place where you can't go any lower," he said. "To find a job after what I've been through ... I've overcome it all."

POLITICALLY INCORRECT VIEW POINTS???

2008-07-02T10:43:00.002-05:00

This is carrying political correctness too far, way to far. Why should anyone give a rat's petunias over how these people feel about how they are labeled? A prostitute is a prostitute and has been since time immemorial. Intravenous drug users are drug addicts and if they don't like the label then they never should have acquired it in the first place. As for "gay", I never did understand the use of a word that should mean joy and happiness to represent a a same sex relationship. Homosexual/lesbian I can understand. Liberal deviousness I can understand and you can see it's not so subtle hand in actions like this. It is way past time to push back on the liberal/socialist actions in this world--hard.

U.K. Health Service Bans Use of ‘Gay’

By Don | July 1, 2008

The United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) has issued a proposal to ban the use of the terms “gay”, “prostitute” and “intravenous drug user”, over the fear that they would cause offense.
U.K. Health Service Bans Use of ‘Gay’

By Don | July 1, 2008

The United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) has issued a proposal to ban the use of the terms “gay”, “prostitute” and “intravenous drug user”, over the fear that they would cause offense.

From the TimesOnline.

Doctors and nurses have been ordered to refer to gay patients as “men who have sex with men” (U.K. Health Service Bans Use of ‘Gay’

By Don | July 1, 2008

The United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) has issued a proposal to ban the use of the terms “gay”, “prostitute” and “intravenous drug user”, over the fear that they would cause offense.

From the TimesOnline.

Doctors and nurses have been ordered to refer to gay patients as “men who have sex with men” (MSM), to avoid stigmatising those who have had same-sex relationships but do not consider themselves homosexual.

A review is now under way into terms referring to other groups of patients including sex workers and drug addicts.

Professor David Goldberg, of National Services Scotland, which is advising health boards on the issue, said patients who have sold sex for money may not consider themselves to be permanently engaged in the sex industry and, therefore, should not be labelled as such.

Similarly, individuals who may have only injected drugs on a handful of occasions may not wish to be known as drug users.

“It’s about using terminology which is more accurate and getting away from labelling people. We should label the behaviour rather than the person because labels can be stigmatising. Behind the label is a human being,” said Professor Goldberg.

However, gay rights groups said the new terminology was “demeaning” to homosexuals and is urging the health service to think again.

“The trouble is that in trying to avoid offending some people, they end up not including everyone else because it relegates same-sex relationships to a mere physical act,” said David Lyle, a chief inspector with Lothian and Borders police and Scottish co-ordinator of the Gay Police Association.

Maybe this is all more silly political correctness but if the gays are complaining about it then maybe it isn't such a bas thing after all.

MSM), to avoid stigmatising those who have had same-sex relationships but do not consider themselves homosexual.

A review is now under way into terms referring to other groups of patients including sex workers and drug addicts.

Professor David Goldberg, of National Services Scotland, which is advising health boards on the issue, said patients who have sold sex for money may not consider themselves to be permanently engaged in the sex industry and, therefore, should not be labelled as such.

Similarly, individuals who may have only injected drugs on a handful of occasions may not wish to be known as drug users.

“It’s about using terminology which is more accurate and getting away from labelling people. We should label the behaviour rather than the person because labels can be stigmatising. Behind the label is a human being,” said Professor Goldberg.

However, gay rights groups said the new terminology was “demeaning” to homosexuals and is urging the health service to think again.

“The trouble is that in trying to avoid offending some people, they end up not including everyone else because it relegates same-sex relationships to a mere physical act,” said David Lyle, a chief inspector with Lothian and Borders police and Scottish co-ordinator of the Gay Police Association.

Maybe this is all more silly political correctness but if the gays are complaining about it then maybe it isn't such a bas thing after all.

From the TimesOnline.

Doctors and nurses have been ordered to refer to gay patients as “men who have sex with men” (MSM), to avoid stigmatising those who have had same-sex relationships but do not consider themselves homosexual.

A review is now under way into terms referring to other groups of patients including sex workers and drug addicts.

Professor David Goldberg, of National Services Scotland, which is advising health boards on the issue, said patients who have sold sex for money may not consider themselves to be permanently engaged in the sex industry and, therefore, should not be labelled as such.

Similarly, individuals who may have only injected drugs on a handful of occasions may not wish to be known as drug users.

“It’s about using terminology which is more accurate and getting away from labelling people. We should label the behaviour rather than the person because labels can be stigmatising. Behind the label is a human being,” said Professor Goldberg.

However, gay rights groups said the new terminology was “demeaning” to homosexuals and is urging the health service to think again.

“The trouble is that in trying to avoid offending some people, they end up not including everyone else because it relegates same-sex relationships to a mere physical act,” said David Lyle, a chief inspector with Lothian and Borders police and Scottish co-ordinator of the Gay Police Association.

Maybe this is all more silly political correctness but if the gays are complaining about it then maybe it isn't such a bas thing after all.

ANOTHER FAILED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

2008-06-25T22:27:00.002-05:00

Coming Soon: Not-So-NICE Health Care?

By SALLY C. PIPES | Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:30 PM PT

A British court just ruled that the U.K. government unfairly denied anti-dementia drugs to Alzheimer's patients. The government's reason for refusing to cover the drugs? Money. Government scrooges didn't want to foot the bill.

This kind of penny-pinching happens all too often in Britain, thanks to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness, or NICE, the agency that determines which treatments get covered by the British health care system.

If some congressional lawmakers get their way, the United States soon will have a similar agency. And it too will deny vital treatment options.

The U.S. Senate is considering legislation to create a Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute under Medicare.

Like NICE, the new agency would conduct studies on the relative effectiveness of various medical treatments, analyzing how different options stack up against one another.

In theory, this research could provide doctors with more complete information when deciding which treatment to recommend. But in practice, the agency's findings would likely be used by Congress to lower the government's health care spending.

By generating studies that show that older, cheaper drugs are just as effective as newer cures, cost-conscious lawmakers could rationalize not covering expensive cutting-edge medicines under Medicare, Medicaid and other publicly funded programs.

Sound far-fetched? This is precisely what happens time and again in the U.K.

Earlier this year, for example, NICE failed to approve the arthritis drug abatacept. Even though it is one of the only drugs clinically proven to improve severe rheumatoid arthritis, NICE decided that "abatacept would not be a cost-effective use of NHS (National Health Service) resources."

Just one month before that ruling, NICE made a similar decision about the lung cancer drug Tarceva.

Despite numerous studies showing that the drug significantly prolongs the life of cancer patients — and the unanimous endorsement of lung cancer specialists throughout the U.K. — NICE determined that the drug was too expensive to cover. England is currently one of only three countries in Western Europe to deny their citizens access to Tarceva.

Comparative effectiveness research is so easily misused because it looks only at the "average" patient. By focusing on which drugs, on average, are cheapest and most effective, comparative effectiveness research can overlook important factors like age, race, gender and lifestyle.

So even though a patient's doctor might decide that a drug like Tarceva is the best treatment given the particular needs of his patient, the government could refuse to cover the drug simply because it isn't cost-effective for the "average" patient.

It's exactly these kinds of tactics that Britain's Court of Appeal recently judged to be "procedurally unfair" when it overturned NICE's decision to deny Alzheimer's patients access to several anti-dementia drugs.

The legislation now under consideration in Congress could go a long way toward helping American doctors and patients make informed health care decisions.

Toward that end, it's crucial that any American agency conducting comparative effectiveness research consider what's best for individual patients instead of looking for cheap, one-size-fits-all cures.

The agency should also be free from political influence. Just as importantly, its recommendations should be non-binding. In other words, the research should be used to empower doctors and patients — not politicians, bureaucrats and budget analysts.

Otherwise, the poor, the elderly and others receiving government medical care would be subjected to the same kind of treatment we've seen in the U.K.

Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of "Miracle Cure: How to Solve America's Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn't the Answer."

FAILED HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS

2008-06-25T22:03:00.003-05:00

And the Democrats/liberals/socialists want to reform OUR health care system to be model on the Brits and the Canadians. Whoa Nellie, there is definitely something wrong here. Nothing that Liberals/Socialists have proposed over the past 200 HUNDRED YEARS has yet to succeed and yet each new generation -- including BHO -- tries to reinvent the square wheel. When I was stationed at Air Force Global Weather Central, Offutt AFB Omaha NE, we had a very senior civilian by the name of Art Gulliver. Mr. G's primary focus was to keep young captains and even younger lieutenants from reinventing the wheel. Too bad the Liberals/Socialists do not have a Mr. G. Come to think of it though, if they did maybe they would not be be the bad boys and girls that they are. NOT!

Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits

By DAVID GRATZER | Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:30 PM PT

As this presidential campaign continues, the candidates' comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.

But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn't an American and hasn't held office in over three decades.

Castonguay's evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.

In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.

Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.

De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.

Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example.

Canada isn't the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain's system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.

The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can't centrally plan their way to better health care.

A typical example: The Ministry of Health declared that British patients should get ER care within four hours. The result? At some hospitals, seriously ill patients are kept in ambulances for hours so as not to run afoul of the regulation; at other hospitals, patients are admitted to inappropriate wards.

Declarations can't solve staffing shortages and the other rationing of care that occurs in government-run systems.

Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program," Obama said back in the 1990s. Last year, Obama told the New Yorker that "if you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system probably makes sense."

As for the Republicans, simply criticizing Democratic health care proposals will not suffice — it's not 1994 anymore. And, while McCain's health care proposals hold promise of putting families in charge of their health care and perhaps even taming costs, McCain, at least so far, doesn't seem terribly interested in discussing health care on the campaign trail.

However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada's government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?

Gratzer is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a physician licensed in both the U.S. and Canada, where he received his medical training. His newest book, "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care," is now available in paperback.

OBAMA THE SOCIALIST STRIKES AGAIN

2008-06-24T23:33:00.001-05:00

<a href="http://ads.townhall.com/accipiter/adclick/CID=0001650a6d4b0d8d00000000/site=TOWNHALL/area=Townhall.Web/POSITION=TOWN_RECT/AAMGEOIP=216.16.3.190"> <img src="http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/creative/may-mmad1.swf" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"> </a>
Obama's Vision for Government-Run Childhood
Terence Jeffrey
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

One of the most dramatic changes in American life in the years since World War II involves the way we raise our children.

We used to do it ourselves. Now, convinced we have better things to do, many of us leave the job to others.

Encouraging this flight from parenthood, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has proposed what he calls his "Zero to Five" plan. It is a collection of programs aimed at getting the government involved in the raising of your children from the moment they are born.

"The first part of my plan focuses on providing quality affordable early childhood education to every child in America," Obama said in a November speech. "As president, I will launch a Children's First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children ages zero to five."

"We'll create Early Learning Grants to help states create a system of high-quality early care and education for all young children and their families," he said. "And we'll help more working parents find a safe, affordable place to leave their children during the day by improving the educational quality of our childcare programs and increasing the childcare tax credit."

This week, Obama upped his ante by vowing to "double funding for after-school programs that help children learn and give parents relief."

Obama, of course, will also continue to defend your "right" to hire a physician to kill your child in utero so you won't have to raise the child at all.

The hard evidence that most American parents now leave at least some of the nurturing of even their youngest children to others has been gathered by the U.S. Department of Labor.

An excellent summary of government data on this issue can be found in "Trends in Labor Force Participation of Married Mothers and Infants," a study by Bureau of Labor Statistics economists Sharon R. Cohany and Emy Sok that was published last year.

"In 1948, only about 17 percent of married mothers were in the labor force," wrote Cohany and Sok. "By 1995, their labor force participation rate had reached 70 percent."

Note that these are "married mothers" -- not single moms, who because of illegitimacy, divorce or a husband's death are forced to work outside the home.

In fact, as of 2005 (the latest year cited by Cohany and Sok), more than 53 percent of married American women with infants (babies less than 1 year old) worked outside the home.

Some of the data points to the conclusion that this phenomenon is driven as much by changes in our values as in changes in our economy.

For example, relative poverty was clearly not the most powerful factor driving married mothers of infants to work outside the home. In fact, those whose husbands earned an income ranking in the lowest 20 percent were the least likely to go to work, Cohany and Sok discovered, while those whose husbands earned an income that ranked in the highest 20 percent were the second least likely to work.

Less than half of these relatively poor and relatively rich mothers with infants worked.

Yet, of the married mothers with infants whose husbands earned an income in the middle 20 percent, 64.4 percent worked outside the home.

Similarly, Cohany and Sok discovered: "The more children a woman has, the less likely she is to be in the labor force." Almost 60 percent of married mothers with infants who had only one child worked. Only 36.6 percent of those who had five or more children worked.

In America today, the rarer child makes a scarcer mom.

It is also telling that while 58.5 percent of native-born mothers with infants worked outside the home, only 35 percent of immigrant mothers with infants did.

Some force in our culture that was not as strong in 1948 as it is today is devaluing traditional family life and the stay-at-home mom.

But this force could be waning. "After a lengthy and dramatic advance," concluded Cohany and Sok, "labor force participation rates for married mothers of infants peaked in 1997 and have been relatively stable since 2000."

Through his plans to increase government funding and control of the rearing of children ages "zero to five," Barack Obama would increase, rather than decrease, the force that drives mothers of infants to leave them in someone else's care. He would also cause a wholly unjust transfer of wealth.

Old-fashioned moms and dads who insist on caring for their own pre-school children will pay for -- but gain no benefit from -- programs that put the government in the business of caring for children whose moms and dads would both rather work outside the home than work raising a child.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

MY oh MY, SHAME ON HER

2008-06-24T23:13:00.001-05:00

COLUMBIA TO AX PLAGIARIST NOOSE PROF
By CATHY BURKE
COPIER, OVER AND OUT:Professor Madonna Constantine, who said a noose was left on her office door, is vowing to fight her termination for plagiarism.
COPIER, OVER AND OUT:Professor Madonna Constantine, who said a noose was left on her office door, is vowing to fight her termination for plagiarism.

June 24, 2008 --

The controversial Columbia Teachers College professor whose alleged discovery of a hangman's noose on her office doorknob triggered national outrage is being fired for plagiarism, school officials said yesterday.

Madonna Constantine, a professor of psychology and education with a focus on racial issues, was informed June 12, and the news was relayed to faculty in a letter yesterday.

Her firing is subject to a hearing before a faculty committee, and in the meantime, she has been suspended "effective immediately," according to the letter.

A lawyer for the tenured prof blasted the decision as "retaliatory and hostile," and said he would fight the move in court.

He also threatened to sue for defamation.

"It's not the end," vowed a friend of Constantine outside her Morningside Heights apartment last night.

The bombshell dismissal caps a tumultuous series of events that began last October - near the end of an investigation of Constantine's alleged plagiarism of former Professor Christine Yeh and two graduate students, Tracy Juliao and Karen Cort.

Just four months from the conclusion of the plagiarism probe, Constantine, who is black, said she discovered the symbol of racial hatred.

Cops began an investigation into the noose allegation - as did a grand jury. No results have yet been released.

In February, a Manhattan law firm hired to investigate the plagiarism charges determined that Constantine was guilty in two dozen incidents. She immediately appealed.

"As one of only two tenured black women full professors at Teachers College, it pains me to conclude that I have been specifically and systematically targeted," she said at the time.

But on June 4, the Faculty Advisory Committee upheld the charges.

College officials, in their letter to the faculty, hinted at escalating ill will. The letter blasted Constantine for going public with her accusations of plagiarism "against those whose works she had plagiarized."

Cort said she was gratified about the firing.

"I feel like justice has been served," she told The Post.

"The entire experience was very traumatic.

"It saddens me that she's using racism. I think racism is a real thing, but I don't feel this investigation was against her because she's a black woman. It was because she abused her power."

Constantine's lawyer, Paul Giacomo Jr., said her firing would be effective Dec. 31 unless she asks for a faculty committee hearing sooner.

Additional reporting by Christina Carrega

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND....

2008-06-23T18:39:00.002-05:00

the right of citizens to petition the government: NOT!

Goldwater Institute Condemns Tactics Interfering with Signature Gathering for Racial Preferences Initiative
June 23, 2008
Contact: Starlee Rhoades
(602) 462-5000 x 226

Phoenix--Out-of-state activists from a group calling itself "By Any Means Necessary" (BAMN) are interfering with the right of Arizona voters to place an initiative on the November ballot prohibiting racial preferences in government education, employment, and contracting.

The group has posted numerous videos documenting its harassment of petition gatherers and voters signing petitions on YouTube.com. At least two videos indicate that the group has obtained signed petitions that were intended to be filed with the Secretary of State to qualify the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (ACRI) for the ballot.

"These activists have a right to try to persuade people not to sign petitions, and even to lie about the initiative, which they do," declared Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. "But the moment they hijack a petition from its intended destination, they've crossed the line by denying citizens their constitutional right to petition the government."

Like most initiatives, the backers of ACRI employ paid circulators who collect signatures for multiple ballot measures. The YouTube videos show BAMN activists telling prospective signers that the initiative is backed and funded by the Ku Klux Klan, disrupting signature gathering, trying to convince a signature gatherer to turn over petitions, and waving copies of petitions they have obtained.

Today, BAMN reportedly blocked access to a public building where petition gathers were attempting to deliver signatures to initiative sponsors. "These people are not interested in reasoned debate," Bolick added. "Their name says it all."

Similar initiatives previously have appeared on the ballot in three states--California, Washington, and Michigan--and have passed by large and increasing margins in all three. BAMN actively opposed the initiative in Michigan. The leading opposition group in Arizona is called "Protect Arizona's Freedom," headed by state Representative Kyrsten Sinema, a coalition that includes such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union. "We call upon those who oppose the initiative to join us in condemning these outrageous tactics that violate the civil rights of Arizonans," Bolick declared.

The Goldwater Institute has documented dozens of racial preference policies in Arizona and will host a debate on the initiative in early September.
Contact:
Starlee Rhoades
Vice President of Communications
srhoades@goldwaterinstitute.org
(602) 462-5000 x 226 Contact:
Clint Bolick
Director, Center for Constitutional Litigation
(602) 462-5000

PUBLIC ENEMY #1--THE ACLU

2008-06-23T08:53:00.002-05:00

June 21, 2008
‘Joint Venturers’ in Terror Support Trial Seek to Edit History
Steve Emerson
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) want a Dallas federal judge to remove their names from a list of "unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers" in the terror support trial of a charity accused of supporting Hamas.
The petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of NAIT and ISNA states that the designation violates Fifth Amendment protections by casting a smear on the organizations without proof, and without the opportunity for a defense. This, they claim, has deeply tarnished the groups' reputations with government agencies and other religious organizations.
But in making their case, the two groups ignore documented evidence that links them to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and to their support for Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. They insist they are law-abiding organizations and say law enforcement officials have assured them they are not the target of any investigation.
HLF and five of its former officials face a retrial in September on charge they conspired to provide material support to Hamas. A mistrial was declared in October after jurors could not reach unanimous decisions on most counts. An investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism found several jurors felt bullied when they argued for convictions.
ISNA and NAIT are related to each other. ISNA lists NAIT as a "constituent organization," while NAIT identifies its founders in the Muslim Students Association (MSA) as "the predecessor of the Islamic Society of North America." ISNA's president is an ex-officio NAIT board member and Muzammil Siddiqi, NAIT's chairman, serves on ISNA's governing board.
In a declaration submitted to the court, ISNA is described by President Ingrid Mattson as "an independent, non-profit membership organization by Muslims in North America" that seeks to support American Muslims and reach out to other religious and civic groups. While Siddiqi said his organization is an endowment holding titles to more than 300 mosques and related property in the U.S. providing them with advice and support.
Nowhere in the petition and accompanying declarations do the words "Muslim Brotherhood" appear. And that's the crux of their relevance to the HLF case. The prosecution's theory is that HLF was part of a Brotherhood-created Palestine Committee designed to support Hamas in the United States.
ISNA and NAIT are listed first and eighth among "A list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends" in a 1991 memorandum (see the last page) entitled "On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America."
This document has become infamous for its ominous description of the Brotherhood's long-range ambitions in the United States (see page 21 of the link):
The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.
ISNA is especially active in interfaith outreach programs, inviting Union of Reform Judaism President Eric Yoffie to speak at its 2007 convention and Mattson making a reciprocal appearance at the UJA conference a few months later. Mattson, in a declaration to the court, describes how ISNA's inclusion on the unindicted co-conspirator list triggered criticism toward Yoffie.
That criticism, however, precedes last year's release of the unindicted co-conspirator list and is predicated upon ISNA's roots and historic support for terrorists. It has never condemned terrorist groups like Hamas or Hizballah by name. It stood by Marzook after U.S. officials arrested him as part of an extradition effort to face terrorism charges in Israel. In 1997, Marzook issued a public thank you to ISNA and other U.S.-based Islamist groups for that support.
ISNA's magazine, Islamic Horizons, wrote about Marzook's case in its November/December 1995 in an article entitled "Muslim Leader Hostage to Israeli Interests." The article described Marzook as "[a] member of the political wing of Hamas, disliked by the Zionist entity for its Islamic orientation, continues to be held hostage in the U.S. at the whims of his Zionist accusers." It concludes with a solicitation for donations to Marzook's legal defense fund.
President Clinton signed an executive order designating Hamas a terrorist organization 10 months earlier.
Other Islamic Horizons issues devoted articles to Muslim Brotherhood luminaries and even a cover story to Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. The cover caption of the March/April 1999 issue reads "Hassan al-Banna-A Martyr of Our Times." Islamic Horizons also publishes articles by key Brotherhood figures such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Hassan al-Turabi. In an interview published in the March/April 2001 edition of Islamic Horizons, Turabi stated, "I do not think that it is only a dream, but there is a possibility not only for America to be Islamized, but also in fact to develop as the role model of Islam."
Turabi was the de facto ruler of Sudan during the 1990s. The U.S. State Department designated Sudan as a state sponsor of international terrorism in 1993.
Taking NAIT at its word, its MSA founders were Muslim Brotherhood members who came to the United States to go to college with a goal of "spreading Islam as students in North America."
And in 1992, the year after the Muslim Brotherhood memo called for sabotaging America from within, Siddiqi sat with blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, translating the sheik's remarks in a lecture at Siddiqi's mosque. Rahman later would be considered the spiritual guide to the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He is serving a life sentence for his role in a separate conspiracy to blow up New York landmarks and tunnels.
According to an account in the January 15, 2007 issue of the New Yorker, Rahman, "dismissed nonviolent definitions of jihad as weak" and said fighting the enemies of Islam was obligatory. "If you are not going to the jihad, then you are neglecting the rules of Allah," he said.
A red toolbox was passed around for donations, and tapes of the lecture later were sold at the mosque bookstore, the New Yorker reported.
Meanwhile, evidence from the first HLF trial shows that NAIT - an ISNA subsidiary, paid Marzook a $10,000 expense voucher in addition to a separate $10,000 check made out to Marzook. A third $10,000 payment went to Marzook's wife, Nadia Elashi. Another check for $30,000 was made out to the Islamic University of Gaza (and has Shukri Abu Baker/OLF written on the memo line), a school long known to be controlled by Hamas, and where deposed Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh is a former dean.
Beyond the evidence in the HLF trial, ISNA counts among its former leadership such luminaries as convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operative Sami Al-Arian. According to his own bio:
Dr. Al-Arian has also been an active community leader. He helped establish the largest grass roots organization in the U.S., the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in 1981, and its many affiliates such as the Muslim Arab Youth Association (1977), the Islamic Association for Palestine (1981), Islamic Committee for Palestine (I.C.P), Islamic Community of Tampa (1987) and Islamic Academy of Florida (1992). (emphasis added)
Al-Arian was a frequent speaker at ISNA events. And ISNA board members attended conferences Al-Arian organized for his Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP), which included leaders of the PIJ and other radicals such as Turabi. At the 1989 ICP conference, where then-ISNA President Ahmad Zakki Hammad is listed as a speaker, Al-Arian introduced the conference this way:
We came here also to talk about jihad in the path of Allah. Those who did not go to jihad or never talked about jihad and die are considered as non Muslims.
It would be one thing if, in appealing to clear its name, ISNA and NAIT argued that they had broken with their past - that a new generation of leadership is willing to do what its founders refused. It could build on that claim by denouncing terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah by name.
But you can't break from the past if you aren't willing to admit it exists.
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and heads the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
You can find this online at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.428/pub_detail.asp
COPYRIGHT 2008 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.

GWB AND HST

2008-06-22T23:04:00.002-05:00

Just wait until you see the comments left by Democrats/liberals/socialists/fellow travelers. Those I will post tomorrow.

Duane aka Nathan Hale

History will say that we misunderestimated George W Bush

By Andrew Roberts
Last Updated: 11:01pm BST 21/06/2008

As he leaves the White House at the end of his second term, the President has a poll rating of only 23 per cent, and is widely disliked and even despised. His foreign policy has been judged a failure, especially in view of the long, painful, costly war that he declared, which is still not over.

He doesn't get on with his own party's presidential candidate, who is clearly distancing himself, and had lost many of his closest friends and staff to scandals and forced resignations. The New Republic, a hugely influential political magazine, writes that his historical reputation will be as bad as that of President Harding, the disastrous president of the Great Depression.

I am writing, of course, about Harry S Truman, generally regarded today as one of the greatest of all the 43 presidents, and the man who set the United States on the course that ended decades later in the defeat of Communism.

President Bush
History may place President Bush in a far better light than he currently enjoys

If the West wins the modern counterpart of that struggle, the War Against Terror, historians will look back in amazement at the present unpopularity of George W Bush, and marvel at it quite as much as we now marvel at the 67 per cent disapproval rates for Truman throughout 1952.

Presidents are seldom remembered for more than one or two things; the rest slip away into a haze of historical amnesia. With Kennedy it was the Bay of Pigs and his own assassination, with Johnson the Great Society and Vietnam, with Nixon it was opening up China and the Watergate scandal, and so on.

George W Bush will be remembered for his responses to 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq, but since neither of those conflicts has yet ended in victory or defeat, it is far too early categorically to assume - as left-wingers, anti-war campaigners and almost all media commentators already do - that his historical reputation will be permanently down in the doldrums next to poor old Warren Harding's.

I suspect that historians of the future will instead see Bush's decision to insist upon a "surge" of reinforcements being sent into Iraq, combined with a complete change of anti-insurgency tactics as configured by General Petraeus, as the moment when the conflict was turned around there, in the West's favour.

No one - least of all Bush himself - denies that mistakes were made in the early days after the (unexpectedly early) fall of Baghdad, and historians will quite rightly examine them. But once the decades have put the stirring events of those years into their proper historical context, four great facts will emerge that will place Bush in a far better light than he currently enjoys.

The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.

While of course every individual death is a tragedy to the bereaved families, these great achievements have been won at a cost in human life a fraction the size of any past world-historical struggle of this magnitude.

The number of American troops killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan is equivalent to the losses they endured - for a nation only a little over half the size in the mid-Forties - capturing a single island from the Japanese in the Pacific War.

British losses of 103 killed over seven years in Afghanistan bears comparison to a quiet weekend on the Western Front in the Great War, or the numbers the Army loses in traffic accidents in peacetime. History can lend a wider overall perspective to what are nonetheless, of course, immeasurably sad events.

History will also shine an unforgiving light on those ludicrous conspiracy theories that claim that the Iraq War was fought for any other reason than to implement the 14 UN resolutions that Saddam that had been flouting for 13 years.

The CIA and MI6 believed, like almost every other intelligence agency in the world, that Saddam had WMD, and the "Harmony" documents seized and translated since the fall of his regime make it abundantly clear that he was also supporting almost every anti-Western terrorist organisation imaginable.

Historians will appreciate how any War Against Terror that allowed Saddam to remain in place would have been an absurd travesty.

When the rise of al-Qa'eda is considered by historians like Philip Bobbitt and William Shawcross, it will be President Clinton's repeated refusal to act effectively in the 1990s, rather than President Bush's tough response after 9/11, that will be held up as culpable.

US presidential election 2008

Judging by the rise in the value of the Iraqi dinar, the huge drop in the number of Iraqi deaths in the insurgency, the number of provinces now cleansed of al-Qa'eda, and the level of arms confiscations by the Iraqi Army in Sadr City, the new American "clear and hold" tactics have succeeded far better than the cynics ever thought possible even 12 months ago.

Give Iraq five, ten or twenty years, and Bush's decision to undertake the surge - courageously taken in the face of all bien pensant and "expert" opinion on both sides of the Atlantic - will rank alongside some of Harry Truman's great decisions of 1945-53.

If that happens, the time will come when George W Bush will be able to say what Lord Salisbury called the four cruellest yet sweetest words in the English language: "I told you so."

Have your say

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

WHAT THE HELL, OVER!!!

2008-06-20T22:54:00.001-05:00

Islamic Nations Want Divisive Issues on the Agenda at UN Racism Conference
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
June 20, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Despite the controversy surrounding a United Nations conference on racism being planned for next year, Islamic governments are reaffirming their intention to press for the inclusion of such divisive issues as "foreign occupation" and criticism of Islam.

Preparations for next spring's international gathering moved ahead this week, with a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. Critics raised concerns about the direction the process is taking.

Plans for the conference have been dogged by concerns that it may produce a re-run of the last major U.N. conference on racism in Durban, South Africa in 200. The Durban conference was characterized by anti-Israel rhetoric, prompting the U.S. and Israeli delegations to withdraw in protest.

The aim of the 2009 conference is to review progress made since the 2001 event in the global fight against racism, but the Israel-Palestinian issue threatens once again to feature strongly, along with the question of "Islamophobia" that has taken on increasing prominence in the years since 9/11.

Canada and Israel have indicated they will not participate in the conference, and the U.S., while stopping short of announcing a boycott, says it will not attend if the conference promises to repeat the 2001 one.

In 2001, Israel was accused of employing apartheid-like policies in its dealings with the Palestinians, while Zionism -- the foundational ideology of the Jewish state -- was itself labeled racist.

Pro-Palestinian voices continue to make those arguments, while Israel's supporters contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about race. Critics of the events in Durban also say that its skewed focus on Israel diverted attention from numerous issues of egregious racial discrimination around the globe.

The review conference will be held over five days next April in Geneva, home to a number of U.N. agencies, including the HRC. The council has been tasked to oversee the planning by a 20-country preparatory committee, chaired by Libya and including Iran, Cuba and Pakistan among its members.

In the Swiss city this week, members of the council held a debate on racism and discussed preparations for the review conference, including the drafting of an outcome document.

The envoy of two Islamic member states, Algeria and Azerbaijan, both raised the issue of foreign occupation.

Algeria's representative proposed that the outcome document should include a specific chapter on the issue of populations under foreign occupation, while Azerbaijan's envoy charged that those under foreign occupation were in most cases the victims of racism.

Although neither referred specifically to Israel, a paper drawn up in preparation for the drafting of the outcome document includes a section on "people under foreign occupation" and it cites only one case - the Palestinians.

'Racio-religious profiling in war on terror'

Another theme emerging in the preparation for the review conference is that of Islamophobia, a phenomenon some argue is a "contemporary form of racism" that should fall under the purview of the racism conference.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc of Muslim states that enjoys considerable influence in the HRC, is leading a campaign at the U.N. to have what it calls the defamation of Islam outlawed.

Pakistan and Iran, both leading OIC members, raised the issue during the debate in Geneva.

Iran's delegate cited a recently-released documentary film linking the Koran with terrorism and extremism, calling it an example of incitement to racial and religious hatred.

Pakistan's envoy, Marghoob Saleem Butt, said in a statement that the document that will emerge from the review conference "must include space to eliminate new and emerging manifestations of racism."

"It must provide a comprehensive protection mechanism to the victims including those who had suffered the wrath of [the] war on terror in terms of racio-religious profiling and its consequential incitement to racio-religious hatred," he added.

Several non-governmental organizations taking part in the debate raised concern about the agenda of the OIC nations.

A International Humanist and Ethical Union representative, Roy Brown, raised the race factor in the conflict situation in Sudan and the plight of Dalits (lower-caste "untouchables") in India. Yet, he said, Muslims in the West were free to practice their religion. Brown wondered why there was a specific and selective focus on Islamophobia.

Hillel Neuer of U.N. Watch said there were "worrying signs" that the review conference may repeat some of the elements that plagued the 2001 gathering. He noted that the preparatory committee, at Iran's behest, had refused to accredit a Canadian Jewish NGO wanting to attend next year's conference.

Yet the same committee, Neuer said, had accredited another NGO, "whose very name -- the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign -- brings back the hateful and divisive rhetoric of 2001."

(Iran says it objected to the inclusion of the NGO, the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, because it had failed to answer a set of questions Iran had put to it. The NGO eventually withdrew its application, protesting that the deliberations had been turned into a "discriminatory procedural football.")

Also taking part in this week's debate, the World Union for Progressive Judaism's David Littman also raised the religion issue, asking why the indiscriminate killing in the name of God should not be recognized as defamation of religion.

U.N.-accredited NGIslamic Nations Want Divisive Issues on the Agenda at UN Racism Conference
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
June 20, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Despite the controversy surrounding a United Nations conference on racism being planned for next year, Islamic governments are reaffirming their intention to press for the inclusion of such divisive issues as "foreign occupation" and criticism of Islam.

Preparations for next spring's international gathering moved ahead this week, with a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. Critics raised concerns about the direction the process is taking.

Plans for the conference have been dogged by concerns that it may produce a re-run of the last major U.N. conference on racism in Durban, South Africa in 200. The Durban conference was characterized by anti-Israel rhetoric, prompting the U.S. and Israeli delegations to withdraw in protest.

The aim of the 2009 conference is to review progress made since the 2001 event in the global fight against racism, but the Israel-Palestinian issue threatens once again to feature strongly, along with the question of "Islamophobia" that has taken on increasing prominence in the years since 9/11.

Canada and Israel have indicated they will not participate in the conference, and the U.S., while stopping short of announcing a boycott, says it will not attend if the conference promises to repeat the 2001 one.

In 2001, Israel was accused of employing apartheid-like policies in its dealings with the Palestinians, while Zionism -- the foundational ideology of the Jewish state -- was itself labeled racist.

Pro-Palestinian voices continue to make those arguments, while Israel's supporters contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about race. Critics of the events in Durban also say that its skewed focus on Israel diverted attention from numerous issues of egregious racial discrimination around the globe.

The review conference will be held over five days next April in Geneva, home to a number of U.N. agencies, including the HRC. The council has been tasked to oversee the planning by a 20-country preparatory committee, chaired by Libya and including Iran, Cuba and Pakistan among its members.

In the Swiss city this week, members of the council held a debate on racism and discussed preparations for the review conference, including the drafting of an outcome document.

The envoy of two Islamic member states, Algeria and Azerbaijan, both raised the issue of foreign occupation.

Algeria's representative proposed that the outcome document should include a specific chapter on the issue of populations under foreign occupation, while Azerbaijan's envoy charged that those under foreign occupation were in most cases the victims of racism.

Although neither referred specifically to Israel, a paper drawn up in preparation for the drafting of the outcome document includes a section on "people under foreign occupation" and it cites only one case - the Palestinians.

'Racio-religious profiling in war on terror'

Another theme emerging in the preparation for the review conference is that of Islamophobia, a phenomenon some argue is a "contemporary form of racism" that should fall under the purview of the racism conference.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc of Muslim states that enjoys considerable influence in the HRC, is leading a campaign at the U.N. to have what it calls the defamation of Islam outlawed.

Pakistan and Iran, both leading OIC members, raised the issue during the debate in Geneva.

Iran's delegate cited a recently-released documentary film linking the Koran with terrorism and extremism, calling it an example of incitement to racial and religious hatred.

Pakistan's envoy, Marghoob Saleem Butt, said in a statement that the document that will emerge from the review conference "must include space to eliminate new and emerging manifestations of racism."

"It must provide a comprehensive protection mechanism to the victims including those who had suffered the wrath of [the] war on terror in terms of racio-religious profiling and its consequential incitement to racio-religious hatred," he added.

Several non-governmental organizations taking part in the debate raised concern about the agenda of the OIC nations.

A International Humanist and Ethical Union representative, Roy Brown, raised the race factor in the conflict situation in Sudan and the plight of Dalits (lower-caste "untouchables") in India. Yet, he said, Muslims in the West were free to practice their religion. Brown wondered why there was a specific and selective focus on Islamophobia.

Hillel Neuer of U.N. Watch said there were "worrying signs" that the review conference may repeat some of the elements that plagued the 2001 gathering. He noted that the preparatory committee, at Iran's behest, had refused to accredit a Canadian Jewish NGO wanting to attend next year's conference.

Yet the same committee, Neuer said, had accredited another NGO, "whose very name -- the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign -- brings back the hateful and divisive rhetoric of 2001."

(Iran says it objected to the inclusion of the NGO, the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, because it had failed to answer a set of questions Iran had put to it. The NGO eventually withdrew its application, protesting that the deliberations had been turned into a "discriminatory procedural football.")

Also taking part in this week's debate, the World Union for Progressive Judaism's David Littman also raised the religion issue, asking why the indiscriminate killing in the name of God should not be recognized as defamation of religion.

U.N.-accredited NGOs represented by Brown and Littman have raised that issue before, appealing at the HRC and other U.N. forums for "calls to kill in the name of God or religion -- any religion" to be condemned.

In a letter last year to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the (now outgoing) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, they wrote, "A policy of silence on this ideology of Jihad by Muslim spiritual and secular leaders, the OIC and Arab League -- as well as the inter-national community -- implicitly condones this evil, an evil that should be condemned unequivocally by senior Muslim theologians as a 'defamation of Islam.'"
Os represented by Brown and Littman have raised that issue before, appealing at the HRC and other U.N. forums for "calls to kill in the name of God or religion -- any religion" to be condemned.

In a letter last year to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the (now outgoing) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, they wrote, "A policy of silence on this ideology of Jihad by Muslim spiritual and secular leaders, the OIC and Arab League -- as well as the inter-national community -- implicitly condones this evil, an evil that should be condemned unequivocally by senior Muslim theologians as a 'defamation of Islam.'"

UNSECURED BORDERS

2008-06-20T22:31:00.004-05:00

I still believe in the old adage that good fences make good neighbors. The higher and stronger the fence, the better the neighbor. It is more than just illegals who are coming across in droves, it is the illegal activities that surround it. Start on the border itself and stretch it back into this country for at least 500 yards. Turn it into a no man's land. A land that even a rattle snake wouldn't want to go into.

Mexican Smugglers Make US Lands Unsafe
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 20, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has said that drug traffickers sneaking into the United States from Mexico through U.S. lands administered by his department have made some of those lands unsafe for American families.

As reported by Cybercast News Service last month, the State Department similarly issued a largely unpublicized travel alert for the Mexican side of the border on April 14, warning would-be tourists that the "equivalent to military small-unit combat" was taking place there and that "dozens" of Americans had been "kidnapped and/or murdered" in Tijuana alone in 2007. (See story)

As Cybercast News Service subsequently reported, State Department records indicate that 128 Americans have been murdered in Mexico over the past three years. (See story) And because the State Department headquarters in Washington does no centralized monitoring of how the Mexican justice system handles those murder cases, it cannot say whether anyone has ever been arrested or convicted for any of them. (See story)

Even before the State Department issued its travel alert for Mexico, however, Interior Secretary Kempthorne had stated -- again, with almost no publicity -- that some of the lands administered by his department on the U.S. side of the Mexican border have become dangerous places where "families can no longer live or recreate without fear of coming across drug smugglers."

"Unfortunately," an Interior Department spokesperson told Cybercast News Service on Thursday, "DOI lands make up approximately 40 percent of the Southwest border, and I think there has been a shift in some of those illegal activities, particularly drug-trafficking crossings, to those lands because they tend to be less populated.

"It's becomes more of a prime location for people to come through," he added, "and the net result has been an increase in violence."

Larry Parkinson, Interior's deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, told Cybercast News Service Thursday that criminal activity along the U.S.-Mexico border has increased over the past seven years as criminals seek more remote locations to cross into the U.S.

"On the law enforcement side, it's our biggest challenge," Parkinson said.

The Department of Interior's Southwest Borderlands Web page warns visitors about criminals and criminal activities in national parks, wildlife refuges and recreation areas near the Mexican border. Five Indian tribes have land bordering Mexico.

"Once pristine landscapes on the U.S. Southwest border have become dangerous corridors for drug smuggling operations and other illegal activities that threaten Indian communities, public land stewards and recreational visitors," the Web site says.

"Drug smugglers establish observations posts on public lands, and carry assault weapons, encrypted radios, night vision optical equipment and other sophisticated devices," it says. (See Web site)

The Web site also indicates that human and drug traffic has increased over the years.

"Last year, nearly 200,000 illegal entrants into the United States were apprehended on public lands in the Southwest, an 11-fold increase since 2001, as illegal activity shifts from increasingly well-protected urban areas to more rural outposts," the Web site states.

The site reports that in 2007, law enforcement seized nearly 3,000 pounds of cocaine and 740,000 pounds of marijuana.

In February, Secretary Kempthorne announced that his department was seeking an $8 million increase in its budget for law enforcement and "to remediate the environmental impacts of these illegal activities" along the Mexican border.

"Times have changed along our international border with Mexico," Kempthorne said. "Our employees, residents and visitors face daily dangers. In many locations families can no longer live or recreate without fear of coming across drug smugglers. Residents of Indian communities are especially hard hit by rampant illegal activity and unsafe living conditions."

When Kempthorne testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior on April 15, he repeated the point: "There are significant areas along the border that are not safe for American families to visit, to spend an overnight camping opportunity because of the drug smuggling that's taking place by the national drug cartels," Kempthorne told the committee.

Some $2 million of the $8 million Kempthorne is requesting will be used to repair environmental damage done by illegal entrants and drug smugglers.

"The illegal traffic has resulted in significant theft and vandalism and physical damage to public land resources, sensitive fish and wildlife habitat and valuable archeological sites," the website states.

Parkinson said despite the increased violence on public lands, he believes the U.S. is "in the process" of securing the border. He cites, for example, that from Oct. 1, 2007 to May 2008, apprehensions were down 14 percent on the border between Mexico and Arizona.

"Some of the security efforts are beginning to turn the corner," Parkinson said.

GEORGE W's WAR

2008-06-20T20:11:00.003-05:00

George W.'s War

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT

No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.

Read More: Iraq | Global War On Terror

Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader "Commander in Chief."

George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.

Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral suasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.

George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.

After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.

Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.

As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.

Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.

At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.

Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.

Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.

Then, in the unlikeness set of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.

So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown, a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.

WITH OUT GEORGE W THERE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN BEEN A USA. THANK YOU GENERAL, THANK YOU.

LIBERALS HATE DIVERSITY--REALLY

2008-06-19T23:29:00.005-05:00

Taken from the AMERICAN THINKER for 06/19/08

SCREW THE DAMNED LIBERALS.....Wish we could feed them to the sharks but the sharks would probably reject them. What a pity.

June 18, 2008
Battling Diversity at the University of Chicago
Ethel C. Fenig
In a perfect example of Edward Bernard Glick's scenario, an outspoken, hostile but decidedly minority (so far) group of professors at the University of Chicago are protesting against the following proposal from other professors to name a new research center:

The Milton Friedman Institute, proposed by faculty members who included three Nobel Prize winners in economics, is intended to attract visiting scholars who will conduct research on topics related to economics, business and law. It will promote workshops, seminars and lectures.

And just why are the dissident professors -- none of whom are Nobel Prize winners yet --protesting naming an institute after a Nobel Prize winner, a noted thinker and researcher of free market economics whose ideas were successfully utilized by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and a host of leaders in formerly socialist South American and European countries?
In an Orwellian statement

... to U. of C. President Robert Zimmer, 101 professors -- about 8 percent of the university's full-time faculty -- said they feared that having a center named after the conservative, free-market economist could "reinforce among the public a perception that the university's faculty lacks intellectual and ideological diversity."

Got that? Suppression leads to "intellectual and ideological diversity." Only liberal professors residing in an isolated ivory tower could sincerely belch such twisted logic. And make no mistake about it, the University of Chicago is an isolated ivory tower situated in the city's relatively affluent Hyde Park neighborhood surrounded by crime ridden neighborhoods carefully, but not always successfully, kept out.
Listen to the liberal arts professors whine at the dire consequences of being associated with such an outstanding individual.

"It is a right-wing think tank being put in place," said Bruce Lincoln, a professor of the history of religions and one of the faculty members who met with the administration Tuesday. "The long-term consequences will be very severe. This will be a flagship entity and it will attract a lot of money and a lot of attention, and I think work at the university and the university's reputation will take a serious rightward turn to the detriment of all."

Hmmm but its often "serious" leftward reputation is not a detriment as is this denial of different ideas.

"I don't think any institute of any educational institution should be so strongly aligned behind a single ideological program," said U. of C. music professor and department chair Robert Kendrick.

Perhaps music just isn't ideological.

"For many people who travel around the word, the university has had a pretty bad reputation that is tied to the Chicago School and economic principles that Milton Friedman advocated," said Yali Amit, a U. of C. statistics and computer science professor. "We don't think it's a great idea to strengthen this reputation."

Thatcher and South America and numerous Nobel Prize winning economics professors apparently constitute "a pretty bad reputation" in Amit's part of the world, which is apparently a closed liberal one.
Cowed by these closed minded academics, university administrators stress the proposed center's impartiality and non partisan bent.

[Provost] Rosenbaum said the center will not push any particular point of view.

"We are honoring a great scholar, and that is the intent here," Rosenbaum said. "We are supportive of a wide range of ideas across the spectrum of ideologies, and it's not intended to promote any ideology."

ON HEALTH CARE

2008-06-17T10:52:00.002-05:00

Kick the liberal/socialist block out of Congress and things will work themselves out. There are good ideas in these two articles but one of them is NOT MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION. More regulation = more taxes = more pain in the rear end for all of us.

Morning Bell: Government Is Cause Of, Not Solution To, High Health Care Costs
The Foundry
Morning Bell: Government Is Cause Of, Not Solution To, High Health Care Costs
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Monday that health care spending
will “rise relentlessly” unless lawmakers overhaul the health care system. As if trying to prove his point, PriceWaterhouseCoopers released a study yesterday showing employer health care costs will increase 9.9% in 2008, more than double the annual rate of inflation.

Liberals will tell you that health care costs can be controlled through more government regulation of the health care industry. For example, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) says he can save $200 billion in health care spending every year through investing in electronic medical records, more centralized coordination of individual care, and government mandated reduction of unnecessary medical procedures. Problem is, no one with any training in the economics of health care believes that savings will materialize. John Sheils, vice president of the health care consulting firm the Lewin Group, says the savings “are just dramatically overstated .” And MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber calls the numbers “nonsense,” noting that there is “zero credible evidence to support that conclusion.”
Obama is right about one thing, though. In February of this year, he said: “The reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it.” That is true. But the solution to expensive health insurance is not more government mandates and regulations; it’s less. A major why reason health insurance premiums keep rising is because special interests keep successfully lobbying state legislatures to mandate more and more procedures into all insurance plans. So even though a 25-year-old male has no need for in vitro fertilization and no interest in acupuncture, a state like New Jersey forces him to buy a plan that covers those procedures. The result? That 25-year-old could buy a basic health plan in Kentucky for $960 a year, but the cheapest plan in New Jersey (full of mandates he doesn’t want or need) costs him $5,880. A study for the Health Insurance Association of America found that 20% to 25% of uninsured Americans lack insurance due to benefits mandates.
Another major factor driving up American health care costs is our antiquated tax code. Thanks to advantages slanted toward employers, the current tax code imposes a tax penalty of up to 50% on the cost of an individually owned policy, effectively pricing millions of working families out of coverage. Americans are not forced to all buy the same type of cell phones, and they are not forced to buy their cell phones through their employers. But thanks to oppressive state mandates and World War II era wage controls, that’s how Americans are forced to buy health insurance. Moving to a consumer-centered health care market , where individuals could purchase health insurance on a level playing field with corporations is a much better way to both reduce health care costs and get more Americans the health care they need.

Published: June 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, told Congress on Monday that health spending would “rise relentlessly” unless lawmakers overhauled the health care system, and he recommended an eclectic approach.

His remarks opened a daylong bipartisan symposium convened by the Senate Finance Committee to lay the groundwork for what leaders of both parties predict will be a major push for health care legislation next year.
“We will move quickly in 2009,” said Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is chairman of the committee.

Mr. Baucus suggested that “some kind of federal health board” could help Congress make technical policy decisions. “How in the world am I supposed to know what the proper reimbursement rate should be for a certain procedure?” he asked.
Mr. Bernanke said Congress could establish an independent health care panel like the one used to recommend the closing of military bases. Congress, he said, could approve or reject the panel’s recommendations, but not amend them.

Alternatively, Mr. Bernanke said, Congress could establish a commission like the Federal Reserve Board to set health policy. But, he said, such a panel would need “very clear guidance from Congress,” because health care accounts for “an enormous part of our economy.”

“At some point,” Mr. Bernanke said, “health care spending as a share of gross domestic product will stop rising, but it is difficult to guess when that will be, and there is little sign of it yet.”
At the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans appeared to agree on this much: All Americans should be insured, but they should have a choice of private health plans competing in the market alongside government programs.

“Democrats are right in saying that if you are going to fix the system, you have to cover everybody,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon. “Republicans are right in saying that you have to have markets, choices and private alternatives.”
The impatience of some Republicans was expressed by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee.
Health care is “the No. 1 economic issue in our country,” Mr. Grassley said, but “Congress does not seem to have the political guts to do anything about it.”

Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel, expressed immense frustration at the inefficiency of the health care system, and he said employers were determined to do something about it.
Almost every other industry “has automated itself and now pays less for better quality,” Mr. Barrett said. Employers will demand similar changes in health care, he added.

Mr. Barrett said large employers were “an agent of change” in the health care system, and he warned Congress not to do anything that would undermine employer-sponsored health insurance.
President Bush and members of both parties have proposed giving new tax breaks to individuals, including employees, so they can shop for health insurance on their own.

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, described that idea as “a political nonstarter.” It would, he said, threaten coverage for many of the 160 million people with employer-sponsored health insurance.

DO TELL. FOR SHAME, FOR SHAME.

2008-06-16T22:59:00.001-05:00

State Dept Warns on Prostitute Use

Monday, June 16, 2008 3:53 PM

By: Jim Meyers

The U.S. State Department has issued its annual report on human trafficking, analyzing 170 countries� efforts to fight trafficking for prostitution, forced labor and other purposes.

But Newsmax has learned that the Department has also issued a directive to its own employees warning them not to contribute to the problem by enlisting the services of a prostitute.

The notice sent to employees states:

�Combating human trafficking has become a central component of U.S. government foreign policy over the last several years�

�The United States is committed to eradicating human trafficking, which includes the exploitation of persons in prostitution through threat, force, fraud, or coercion�

�People who buy sex acts fuel the demand for sex trafficking. This cable serves as a reminder to all employees and contractors under Chief of Mission (CoM) Authority that irrespective of whether prostitution is legal in the host country, employees

should not in any way abet sex trafficking or solicit people in prostitution. DOS [Department of State] employees who engage in this conduct are subject to discipline.

�Penalties range from admonishment, reprimand, suspension to separation from Federal service, depending on the circumstances.

�Involvement with the commercial sex industry is unacceptable in light of the diplomatic and foreign policy goals of the United

States and the conduct that is expected of Department employees.�

The State Department�s �Trafficking in Persons Report� includes allies Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia on the list of nations that traffic in people. Others include North Korea, Sudan, Algeria, Iran, Myanmar, and Cuba.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

OPERATION SHIELD OF STRENGTH

2008-06-16T22:08:00.001-05:00

Operation Shield of Strength

"There is a Shield of Strength in the Oval Office...and, aside from the official insignias they wear, it is the emblem most often carried by members of the military in Afghanistan and Iraq." -- Stephan Mansfield, Author, Faith of the American Soldier

"[T]he soldier's heart, the soldier's spirit, the soldier's soul are everything. Unless the soldier's soul sustains him, he cannot be relied upon and will fail himself, his commander, and his country in the end." --General of the Army George C. Marshall
Operation Shield of Strength

It is not "official issue," but thousands of military personnel are now wearing a "Shield of Strength" dog-tag bearing a Scriptural passage on one side (Joshua 1:9 "I will be strong and courageous. I will not be terrified, or discouraged; for the Lord my God is with me wherever I go.") and the words "United States of America - One Nation Under God" on the other.

Army Ranger Capt. Russell Rippetoe, murdered at a checkpoint by a homicide bomber, was the first casualty in Operation Iraqi Freedom to be interred at Arlington National Cemetery. His father, retired Lt. Col. Joe Rippetoe (disabled after two tours of duty in Vietnam), reports, "All the men who served with my son wear the shield around their necks, as do many of the elite 75th Rangers." (Click here for more about Capt. Rippetoe's story.)
Marines with SoS Tags

Army Command Sgt. Maj. J. Clay writes from Iraq, "I cannot even begin to count how many soldiers are wearing them. It also has a spiritual camaraderie impact -- for example, when you meet another Christian or military member and they have the shield on their ID tags ... it bonds you, even though you may not know them."

Beaumont, Texas native Kenny Vaughan started the campaign to distribute Shields of Strength to military personnel, and we are partnering with Kenny to help identify Patriots with the means to purchase bulk quantities of the SoS tags for distribution to military units of your choosing (or we will identify a unit for you).

More than 1,000,000 Shields have already been distributed. We currently have sponsors for thousands of additional Shield of Strength tags, and are shipping those tags to military personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan and other military fronts. But there are many military units that do not yet have sponsors.
Here is how you can participate in Operation Shield of Strength:

The cost of the shields, chains and silencers is about $2.50 per unit, including postage. We have a matching program -- for every tag you purchase in a bulk order designated for a military unit, we will match that order. The minimum bulk order is 250 ($625) so the tags shipped to military units will total 500. If you can't sponsor a bulk order, any amount you send for this effort will help. Click here for information on how to purchase a small number of Shields for yourself.

1. Please make your check payable to Operation Shield of Strength.
2. Please send your check to the following address:

The Patriot Post
Operation SoS
P.O. Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401-0507

3. Please note for bulk orders of 250 (500), please include mailing instructions. If you want them sent to a particular unit or service branch, please designate that branch with an address if applicable. We can also choose a military unit for you.

The Shields will be shipped within two weeks of receipt of your check. (For additional questions, e-mail SoS@contact.PatriotPost.US .)

(NOTE: 100% of donor proceeds are applied to sponsor orders for military units. The Patriot Post is not compensated in any way for Operation Shield of Strength. We are donating our services and personnel to match our reader-sponsors and military units. We will continue to provide this service for as long as sponsors continue to support Operation Shield of Strength.)
Home | About The Patriot | Subscribe FREE | Manage Subscription | Current Edition | Alexander's Essays | Patriot Archive | Reader Comments | Sup

DAMN LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES

2008-06-16T21:31:00.002-05:00

Posters Of Communist icon Che Guevara and Barack Obama hang on a wall as Common Pleas Judge James Burge speaks in his office in Loraine, Ohio, in this April 22 photo. Last week, Burge ruled that Ohio's lethal injection process is unconstitutional because it could cause pain and the state mandates that an inmate's death be painless.

RONNIE, ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS

2008-06-16T08:32:00.001-05:00

Reagan legacy: Telling the truth
'My advice to the next president is: Trust the people'

________________________________________
Posted: June 07, 2008
12:50 am Eastern
By Sterling Meyers
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Ronald Reagan
For a political candidate, there's nothing quite like telling the American public the truth. At least that's the conclusion from several experts at a panel asking the question for today's generation: "What would Reagan do?"
The event, sponsored by the Young America's Foundation, featured Mark Tapscott, a former member of the Reagan administration and now an editorial page editor of "The Washington Examiner."
"Reagan believed there was no substitute for telling the American people the truth," he said.
On the fourth anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's death, Tapscott was joined on the panel by Rebecca Cox, another former member of Reagan's administration, and Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona.
They speculated what Reagan would do now.
(Story continues below)
Though presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama has great communication skills like Reagan had, said Tapscott, he "doesn't have the genuine convictions that make him credible."
Reagan was a political figure that "engender[ed] good feelings from both sides," said Frank Donatelli, chairman of the Reagan Ranch Board of Directors.
Tapscott and Cox, onetime Reagan assistant for public liaison and now a vice president at Continental Airlines, said the next president must be honest with a trustworthy American people.
Cox said she hopes the American people "see through" the charismatic senator, adding that she thinks the American people are smart enough to know the how some Obama policies would spark dramatic tax increases.
Reagan challenged the American people to do great things and to take care of their own lives, Tapscott said. He quoted Reagan, who said, "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem."
Cox and Tapscott agreed that Reagan's convictions drove his actions, which marks a good president.
"My advice to the next president is: Trust the people," said Cox.
Shadegg echoed the sentiments of the other panelists when he said that "[Americans] already have the freedom, we just have to fight for it."
When asked how Reagan would face a long war, Donatelli said, "I have no doubt that he would see it through."
Panelists said that if the next president acted like Reagan, who approached a struggling economy and international unrest at the time of his presidency, he might revive optimism and succeed, like Reagan did, at becoming one of America's great leaders.

WALTER E. WILLIAMS

2008-06-10T23:36:00.001-05:00

Columns by Walter E. Williams

Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

In 1980, he joined the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College (1967-69), California State University (1967-1971) and Temple University (1973-1980). From 1963 to 1967, he was a group supervisor of juvenile delinquents for the Los Angeles County Probation Department.

More than 50 of his publications have appeared in scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review and Social Science Quarterly and popular publications such as Reader's Digest, The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. He has made many TV and radio appearances on such programs as Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose," William F. Buckley's "Firing Line," "Face The Nation," "Nightline" and "Crossfire."

He is also the author of several books. Among these are The State Against Blacks, later made into a television documentary, America: A Minority Viewpoint, All It Takes Is Guts, and South Africa's War On Capitalism.

In 1981, he began writing his weekly column called "A Minority View" for Heritage Features Syndicate. And in 1991, he joined Creators Syndicate as part of its friendly takeover of Heritage Features.

Williams sits on many advisory boards, including the Review Board of Economics Studies for the National Science Foundation, the Research Foundation, the National Tax Limitation Committee, the Taxpayer's Foundation and the Hoover Institution.

The awards and honors Williams have received are many. These include the National Fellow at the Hoover Institute of War, Revolution, and Peace; the Ford Foundation Dissertation Fellowship; the National Service Award from the Institute for Socioeconomic Studies; and the George Washington Medal of Honor from the Valley Forge Freedom Foundation. In 1984-1985, he received the Faculty Member of the Year Award from the George Mason University Alumni. He is also a member of the American Economic Association, the Mont Pelerin Society and is a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation.

Williams participates in many debates and conferences, is a frequent public speaker and often gives testimony before both houses of Congress.

DEFINE SLAVERY

2008-06-10T23:27:00.002-05:00

This is someone I really like:

Let's do a thought experiment asking whether Americans are for or against slavery. You might say, "What are you talking about, Williams? We fought a war that cost over 600,000 lives to end slavery!" To get started, we might find a description that captures the essence of slavery. A good working description is: slavery is a set of circumstances whereby one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor.

The average American worker toils from January 1st to the end of April, and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor for that period. Federal, state and local governments, through the tax code, take what he produces. A small portion of the fruits of his labor is used to provide for the constitutional functions of government. Most of what's taken, up to two-thirds, is given to some other American in the forms of farm and business subsidies, Social Security, Medicare, welfare and hundreds of other government handout programs. As in slavery, one person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person.

You might ask, "Williams, aren't you a bit off base? Slavery means that you are owned by another person." Who owns a person is not nearly important as who has the rights to use that person. In other words, a plantation owner having the power to force a black to work for him would have been just as well off, and possibly better off, not owning him. Not owning him means not having to bear medical expenses and loss of wealth if the slave died. During World War II, Nazis didn't own Jews, but they had the power to force them to labor for them. Not owning Jews meant that working and starving them to death had little cost to the Nazis. The fact that American slaves were owned, with prices sometimes ranging from $800 to $1,300, meant that owners had a financial stake in the slave's well-being and they were not worked and starved to death.

You might argue that my analogy is irrelevant because unlike American slaves and Nazi concentration camp inmates, we can come and go as we please, live where we want, buy a car, clothes and other things with the money left over after the government gets four months' worth of our earnings. But, does that make much of a difference?

During slavery, visitors to the South often observed "a great many loose negroes about." Officials in Savannah, Mobile and Charleston and other cities complained about "nominal slaves," "virtually free negroes," and "quasi free negroes" who were seemingly oblivious to any law or regulation. Frederick Douglass, a slave, explained this phenomenon when he was employed as a Baltimore ship's caulker: "I was to be allowed all my time; to make bargains for work; to find my own employment, and to collect my own wages; and in return for this liberty, I was … to pay him (Douglass' master) three dollars at the end of each week, and to board and clothe myself, and buy my own caulking tools."

There are some benefits to being a quasi free person such as Frederick Douglass. There are two ways U.S. Congress might force me to serve the purposes of another American. They might force me spend a couple of hours each day actually working, without compensation, for another American. Or, they might forcibly take a portion of my earnings so that American can hire someone. I see myself as being better off with Congress doing the latter -- taking a portion of my earnings and giving it away.

Some might be put off by my thought experiment and consider it an illegitimate use of the term "slavery." At what point should we consider ourselves a quasi free American -- when government takes two-thirds or three-quarters of our earnings

About The Author Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Walter Williams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED THIS

2008-06-05T15:29:00.001-05:00

McCain and Obama Square Off
by Ericka Andersen (more by this author)
Posted 06/05/2008 ET

John McCain’s national campaign finally has an identified adversary: Barack Obama, despite Hillary Clinton’s last-minute pleas for a reprieve -- will be the Democratic nominee this fall. And McCain is already seizing on the most obvious Obama weakness: his inability to think quickly and answer questions for which he isn’t prepared.

McCain seems to thrive in person-to-person debates. Obama is uncomfortable unless he is speaking prepared remarks to an adoring crowd. The two -- in this and so many other ways -- are polar opposites.

Wednesday, McCain said he wants joint town hall meetings across the country with his presidential opponent. He hopes they will promote a “pure form of democracy” and force Obama to “respond directly to the specific questions and concerns that people have” instead of pandering to audiences in eloquent but long, vague speeches. As any good pol would want to, McCain seeks to apply his strength to Obama’s weakness.

In a campaign conference call yesterday, McCain said Obama’s frequent “catch all phrases” do not capture the “specific positions and action for the future of the country.”

McCain hopes the American people will learn of and understand Obama’s ultra-liberal record: Obama was rated the most liberal US Senator by the non-partisan National Journal this year.

Both candidates delivered major speeches to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) this week, each acknowledging a vital connection and U.S. interest in the protection of Israel as a Jewish state.

In a conference call yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) noted a significant “disconnect” for these reasons. Obama pledged to “never compromise when it comes to Israel's security”, but as Lieberman pointed out, he was one of only a handful of Senators that did not support last year’s Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. Even the Senate’s other most liberal members -- Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton -- voted for the amendment -- but not Obama.

In a debate last year, Obama called it “saber-rattling” but in yesterday’s speech he backtracked by saying we should boycott “firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.”

McCain, though he said he had not seen Obama’s speech, was not surprised by the sudden change in direction, noting that Obama often switches on issues. This one, though, was particularly “remarkable.”

“He made several comments on this amendment…that it would affect troop levels and was the wrong thing to do,” said McCain. “Now he goes before AIPAC and changes…he’s moving through various evolutions…and I don’t think the American people will buy it.”

McCain said it proves again that Obama lacks the experience and knowledge to make the judgments necessary in a time of war.

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment does not purport military action though Obama opposed on those grounds.

Randy Scheunnemann, senior foreign policy and national security advisor to the McCain campaign, said Obama never made any public statements supporting the designation of the IRG as a terrorist group until yesterday so it is “hard to escape the conclusion that…today when it’s AIPAC and a Pro-Israel audience that…Obama has a different message for different audiences.”

Obama made other switches in his speech as well. A few weeks ago, he referred to Iran as only a “tiny” threat compared to the Soviet Union during the Cold War but yesterday, he labeled the country a “grave threat.”

He blamed the U.S. decision to invade Iraq for strengthening the power of the Iranian regime. He said the United States knew of Iran’s threat to Israel before 2002 and “instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it.” Obama repeated that he said before we invaded that entering Iraq would “fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East.”

Lieberman was quick to disagree, saying, “It’s not because of what we’ve done in Iraq, it’s because Iran is a fanatical terrorist expansionist state…with a leadership that constantly threatens to extinguish the state of Israel.”

Obama’s opinions on Iraq and Iran were challenged recently when it was publicized he had visited Iraq only once -- two years ago -- and never spoke personally with US Army Commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, when he could have done so easily.

“Obama continues to deny that the surge has succeeded in Iraq -- in direction contradiction to fundamental facts on the ground,” McCain said. “This is the 788th day… since he’s been to Iraq and has never requested to sit down and get a briefing from Petraeus.”

McCain concluded that, “That is a degree of lack of judgment about this war that I think Americans will not agree with.”

In the past, Obama has pledged to meet with the leaders of rogue nations such as Iran without pre-conditions but he went back on that statement too. He now claims he would meet with those leaders only if it advances American interests.

“He presents a false choice today that the only diplomacy can work is with Iranian leaders,” said Scheunemann, who also called Obama out on his negativity towards working more closely with European allies.

Obama said the U.S. was “outsourcing diplomacy” to European allies, provoking criticism from the McCain camp.

“To say we are ‘outsourcing diplomacy’ to European allies disparages the very essence of allied cooperation,” Scheunnemann said. “Sen. McCain wants to work with our allies …with sanctions. Sen. Obama seems more interested in…engaging in cowboy summitry with unnamed leaders.”

Obama’s constant calls for troop withdrawals appease a public sick of the Iraq war but don’t consider grave consequences for Israel’s safety, the stability of the region or the security of the US in the war on terror.

“Withdrawal from Iraq…regardless of the situation…that would lead to al-Qaeda declaring victory and giving Iran more power,” said Scheunemann, adding that to think a phased withdrawal wouldn’t have consequences is, “frankly, naïve.”

McCain admitted that Obama’s views on the now-successful troop surge have changed.

“It’s not the categorical condemnation of the surge that he articulated before -- and again -- I hope he goes to Iraq soon, sits down with Petraeus,” said McCain. “Any objective observer…will admit to the fact that the surge is success.”

McCain said Obama will have to discuss the success at length sooner or later -- whether he wants to or not.

Ms. Andersen is a news producer and reporter for HUMAN EVENTS. She previously interned for The Washington Examiner newspaper. She has appeared on MSNBC live and been a guest on the Lars Larson radio show and the Jim Bohannon radio show. She wrote for the Indiana Daily Student, Indiana University's daily newspaper. E-mail her at eandersen@eaglepub.com.

Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2008 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

PRO-LIFE

2008-06-05T08:29:00.002-05:00

Planned Parenthood's Obscene Profits
By Michelle Malkin
June 4, 2008

GOP presidential candidate John McCain sounded more like a Democratic presidential candidate (a recurring trend) when he joined the Left's oil industry bashers a few weeks ago. Asked by a North Carolina voter whether he supported a Jimmy Carter-era windfall profits tax, McCain responded: "Um, I don't like obscene profits being made anywhere -- and I'd be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax -- that's not what bothers me -- but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people or industries or corporations that are distorting the market."

Here's an idea for all the hand-wringing GOP strategists in Washington wondering what it will take to win back disgusted economic and social conservatives: How about a Republican presidential candidate who will talk about the tax-subsidized abortion industry the way McCain talks about the oil industry?

In April, the annual report for Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion -- with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That's a third of Planned Parenthood's budget.

And what market-distorting results do we get for those government incentives? In 2006 alone: 289,750 abortions.

Oil execs, tobacco execs, banking execs, pharmaceutical company execs and baseball players have all been hauled up before Congress for highly publicized whippings by crusading lawmakers. But the executives of Planned Parenthood have escaped government scrutiny and public accountability for their predatory behavior, dangerous medical practices, deception and deadly windfall.

In Washington, D.C., the family of 13-year-old Shantese Butler filed a $50 million suit against Planned Parenthood after a botched abortion left the girl permanently injured and infertile. Students for Life of America reports that Shantese was left with "severe abdominal bleeding, severe vaginal injury, severe injury to the cervix, significant uterine perforation and a small bowel tear." In addition, parts of the unborn child were found inside Shantese's abdomen.

In Nebraska, Planned Parenthood refused to disclose the terms of a settlement with another victim whose botched abortion resulted in a perforated uterus, massive blood loss, an emergency hysterectomy, permanent infertility, seizures, and lifelong pain and suffering. According to the suit obtained by Life News, the woman instructed the abortionist and his assistants to stop, but was told: "We can't stop." The Planned Parenthood employees held her down to complete the procedure.

Where's the subpoena-wielding Henry Waxman? Can Arlen Specter spare a moment from investigating the New England Patriots to probe Planned Parenthood's efforts to advise underage teens on how to circumvent parental notification laws to secretly obtain RU-486, the abortion drug cocktail? Where is the concern for the women and children who were mistreated by Planned Parenthood clinics in Kansas, where Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline has filed a 107-count criminal complaint against the abortion racket, with charges ranging from falsifying documents to performing illegal late-term abortions?

And where are Nancy Pelosi and the For The Children brigade to investigate the shocking evidence of Planned Parenthood's nefariousness exposed by undercover student journalist Lila Rose?

Last year, Rose caught a Planned Parenthood official encouraging a female minor to evade statutory rape laws in order to obtain an abortion in California. In February, Rose released undercover tapes of her discussion with an Idaho Planned Parenthood official eager to accept money from a racist donor who wanted his funds earmarked for aborting black babies. In April, she released video of clinic officials in New Mexico and Oklahoma willing to take money from a blatantly racist donor. One Planned Parenthood staffer admits that "for whatever reason, we'll accept the money."

For whatever reason, Washington has turned a blind bipartisan eye to this bloody, government-funded business -- and pro-life, limited-government conservatives in the Beltway have gone along with subsidizing it. "Obscene profits," indeed.

---

Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

WHAT THE HELL, OVER

2008-06-03T16:50:00.001-05:00

Liberal pacifists are dangerous to your health, liberty and life

Obama's YouTube Defense Talk 'Bizarre,' Analyst Says
By Evan Moore
CNSNews.com Correspondent
March 04, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is facing renewed criticism regarding his national security policies as he continues his campaign for his party's presidential nomination.

In a YouTube video Obama made for a liberal pacifist organization last year, the senator called for major cuts in defense spending, slowing the development of future combat systems, and cutting investments in America's ballistic missile defense program.

Some conservatives have expressed surprise at the degree of Obama's proposals on the video, and this past weekend, Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) campaign released an ad criticizing Obama's alleged national security inexperience and trumpeting her as the person who could deftly manage emergency global crises.

In his video, Obama repeats his support for ending the Iraq War, saying, "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat system. ...

"I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama says in the video. "To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."

Obama also promises in the video to institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is not used as a vehicle to justify unnecessary spending.

The video is posted on the official "Obama '08" campaign's YouTube channel but not in the BarackObama.com Web site's video section. The "Obama '08" channel labels the video "Obama-Caucus4Priorities."

Defense cuts

Caucus4Priorities.org, also called Caucus for Priorities, was a campaign of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities (BLSP), which is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization.

It describes its mission as follows: "To change US budget priorities to reflect a national commitment to education, healthcare, energy independence, job training and deficit reduction - at no additional taxpayer expense - by eliminating funding for unneeded Cold War era weapons systems."

And the specific campaign, Caucus for Priorities, describes its mission as follows: "To redirect 15% of the Pentagon's discretionary budget away from obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, healthcare, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger, deficit reduction."

The BLSP advocates reducing America's stockpile of nuclear weapons to less than 1,000 warheads; reducing the National Missile Defense program to a basic research program; cutting spending on platforms like the F-22 Raptor, the Virginia-class Submarine, the V-22 Osprey airplane/helicopter hybrid, the DDG-1000 destroyer, and the Army's Future Combat System.

Also, the group advocates reducing America's force structure by eliminating two Air Force fighter wings and one aircraft carrier battle-group.

The $60 billion that could conceivably be reused as a result of BLSP's proposed cuts would then be diverted into other initiatives, according to a proposal on the group's website, such as children's health programs, modernizing schools, alternative energy research, budget deficit reduction, veterans' health care, and to "alleviate the global challenges of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, disease, and disaster."

Sensible Priorities reported before the Iowa Caucuses that Obama supports reinvesting $8 billion of current defense spending.

Sensible Priorities cites a report from a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, Lawrence Korb, which says that such reductions "would make our military stronger, allowing our forces to focus on the weapons, training, and tactics they need to do their jobs and defend our nation."

Furthermore, the BLSP urges eliminating pork project earmarks in the Defense budget.

According to an analysis of the FY2008 budget by Taxpayers for Common Sense, Obama appropriated $2 million for "nano-medical technologies research" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champlain in the Defense Appropriations Bill.

Obama publicly disclosed his earmark requests via press release, which can be accessed on his Senate Web site.

Obama's campaign press campaign office did not return repeated requests for comment on this story. However, his defense and foreign policy positions are available on his campaign Web site.

Conservative criticism

In an interview with Cybercast News Service, Baker Spring, a national security research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, described Obama as "somebody who's a mouthpiece for arms control advocacy groups that probably put this litany of commitments in front of him, and he more or less read them without thinking."

Spring said Obama's proposed cuts in missile defense spending would be "a profoundly destabilizing decision [which] basically says that any state - or, for that matter, non-state actor - that wants to attack the United States, he gets the free first shot, including with weapons of mass destruction."

Regarding Obama's promise to reform the QDR process, Spring said, "Obviously, necessary and unnecessary is, to some degree, in the eye of the beholder. I don't think that any administration would put out a Quadrennial Defense Review that would explicitly endorse unnecessary programs.

"In a sense, Sen. Obama is, in his comment, is so logically contradictory, that he is saying that he is going to take preemptive action to prevent his own administration, assuming he's elected, from issuing a report in terms of the future U.S. defense structure, that would include unnecessary and wasteful programs," said Spring. "It strikes me as a little bizarre, to put it mildly."

Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article

Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-brief.

E-mail a comment or news tip to Evan Moore.

Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service

I REALLY DON'T LIKE THIS MAN

2008-06-03T11:39:00.002-05:00

OR HIS POLITICS....

Newsmax.com

The Real Barack Obama
Friday, May 23, 2008 9:17 AM

By: David Limbaugh

Columnist Robert Novak reports that John McCain will not yield to Barack Obama's efforts to shame him into running a vanilla campaign.

Instead, he says, McCain is lining up crack research operatives. Interestingly, their charge is not to gather dirt on Obama per se, but "to focus on the real Barack Obama." From where I'm sitting, that looks like one whale of a target-rich environment.

That is, McCain's operatives don't have to dig up dirt on Obama to damage his chances; they merely have to dig through the facade and uncover the real Obama.

Even with the damning revelations concerning his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former terrorist William Ayers, I suspect Obama explorers have barely scratched the surface.

While Obama will continue to complain that an examination into his associations is dirty politics, it is anything but. We are known by the company we keep, and this goes for applicants for leader of the Free World as well.

But in Obama's case, the McCain researchers will just be getting started with Obama's sordid associations. Where he's really vulnerable — the area where he most doesn't want you to find out who he really is — is on policy.

Given his George Soros brand of extreme leftism, Obama will do his best to conceal his real policy self, except to the San Francisco environmental- and social-issues anarchists, the arts and croissants crowd of the northeast corridor, and the neo-Marxist professorial elite in academe. Of course, now that he knows microphones anNewsmax.com

The Real Barack Obama
Friday, May 23, 2008 9:17 AM

By: David Limbaugh

Columnist Robert Novak reports that John McCain will not yield to Barack Obama's efforts to shame him into running a vanilla campaign.

Instead, he says, McCain is lining up crack research operatives. Interestingly, their charge is not to gather dirt on Obama per se, but "to focus on the real Barack Obama." From where I'm sitting, that looks like one whale of a target-rich environment.

That is, McCain's operatives don't have to dig up dirt on Obama to damage his chances; they merely have to dig through the facade and uncover the real Obama.

Even with the damning revelations concerning his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former terrorist William Ayers, I suspect Obama explorers have barely scratched the surface.

While Obama will continue to complain that an examination into his associations is dirty politics, it is anything but. We are known by the company we keep, and this goes for applicants for leader of the Free World as well.

But in Obama's case, the McCain researchers will just be getting started with Obama's sordid associations. Where he's really vulnerable — the area where he most doesn't want you to find out who he really is — is on policy.

Given his George Soros brand of extreme leftism, Obama will do his best to conceal his real policy self, except to the San Francisco environmental- and social-issues anarchists, the arts and croissants crowd of the northeast corridor, and the neo-Marxist professorial elite in academe. Of course, now that he knows microphones and bloggers can pop up anywhere, he won't even feel comfortable letting his guard down in these friendly venues to edify us about such things as small-town bitterology.

Not only is Obama highly vulnerable on policy issues across the board, assuming people discover what he actually stands for, but also his main policy weakness (national security) is made to order for John McCain to exploit.

It's obvious that Obama is sensitive to the charge that he's weak on security, but it's not clear that he quite understands why.

Dovish, isolationist types such as Obama don't view it as a weakness, but as a sign of enlightenment to believe that dictators can be schmoozed and persuaded into better behavior. Obama apparently believes Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reasonable demands that can be satisfied and that he, Barack Obama, might be just the guy to satisfy them. "If I can change Iran's behavior . . . that's something that we should explore."

In his stump speech, he actually implies that we haven't made clear our position to Iran about its nuclear program or intermeddling in Iraq. I'm not the only one who picked up on that implication. One of his supporters, author Nancy Soderberg, confirmed on Fox News that Obama believes "you need to use your carrots and sticks to talk to [Iran]." We haven't told them, she agreed, that they must quit meddling in Iraq and developing nuclear weapons. I honestly couldn't believe my ears.

Isn't it ironic that effete liberals, who can't see the reality of evil staring them in the face, reckon that it is realistic conservatives who are reality-challenged?

Indeed, the hard left doesn't seem to think Ahmadinejad is that bad a guy or unapproachable. Remember the swooning of the elitist class when the Holocaust denier wrote President Bush a lengthy propaganda letter disguised as an invitation for a dialogue? It was a "thoughtful letter," they panted.

One would think it self-evident that the dictator, who refers to Israel as filthy bacteria, is up to no good and not approachable through diplomacy absent unilateral forfeiture of our best interests and those of our allies; that a one-on-one meeting with the president of the United States would send an enormously discouraging signal to our Middle Eastern allies, including American-friendly Iranians praying for the overthrow of this tyrant; and that you can't gain concessions from thugs such as Ahmadinejad through words alone — uncoupled with action or credible threats of using force.

But these things are not self-evident to Barack Obama, who comes from the Jimmy Carter school of resolving all doubt in favor of our enemies, as he did when he blamed the Bush administration instead of NATO for NATO's failure to help us in Afghanistan.

Of a piece with this disturbing mindset of deferring to our enemies or other foreign nations is Obama's recent pronouncement: "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." Says who? By what authority?

To defeat Barack Obama in November, John McCain won't need to dig up dirt on Obama; he'll only have to introduce voters to the real Obama.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
bloggers can pop up anywhere, he won't even feel comfortable letting his guard down in these friendly venues to edify us about such things as small-town bitterology.

Not only is Obama highly vulnerable on policy issues across the board, assuming people discover what he actually stands for, but also his main policy weakness (national security) is made to order for John McCain to exploit.

It's obvious that Obama is sensitive to the charge that he's weak on security, but it's not clear that he quite understands why.

Dovish, isolationist types such as Obama don't view it as a weakness, but as a sign of enlightenment to believe that dictators can be schmoozed and persuaded into better behavior. Obama apparently believes Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reasonable demands that can be satisfied and that he, Barack Obama, might be just the guy to satisfy them. "If I can change Iran's behavior . . . that's something that we should explore."

In his stump speech, he actually implies that we haven't made clear our position to Iran about its nuclear program or intermeddling in Iraq. I'm not the only one who picked up on that implication. One of his supporters, author Nancy Soderberg, confirmed on Fox News that Obama believes "you need to use your carrots and sticks to talk to [Iran]." We haven't told them, she agreed, that they must quit meddling in Iraq and developing nuclear weapons. I honestly couldn't believe my ears.

Isn't it ironic that effete liberals, who can't see the reality of evil staring them in the face, reckon that it is realistic conservatives who are reality-challenged?

Indeed, the hard left doesn't seem to think Ahmadinejad is that bad a guy or unapproachable. Remember the swooning of the elitist class when the Holocaust denier wrote President Bush a lengthy propaganda letter disguised as an invitation for a dialogue? It was a "thoughtful letter," they panted.

One would think it self-evident that the dictator, who refers to Israel as filthy bacteria, is up to no good and not approachable through diplomacy absent unilateral forfeiture of our best interests and those of our allies; that a one-on-one meeting with the president of the United States would send an enormously discouraging signal to our Middle Eastern allies, including American-friendly Iranians praying for the overthrow of this tyrant; and that you can't gain concessions from thugs such as Ahmadinejad through words alone — uncoupled with action or credible threats of using force.

But these things are not self-evident to Barack Obama, who comes from the Jimmy Carter school of resolving all doubt in favor of our enemies, as he did when he blamed the Bush administration instead of NATO for NATO's failure to help us in Afghanistan.

Of a piece with this disturbing mindset of deferring to our enemies or other foreign nations is Obama's recent pronouncement: "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." Says who? By what authority?

To defeat Barack Obama in November, John McCain won't need to dig up dirt on Obama; he'll only have to introduce voters to the real Obama.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

2008-06-02T22:44:00.002-05:00

And this is what I don't like about labor unions. Nothing new however. In 1959 my dad worked for the Ross Glove Company in Sheboygan, WI. In 1957 he had helped setup a factory in Oxford WI. Did a good job of it at that. Even got to tell Mel Laird that if he wanted to meet and greet the workers it was going to be outside, not inside.

Any who, in the spring of 1959 dad and his boss made a trip to the Philippines to see about setting up a factory. Cheap labor ($.25/hour and no unions)and he needed to do as the competion was doing.

So nothing new for this old country boy, nothing new.

Movin' To Mexico

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Autos: Word that Ford will build its new fuel-efficient Fiesta "global car" in Mexico City is bad news for American auto unions. U.S. companies still want to build cars; they just don't want to build them with union labor.

Read More: Business & Regulation | Latin America & Caribbean

Ford's investment of $3 billion in two auto plants near Mexico City is the largest foreign company investment ever in Mexico. As oil prices soar and new climate-change rules are readied in Washington, Ford must shift from its reliance on trucks and SUVs to lighter, more energy-efficient vehicles.

This should be something that workers in Michigan and other Midwestern states with decades of auto making experience should excel at doing. Instead, Ford and other automakers are pushing more and more investment abroad — especially to Mexico.

It's tempting to blame automakers for this. Indeed, they do deserve a big chunk of the blame for poor management decisions. And by far, their worst decisions yet came when they agreed to company-destroying labor pacts with the United Auto Workers union that practically guaranteed Big Auto's demise.

We don't fault workers for trying to get more in labor negotiations. But the fact is, past UAW deals have saddled U.S. companies with such high costs that they can no longer make cars here and compete on a global market. So they make cars elsewhere.

Like a coyote caught in a trap, U.S. automakers have been desperately gnawing off a leg to escape certain death. They're closing plants and slashing jobs in Michigan, Ohio and other U.S. union havens, in favor of non-union, foreign places. Like Mexico and China.

Meanwhile, foreign companies have no problem making cars here. They do it in the non-union South, where the UAW is weak.

Though little noted, last year was a watershed for U.S. car makers. For the first time, foreign producers in the U.S. made more cars — 54% of the total — than the former Big Three. As recently as the 1980s, Ford, Chrysler and GM made 73% of all cars here.

Why is this? U.S. car makers pay their workers an average of about $73 an hour in wages and benefits — way more than others.

According to the Center for Automotive Research, there's a $16.15 per hour gap between what Detroit's Big 3 pay workers and what Toyota pays workers in the U.S. Add to that a $5 billion a year difference in health care and other retirement costs, totaling thousands of dollars in extra costs on every car sold, and U.S. automakers operate at about a $12 billion a year disadvantage.

It doesn't take an MBA to understand this is an industry in peril.

We've witnessed one of the most dramatic losses of competitiveness of any major industry in American history. From 1999 to 2007 alone, the U.S. lost 281,500 auto-related jobs, or 25% of the total.

Like others, Ford is saddled with enormous legacy health-care costs, labor rules and high wages that make it virtually uneconomic to produce cars in the U.S. And with a Democratic Congress now in a regulating mood, who knows what other hits await ?

Ironically, Ford's move to Mexico may be more a response to GM's labor woes than its own. Last year, GM struck a landmark deal basically giving the UAW a pile of cash to take over its health care liabilities. Many predicted a new era in labor relations.

But a bitter recent UAW strike against key GM parts supplier American Axle & Manufacturing will sock GM with $2.6 billion in losses in the first half of 2008. Last week, GM announced it was laying off 19,000 workers to cut costs. No one, least of all not the UAW, should be surprised.

Ford's move to Mexico should be a warning to the UAW, which has seen its membership shrink from 1.5 million in 1979 to about 500,000 today. The UAW may "win" every negotiation they enter from now until doomsday, but to what end? The decline of Ford, GM or Chrysler is bad news for the U.S. — but it may be a death-knell for the UAW.

For Liberals, Soldiers are Victims

2008-06-02T15:10:00.003-05:00

'Nuff said. Liberals are dangerous to your health and well being. I don't mind an honest Democrat, but Liberals need to go.

June 02, 2008
For Liberals, Soldiers are Victims
By Jeffrey Schmidt
Not surprisingly, something went unnoticed in the establishment media's coverage of Barack Obama's latest gaffe. What got the play was that Senator Obama had a great-uncle, not an uncle, who was involved, in some way or another, in the liberation of Buchenwald, not Auschwitz. Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army.

What didn't get much, if any, play was the Illinoisan's observation that his now great-uncle was, presumably, so traumatized by the experience of liberating a death camp that, when he returned stateside:

"...he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months, right. Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren't the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain."

What insight does Senator Obama's words give us about his and the liberal mindset? It gives us this: that war is largely about injury to our fighting men and women, not just in body, but in mind and soul. Senator Obama's great-uncle was a shattered man, so shattered that he holed-up in his family's attic for a half a year. And that if only the facilities were available, his great-uncle would have found proper treatment for his psychic and emotional wounds.

It is curious that Senator Obama would have had the need to add this detail. Memorial Day is about celebrating the triumphs of our men and women in uniform, living or dead. And, yes, it is certainly about remembrance of their sacrifices, and about mourning, though that mourning is vivified with the knowledge that their deaths were not in vain; that their sacrifices served noble ends, and that those ends -- the advancement or preservation of freedom - gave their sacrifices great worth and meaning.

For liberals, war is a no-win proposition. Since Vietnam, a compromised and venal United States engages in conflicts with enemies -- if they can be called that -- who are, at the very least, the nation's moral equivalents or, perhaps, like the Communist North Vietnamese, its superiors. Soldiers, when not despised by liberals (again, see Vietnam) are pitied as dupes, under-educated and unemployable youths who sought paychecks in the military.

And the consequences for these youths being duped into military service? Mental and emotional illness, drug and alcohol addiction, rage and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In fact, the latter is practically a rite of passage for men and women exiting the military, or so seems the liberal belief.

Some of the best evidence for liberal thinking about military service and its effects is found in popular culture; specifically, the movies, where liberal perspectives dominate.

Post Vietnam War movies are chock full of crazies and the traumatized. Apocalypse Now featured a gonzo Colonel Kurtz (played by the bizarre Marlon Brando) being pursued by a troubled Captain Willard (played by Martin Sheen). The Deer Hunter featured a tightly-wound and anger-driven Michael (Robert De Niro) whose final - personal - mission in Vietnam is to rescue his friend, the AWOL and zombie-like Nick (Christopher Walken), from the games of Russian Roulette he indulges because he doesn't give a damn if he lives or dies.

The list can go on. Coming Home, with Jon Voight and Jane Fonda. Voight is a paralyzed Vietnam vet badly in need of a catharsis, which "Hanoi Jane" Fonda helps facilitate. Born on the Fourth of July has Tom Cruise playing yet another paralyzed Vietnam Vet, Ron Kovic, whose trauma and bitterness turns him into a full-fledge antiwar activist. In Full Metal Jacket, the first half of the movie is devoted to watching a simple, if unstable, Private Pyle (Vincent D'Onofrio) ground down by the merciless Drill Sergeant Hartman (R. Lee Ermey). Private Pyle finally shoots himself, in the latrine, no less. But first, he dispatches Sergeant Hartman -- in the latrine.

And there is a growing list of Iraq War films depicting soldiers as either coldblooded killers (Battle for Haditha) or broken (In the Valley of Elah). It seems there are no new storylines in Hollywood. Neither movie, to the credit of the paying public, has fared well at the box office.

Today, the unpopularity of the Iraq War hasn't spilled over onto the nation's soldiers and vets. However unfavorably the war is viewed by many Americans, fighting men and women are generally esteemed. Returning soldiers are met with gratitude and as heroes. Liberal politicians may try to deprecate General Petraeus, but they have the good sense not to mess with GI Joe or Jane.

Instead, as reflected in Senator Obama's comment about a great-uncle who fought in a long-ago war, liberals see soldiers as victims, who need access to "facilities" to cope with the inevitable traumas that result from the unspeakable horrors of war. It is surprising that Senator Obama didn't tack onto his remarks a proposal for additional hundreds of millions dollars for counseling and psychiatric care for vets. One senses that's where the Senator wanted to go, and still may.

Is combat a trauma? A firefight, with bullets flying and bombs falling, isn't quite like checking into the office at nine a.m. Are most soldiers traumatized by their combat experiences? No, most are not. Most Vietnam vets have gone onto live normal and productive lives. Most Iraq vets will do the same. Some will not, and most certainly, the facilities, as Senator Obama termed it, need to be available to make them whole again.

By virtually all accounts, combat is a searing experience, a life-altering experience. The soldier who has gone through that crucible has a greater appreciation for the value and fleetingness of life and the suddenness of death. His bonds to his comrades, living or dead, are greater still. And afterward, upon consideration, he knows that he's given his fullest measure to his country.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/for_liberals_soldiers_are_vict.html at June 02, 2008 - 04:05:31 PM EDT

WHAT GLOBAL WARMING??

2008-06-02T10:02:00.002-05:00

I am an old U.S. Air Force weather man and I learned about 'global warming' in basic weather observer class--namely, it just isn't nice to mess with Mother Nature. Like destroying the rain forests of the world. Pay back is a mother. We also learned about warming ocean currents like El Nino and how they change patterns and affect the weather. Some where along the line I became a forecaster and then a solar forecaster. Learned a lot about the sun and its' affect upon our weather. Weather goes in cycles, long term and short term. We knew about it years ago, and Al Gore thinks he just discovered it. For Shame Al, For Shame. And just how much money have made from this?
Millions??? And how green is your personal life?

Blogs - Blogs
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
December 20, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:47 AM ET

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)

Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)
UPDATE: Former Vice President Al Gore responds to Senate report within hours of release. (LINK)
UPDATE: 2/22/08: Senate report impacting climate debate. Sampling of international coverage of report: UK Telegraph; Boston Herald; Canada’s National Post; New York Times; Fox News; CNNMoney.com; Human Events; Croatia’s Javno; The Cincinnati Enquirer; WorldNetDaily.com; United Press International (UPI); Spero News; New Zealand Herald; CNSNews.com; Real Clear Politics; PA’s Morning Call; Investor's Business Daily; Philippine’s Manila Standard; Colorado Springs Gazette; Canada Free Press; Belfast Telegraph; Newsmax.com; CA’s Orange County Register; Nashua Telegraph; Yahoo News; & Australia’s Herald Sun;
UPDATE: IMPACT: Scientist ponders reconsidering his view of man-made climate fears after Senate report of 400 scientists (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”

A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) - In addition, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. (LINK) ]

This report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 - LINK)

CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case." (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007. (LINK)

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK)

# #

Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”

Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”

China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”

Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

# # #

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.”

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK)

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insulation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )

With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists.

LINKS TO COMPLETE U.S. SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Complete Report: (LINK) - Released December 20, 2007 - U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)

Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)

# # #

Related Links:

Breakdown Of Key Points Debunking Cilmate Fears

Analysis of how Hollywood Is Promoting Climate Fears to Kids

Analysis of Costly "Solutions" to Global Warming

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

NEW SENATE CAP-AND-TRADE BILL CALLED ALL ‘ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN'

Debunking The So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming

Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism

Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'

Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smack down: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Man made Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

THE NEW GOOD GUYS

2008-06-01T20:46:00.001-05:00

- The Loft - http://www.gopusa.com/theloft -
Welcome to
The Loft

Heartless, Soulless Libertarians My Eye

Posted By Chuck Muth On June 1, 2008 at 10:41 am

I’ve said it before and I’m repeating it now: If Sen. John McCain picks former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as his running mate there’s no way I’ll even consider voting for the GOP ticket this year...an “iffy” proposition as it is already. And if there was even a smidgen of doubt in my mind about that, it was erased this week by these comments by the Huckster…

"The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism. But it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says ‘look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and health care, so be it.’ . . . That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government..."

That’s the kind of over-the-top anti-conservative/libertarian rhetoric you’d expect to hear from Hillary or Obama. And it’s nothing but warmed-over regurgitation of “compassionate conservatism” - and we all know how well THAT has worked for Republicans.

All I know is that while “hate” is too strong of a word to use to describe how libertarians feel toward government, the Founding Fathers certainly harbored a far higher degree of fear and skepticism of government than Huckleberry and his brand of big-government Republicanism. And as for describing libertarianism as “heartless, callous (and) soulless,” I’ll take Ronald Reagan’s description of the libertarian philosophy instead…

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

Mike Huckabee, you’re no Ronald Reagan.

Article printed from The Loft: http://www.gopusa.com/theloft

LIBERTARIANS

2008-06-01T20:40:00.003-05:00

The New York Times

June 1, 2008
The Nation
Libertarians Dream of Being the Tie-Breaker
By JULIE BOSMAN

So maybe it isn’t very “live and let live” for libertarians to assemble en masse in the hopes of exerting power. But some libertarians, feeling a little heady after their party’s national convention last weekend, are making a bold claim: this is the year their voting bloc will hold some serious sway in American politics.

“We are in the beginning of a libertarian moment,” said Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason, the libertarian monthly.

Meeting in Denver, the Libertarian Party chose as its new standard-bearer Bob Barr, the former four-term Republican congressman from Georgia who has already been branded a spoiler by Sean Hannity, the conservative commentator from Fox News.

The most well-known libertarian figure, the Republican Ron Paul, has a book at the top of the best-seller list and has raised millions on the Internet while gathering 1.1 million votes in the primaries and caucuses so far. (In the libertarian strongholds of Idaho, Washington State, Montana and North Dakota, he got more than 20 percent of the Republican vote.)

Michael Kinsley, writing in Time magazine last fall, predicted that voters with libertarian leanings are going to be “an increasingly powerful force in politics.” The auguries come even from Hollywood, where a film adaptation of the libertarian writer Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” is planned for release next year starring Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, both of whom are said to be Rand fans.

The Libertarian Party faithful expressed their hopes that if Mr. Barr can tap into the well of Ron Paul supporters, it could be their biggest election yet.

“They’re a swing vote right now,” said David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization in Washington. “People with broadly libertarian views typically vote two-thirds to three-quarters Republican. But in 2004 and 2006, libertarian votes were moving away from the Republican Party. So they seem like they’re up for grabs.”

There are a few problems with an overabundance of libertarian confidence. Since 1972, the party has never collected more than roughly 1 percent of the vote in a national presidential election.

And some political observers have cast some doubt that Mr. Barr — who once supported the Patriot Act and strict drug laws, and helped lead the impeachment of President Clinton — could energize enough in the party to make a difference.

“I’m not sure he’s the optimal messenger,” said Charlie Cook, the political analyst.

But there is the Libertarian Party and then there is the libertarian — small-“L” — state of mind. Those who do not necessarily vote with the party but identify with some of the core libertarian philosophy — a small government with minimal reach into people’s personal lives, and minimal foreign entanglements — may be a potent, if unpredictable, group of voters.

“I think one problem the Republican Party is facing in the Mountain West is that the social, cultural and religious emphasis of Republicans in the last five, six, eight years has run against the libertarian grain,” Mr. Cook said. “When these people signed onto small government, they weren’t just talking about money. They were talking about small government, period. So when government dictates anything, whether social, cultural, religious or anything else, they take a dim view of that.”

Libertarians trace their historical roots back to the Enlightenment and views of the rights of the individual that informed the Constitution, which they say should be strictly interpreted. As might be expected from a group placing a high value on individual freedom, they are a diverse bunch, animated by different issues, whether gun rights or drug legalization or cutting taxes.

When libertarian ideas gained in popularity in the 1970s, it was in part from public discontent with big-government efforts like the Vietnam War. Lately, libertarians have focused on issues like the war in Iraq, which they oppose in common with many Democrats, and school choice, which they favor along with social conservatives.

Many view Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, with suspicion if not disdain, despite his opposition to government pork, a maverick image and roots in Arizona, home of the Republican Senator Barry Goldwater (he of “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”). They oppose Mr. McCain’s support both of the war and campaign finance restrictions, which they see as a curb on free speech. Meanwhile, liberal Democrat though he may be, Senator Barack Obama, Mr. McCain’s likely foe, may attract libertarians not only because of his antiwar views but because, like Mr. Paul, he has had great success organizing support via the Internet, where a libertarian spirit thrives.

Mr. Boaz of the Cato Institute said he already detected some movement to Mr. Barr. “I’ve had friends e-mail me over the last few days and say, ‘I want Barr to keep McCain out of the White House,’ ” he said. “So there definitely are some libertarians who object to McCain and want to see Barr siphon votes away from him.”

Mr. Barr is expected to attract votes in libertarian strongholds like Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico and New Hampshire. One recent poll suggested that Mr. Barr could do the most serious damage in his native Georgia, where Mr. Obama, with his wide support among black voters, could perform well, too.

According to the poll, conducted by InsiderAdvantage, 8 percent of registered voters said they would vote for Mr. Barr in a matchup against Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama in November. (Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama received 45 percent and 35 percent in the poll, respectively.)

“He could take some votes away from John McCain here,” said Merle Black, a professor of politics at Emory University in Atlanta. “But right now, I think his potential would be in the single digits. The Republicans could lose some white votes and still have enough to carry the state.”

Mr. Barr has said he hopes that Mr. Paul’s million-plus supporters will vote for him instead. And the Barr campaign is trying to tap into some of the Ron Paul Internet magic, linking to social-networking sites like Facebook and MySpace on its campaign Web site.

But without Mr. Paul on the ballot, many of his supporters may choose not to vote at all. And Mr. Paul, the Libertarian Party’s nominee in 1988, does not plan to steer his supporters to Mr. Barr, said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Mr. Paul.

“Bob and Ron are former colleagues and they’re friends,” Mr. Benton said carefully. “But that’s where the relationship ends.”

BARAK OBAMA

2008-06-01T20:19:00.001-05:00

June 01, 2008
The Obama Way of Ending Divisiveness
By Jeff Dobbs
When Barack Obama says he wants to end the divisiveness in politics, I believe him. When Obama says he wants to bring about unity, I believe him. When Obama says he wants to work for a new politics free from bitter partisanship, I believe him. When Obama says he wants to have vigorous debate, a robust discussion or a national dialogue to bring this about, I believe him -- to be lying.

Obama's strategy has been to orient the campaign around his greatest strength and advantage -- who could deliver the best speech -- and away from his greatest weakness -- his poor ability to answer questions about how he would deliver on any of its promises.

Obama and his Democratic opponents

Democrats have infamously proclaimed during the Bush administration that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Yet Obama has continuously sought to stifle any dissent aimed at him by labeling any criticism as a distraction, as divisive or as cynical. Although we are seeing a greater frequency of these claims, and more people are now noticing the breadth of issues with which Obama uses this tactic, stifling dissent was a strategy from the beginning of his campaign.

In his speech to the DNC Winter Meeting in February of last year, Obama laid out some of the ground rules he wanted to impose on the campaign.

Over the next year of a primary and the next two years leading to the election of the next president, the campaigns...(APPLAUSE)... the campaigns shouldn't be about making each other look bad, they should be about figuring out how we can all do some good for this precious country of ours. (APPLAUSE)

That's our mission.

And in this mission, our rivals won't be one another, and I would assert it won't even be the other party. It's going to be cynicism that we're fighting against.

Making Obama look bad is cynical. And cynicism is worse than even Republicans. Anyone criticizing Obama, and thereby engaging in cynicism would be judged as worse than Republicans.

Later in the same speech, Obama expanded the ground rules:

... for every attack ad that questions the character or honesty or patriotism of somebody, there are real patriots fighting and dying in Iraq whose families deserve to know how we plan to bring them home.

Questioning Obama's character or honesty or patriotism is a distraction. Anyone questioning Obama on these grounds would be judged as lacking in their support for the troops.

Obama has not set about setting up these restraints on his opponents simply because he doesn't want to be inconvenienced with such questions and criticisms. Obama clearly understands that his history, his associations, his decisions and actions are such that such questions and criticisms would be devastating to his campaign were they undertaken in earnest and robustly discussed and vigorously debated.

Obama does not want anyone to be able to question his character as it relates to having a 20 plus year relationship with his race-baiting pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He wants to prevent anyone from questioning his honesty when he repeatedly engages in dishonest double-talk like a dissembling pol as he changes his story about his relationship with indicted friend and political backer Antonin Rezko. Obama knows he must head off any questions of his patriotism because of his long relationship with an America-hating unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

Obama and the media

Obama understands that the primary means of limiting the questions for which he would otherwise be forced to answer is to create a media environment in which those questions are not asked.

Liberals, including the media have repeatedly attacked President Bush for making himself unavailable to the media in press conferences and other Q&A formats. Yet as Howard Kurtz described back in January, the Obama campaign has been "unusually insulated":

One moment of absurdity came Tuesday, when reporters on the press bus were asked to dial into a conference call in which Obama announced a congressman's endorsement -- even though the candidate was nearby and just as easily could have delivered the news in person to the bus captives. Obama answered a few questions, but reporters are generally placed on mute after they speak so there can be no follow-up.

Obama learned the wisdom of this strategy, or rather the folly of its absence, when he made himself available to reporters to answer questions about his relationship with Antonin Rezko, who is currently on trial for corruption. Irritated with the questions and unable to satisfy persistent reporters, Obama cut the news conference short, walking out and proclaiming, "'Guys, I mean come on. I just answered like eight questions." Obama more recently went on a 10 day stretch in which he held no press conferences. Frustrated with the lack of availability, a reporter tried to break Obama's silence by asking a question while he was eating breakfast. Obama again deployed the "chagrin defense", this time somewhat fomously, "Why can't I just eat my waffle?"

The Obama campaign seeks to restrict media access forcing them to react to his speeches and limiting unscripted interaction with the candidate himself. Because when the media reacts to his speeches, as evidenced by his "major speech on race in America" in March, which Obama gave in response to the revelations surrounding Reverend Wright's sermons, the media cheers, and swoons and practically struggles to avoid fainting.

And after Obama's major speech on race in America, the media began putting up the wall that would protect Obama from further questions about Reverend Wright. When Lanny Davis, a Clinton supporter, sought to put Hillary's comment that Wright would not have been her pastor in context, he described several of Wright's comments, at which point he was accused of "spreading the poison". When CNN anchor John Roberts interviewed Obama, he reassured the candidate that the entire network was a "Wright-free zone". Mission accomplished.

Obama and McCain

To date, Obama's strategy has been aimed primarily at his Democratic opponents, especially Hillary Clinton. But having moved from challenger, to front-runner, to now the presumptive Democratic nominee, Obama is spending more time engaging with the Republican nominee, John McCain. And the McCain campaign recognizes Obama's strategy of stifling dissent and co-opting the media to achieve it.

In his victory speech after winning North Carolina, Obama preemptively characterized the race ahead that McCain would run as pinning names and labels on him, as trying to distract voters from real issues, as pouncing on gaffes and associations and false controversies. He predicted that McCain would play on voters' fears and exploit differences, slicing and dicing the electorate by race and income.

Also in North Carolina, the Obama campaign put McCain on notice -- even agreeing with Obama that an issue was legitimate would be subject to the Obama strategy of being called divisive and distracting. When the Obama-Wright relationship blew up, John McCain assiduously avoided the topic, even at one point taking the North Carolina state Republican Party to task for using Wright in an ad. However, after Obama claimed Wright was a "legitimate political issue", McCain agreed with Obama that many voters would share Obama's view of it as legitimate. In response, the Obama campaign quickly reacted:

"By sinking to a level that he specifically said he'd avoid, John McCain has broken his word to the American people and rendered hollow his promise of a respectful campaign," said spokesman Hari Sevugan. "With each passing day, John McCain acts more and more like someone who's spent twenty-six years learning the divisive, distracting tactics of Washington. That's not the change that the American people are looking for."

Obama recently claimed that he was smeared by John McCain when McCain reiterated that it is clear that Hamas favors Obama for President. Obama then went further, claiming that it was a sign that McCain was "losing his bearings". In response, McCain senior advisor Mark Salter sent out a memo that included this characterization of Obama's efforts:

It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgment and preparedness to be President of the United States. [...]

Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race.

Senator Obama has good reason to think this plan will succeed, as serious journalists have written of the need for 'de-tox' to cure 'swooning' over Senator Obama, and others have admitted to losing their objectivity while with him on the campaign trail.

And McCain has good reason to worry. Obama's strategy has proven successful against Clinton, and the media show every sign of continuing it into the general election against McCain. His wife Michelle, an active campaigner and advisor, is now off limits in the Barack Obama campaign coverage rule book. But the ultimate test of this strategy, the ultimate judge of its success will only come at the ballot box in November, which remains an open question.

Between now and then, however, if Obama's strategy continues to be successful, the media will shield him from the tough questions and criticism. Because there is no bitter partisanship where there is no discussion of the issues, and there is no divisiveness without debate. Obama is not seeking a dialogue in this campaign to bring about unity; rather, a monologue. Obama wants you silent - unless you agree with him, or until enough people do that your voice is no longer heard.

Jeff Dobbs blogs at The Voice in My Head

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/post_13.html at June 01, 2008 - 09:19:02 PM EDT

I still know he's crook, but...

2008-05-25T23:37:00.001-05:00

Deroy Murdock: McCain's tight fist
Posted: May 25, 2008

While Americans focus on the interminable Clinton-Obama celebrity death match, Sen. John McCain is using clear-headed, compellingly crafted speeches to propose surprisingly bold, free-market ideas. With one huge exception, the Arizona Republican advocates more limited, open government as his Democratic rivals promise tax hikes and an even busier state. Voters should welcome this stark contrast.
On spending, John McCain would rule with a tight fist"There will be no more subsidies for special pleaders -- no more corporate welfare -- no more throwing around billions of dollars of the people's money on pet projects, while the people themselves are struggling to afford their homes, groceries, and gas," McCain said April 15 in Pittsburgh. "I will veto every bill with earmarks, until the Congress stops sending bills with earmarks," McCain continued, "I will seek a constitutionally valid line-item veto to end the practice once and for all." More impressive, McCain said, "We will institute a one-year pause in discretionary spending increases with the necessary exemption of military spending and veterans' benefits."
Such prudence would be a welcome relief from the Bush/GOP Congress years that did for fiscal responsibility what the Playboy Mansion has done for sexual restraint.
McCain's budget discipline would make it easier to cut taxes. He wants to make President Bush's tax cuts permanent. He would slice corporate taxes from 35 to 25 percent. He also would scrap the alternative minimum tax, double the dependents' exemption from $3,500 to $7,000, "and sign into law a reform agenda to permit the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology."
Most significantly, he would let Americans choose to file taxes under today's rules or volunteer for a simpler, flatter rate, perhaps at 25 or 15 percent.
Regarding health care, McCain warned in Tampa on April 29 that his opponents "urge universal coverage, with all the tax increases, new mandates, and government regulation that come along with that idea. But in the end, this will accomplish one thing only. We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly."
Instead, McCain believes that "the key to real reform is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves." He would expand health savings accounts and, more dramatically, offer a tax credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to help Americans purchase their own coverage, even across state lines. McCain added, "It would be yours and your family's health-care plan, and yours to keep."
McCain also calls for reining in the misguided, multitrillion-dollar Medicare drug plan. "People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't need their prescriptions underwritten by taxpayers," McCain observed. "This reform alone will save billions of dollars that could be returned to taxpayers or put to better use."
There is a cautionary note among these encouraging signs: John McCain has beer-bonged the Kool-Aid on global warming.
"We need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring," McCain said May 12 at a Portland, Ore., wind-power research facility.
He desires "a cap-and-trade system to change the dynamic of our energy economy." His specific goal is to reduce CO2 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Former Virginia state climatologist Patrick Michaels estimated in the May 16 Washington Times that this would lower per-capita emissions "to 19th-century levels."
Before relegating America's mid-21st century economy to the norms of the Grover Cleveland era, McCain should heed the expanding caucus of experts who believe so-called "global warming" is exaggerated, if it even exists.
On May 19, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine released a petition signed by 31,072 Americans scientists, including 9,021 Ph.D.s. They reject the idea that CO2 is boiling Earth. So much for climate science being "settled."
One hopes McCain will listen on this issue. Just as he recently has warmed to tax cuts, perhaps he will cool on "global warming."
Nonetheless, McCain will remain a mixed bag. Sometimes he will annoy the Right. Other times, he boldly will go where no GOP standard bearer has gone since Ronald Reagan. As a wise man said, "John McCain is not perfect. Just perfect enough."
Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

POLITICAL B.S.

2008-05-25T23:04:00.003-05:00

Personally I don't think any of the 3 candidates belong in the White House. Two are crooks and the third is serving as a pretty face fool for the far Left/Socialists who need someone to front for them so they can pursue their agendas. Hillary, in addition to being a crook, is almost as far Left as Obama. Not only that but do we really want Smiln' Bill back in the White House???? As for McCain he lies like a wet sack of ***t.

McCain’s Media-Manufactured ‘Pastor Problem’
ABC tries to link McCain to a controversial preacher, as Newsweek did two weeks ago.

By Brian Fitzpatrick
Culture and Media Institute
May 22, 2008

First it was Rev. Jerry Falwell, then Rev. John Hagee, now Rev. Rod Parsley.

For the second time in less than a month, major media outlets have attempted to hang a Reverend Jeremiah Wright around the neck of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Before that, they were comparing Wright to the late Falwell.

Rev. Wright is the recently retired pastor of the church Democratic front runner Barack Obama has attended for nearly twenty years. Obama has credited Wright with leading him to Jesus Christ, described Wright as his mentor, and maintained a close relationship with him until last month. Obama’s presidential candidacy has been damaged severely by disclosure of Wright’s extreme political and religious views.

This morning, on ABC’s Good Morning America, anchor Diane Sawyer led the show by announcing that “pastor problems” are “plaguing” McCain as well. Sawyer introduced an “investigation” by reporter Brian Ross into McCain’s “ties to a preacher who has made controversial, fiercely anti-Islamic comments.”

According to Ross, McCain “sought and received a big endorsement” from Rod Parsley, a prominent Ohio minister. Parsley, author of the book Silent No More, has warned Americans passionately in print and in the pulpit that Islam intends to conquer the world.

“Campaign aides later positioned Parsley behind McCain for photographers, apparently unconcerned about what Parsley stands for,” said Ross. “As the senior pastor of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, Parsley has made no secret of his feelings that Islam is the enemy.”

Ross went on to play video clips of McCain making conciliatory remarks about Muslims, alternating with clips of Parsley criticizing Islamic theology.

ABC’s Rev. Parsley endorsement story closely resembles a story in Newsweek’s May 12 issue about McCain’s endorsement by Texas pastor John Hagee, an outspoken critic of Roman Catholic theology (see CMI’s analysis, "Newsweek Helps Obama Four Different Ways"). CMI’s Kristen Fyfe wrote, “It is obvious that Newsweek is seeking to mitigate the damage Wright has done to Obama by trying to make a comparison to the Hagee-McCain relationship.”

On April 30, on ABC’s The View, Whoopi Goldberg attempted to blunt criticism of Rev. Wright by invoking the specter of the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Wright said America deserved to be attacked on 9/11 because of her foreign policy. Goldberg paraphrased Falwell’s take on the 9/11 attack, that America was being judged by God for sexual sin: “We have all seen, Jerry Falwell said that the towers came down because of gay folks and, you know, the lesbians.” Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne made the same comparison in a May 2 column (see CMI analysis, "Left Wing and Wright Brained?").

Brian Fitzpatrick is senior editor at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.

Send this page to a friend! (click here)

TO HELL WITH THE DAMN DEMOCRATES

2008-05-16T19:38:00.000-05:00

The plot to throw you out of work and stick you with higher taxes

Wes Vernon
Wes Vernon
May 12, 2008

Hey! You don't mind paying another 53 cents a gallon to fill up your car's tank, do you? Obviously you're feeling a little guilt-ridden at getting away with paying a measly three-to-four bucks (and climbing) for each gallon as it is. So what's another 53 cents? Especially if you're out of a job. No big deal, right?

The threat is real

Some of your brilliant lawmakers here in Washington believe that neither letting you have your cake nor letting you eat it too is a great way to get your vote. Don't laugh. They mean it.

The trial lawyers who fill the liberal campaign coffers, as well as Ivory Tower elites (who devise the intellectual pretzel-shaped rationalizations) and the mainstream media (who provide the 24/7 brainwashing), will seek to instill within you all the guilt necessary lest you entertain the quaint notion that you are best positioned to decide how to spend your hard-earned money.

Warner-Lieberman

There is pending in the United States Senate a monstrosity that gives some serious meaning to the facetious wisecrack that Americans are safer when Congress is out of session. As usual, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member and former Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), is doing much of the heavy lifting in the name of down-to-earth sanity in citing the monstrosity's many flaws.

S-2191, the Lieberman-Warner "cap and trade" bill (scheduled for Senate debate shortly after Memorial Day) would require companies to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 2005 levels by the year 2012. By 2020, those emissions are mandated to return to 1990 levels. And industrial America is expected to reduce emissions to 65% below 1990 levels by the year 2050. This is all in the name of the hoax known as "man-made global warming." That's the "cap."

Gore's mansion sets the example

The theory behind "cap and trade" is that companies cutting their emissions below their legal limit can sell their excess emissions rights to other parties. That's the "trade." Every time Al Gore's environmental hypocrisy is nailed, he replies he purchases emissions "credits" from other parties in order to operate his huge energy-hog mansion in Nashville. That's the model for this bill

The small print: the cap and trade "problem"

For starters, just by its very nature, Warner-Lieberman supplies more weight to the already horrific pressures to make your personal wallet or purse considerably lighter. The congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the bill would create $1.2 trillion in government spending over the next 10 years alone.

But while government spending goes up, household income will go down, possibly by nearly $3,000 in 2020 and more than double that amount by 2030. Senator Inhofe figures families in his state of Oklahoma will be stuck with paying $3,298 for the increased cost of gasoline and energy.

Poor families would get the worst of it. Liberal politicians — who claim their hearts bleed for the poor — apparently figure they, themselves, won't be adversely affected by the higher energy bills that will hit low income families, who already pay 5 times as much of their monthly budgets on energy (19%) as do wealthier families (4%).

And don't forget the pain at the pump. A study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projects that gasoline prices will soar by 53 cents a gallon by the time the full effects of Lieberman-Warner kick in.

Jobs? Forget it. You will be lucky just to keep the one you have because if you lose it, you'll have a harder time getting another one. Senator Inhofe cites an Independent Energy Information Administration (IEIA) study as forecasting a 9.5% drop in manufacturing and higher energy costs under L/W, and that it will be worse unless we build 350 nuclear plants by 2030. (Note: This column has advocated building nuclear plants as a substitute for begging on our hind legs from the oil-rich countries that hate us.)

Under Lieberman/Warner, America stands to lose jobs in the millions.

The politics of it all

Here is another instance where Senator John McCain needs to be brought up to speed if he is effectively to distinguish himself from his hard-charging opponents. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee sees cap and trade as a more politically acceptable alternative to the carbon tax which the senator (correctly) believes would raise the gas tax, which McCain opposes. Someone should break it gently to the senator that cap and trade would also raise the gas tax.

Mr. McCain told Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review that cap and trade appeals to him because it does not involve channeling tax dollars to the federal government. Wrong again. The feds would still auction off the permits. Also, states could auction off credits. They would be mandated to spend the proceeds on "environmental" purposes blessed by Washington. This is just another carbon tax made to look like what it is not.

Capitol Hill games

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), current Chairman of the Senate EPW concedes that she may have to yank the Lieberman-Warner bill off the Senate floor if any "weakening amendments" are piled onto it during the June debate.

A "win-win," the chairman believes

In truth, though Senator Boxer is sure to put on a great show of fighting mightily for the measure in Senate debate, she is really not interested in passing Lieberman-Warner (S-2191) in 2008. She has been quoted as saying the media and UN climate alarmists are doing such a great job of burying the public with the myth of man-made "global warming" that she would actually rather let the issue simmer out there for a couple of election cycles — hopefully to knock off members of Congress who are willing to break up the charade by pointing out that the Goebbels-like "climate change" propagandists are the proverbial emperors with no clothes. Recall that Joseph Goebbels was the Nazi propagandist whose motto was that a lie repeated often enough becomes "truth." Such is the methodology of the "global warming" potentates.

Politics over policy

"We will hold those who weakened it accountable in November," intoned Boxer. Of course! This debate (like so much of what passes for discourse in the Washington world of fakery) is aimed at emitting hot (political) air to make electoral points at the ballot-box, while building support for a con game of picking the pockets of unsuspecting Americans.

The unserious California lightweight is no stranger to this tactic. A couple of years ago, as our brave men and women were dodging bullets and fighting the war on Islamofascism, Boxer trashed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then used war and peace as her political playpen by sending out partisan fundraising letters referencing her sense of victimization because Rice dared to contradict her.

Change?

Some analysts believe this sneaky Kyoto Redux (as it should be called) spells t-a-x h-i-k-e to the tune of $438 billion. The Kyoto Treaty is discredited? No problem. Just call it something else.

Forget about "change," dear reader. These Mickey Mouse games will go on — and on — regardless of what happens in November.

POOR MRS. O

2008-05-07T11:26:00.000-05:00

This is from one of my favorite authors, writing about a woman who wants to be First Lady

Barack Obama's Bitter Half
By Michelle Malkin
May 7, 2008

Are you ready for hope and change? Barack Obama better hope his bitter half has a change of attitude if she expects to assume the title of first lady in November. She's been likened to John F. Kennedy's wife, what with her chic suits and pearls and perfectly coiffed helmet hair. But when she opens her mouth, Michelle O is less Jackie O and more Wendy W -- as in Wendy Whiner, the constantly kvetching "Saturday Night Live" character from the early 1980s.

When last our world views collided, back in February, the other Michelle was expounding on her lack of pride in America. I gave her myriad reasons to cheer up -- from America's role in the fall of communism to our unparalleled generosity to our nation's superior economic system, cultural resilience, entrepreneurial spirit and ingenuity. But since then, Mrs. Obama has dug in her $500 Jimmy Choo heels and solidified her role in the 2008 presidential campaign as Queen of the Grievance-Mongers.

In one of her few (unintentionally) funny moments during a recent sit-down with comedian Stephen Colbert, Mrs. Obama claimed, "Barack and I tend to look at the positives." That's a side-splitter. As National Review's Yuval Levin put it, Michelle Obama is "America's unhappiest millionaire." And she has the audacity to extrapolate her misery and her husband's alleged victimization to the "vast majority of Americans."

In South Carolina, she called America "just downright mean" and bemoaned "a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day." And in case you hadn't heard enough of her carping about how hard it is for a seven-figure-earning family to pay for ballet lessons and piano lessons and pay off college loans, Mrs. Oh-Woe-Is-Me was at it again on the campaign trail in Indiana and North Carolina before Tuesday's primary.

On the stump, she warmed up (or rather, berated) supporters by complaining about how her husband is an underdog even after he keeps winning primary and caucus after primary and caucus. With a scowl etched on her face, she bellyached that "the bar is constantly changing for this man." Call the waambulance, stat.

Barack Obama, the missus explains, is Everyman who has ever been put down by The Man. And "understand this" (a condescending verbal tic shared by both Obamas): Mrs. Obama is here to make sure you feel their pain. Which is really your pain. Because the hardships of a privileged Ivy League couple are "exactly" the same as the travails of miners or service workers or small-business owners: "So the bar has been shifting and moving in this race," she grumbles, "but the irony is, the sad irony is, that's exactly what is happening to most Americans in this country."

Don't tell Miss Michelle about the Great Depression or the Carter Malaise. "Folks are struggling like never before," she seethes.

Well, yes, gas prices are up. Some food prices are rising. And borrowers who bought more housing than they could afford are underwater. But "struggling like never before"? Didn't they teach her about Hoovervilles and stagflation?

In Mrs. Obama, the fear-mongering pot meets the angst-stirring kettle: "Fear," she froths, "creates this veil of impossibility and it is hanging over all of our heads."

But what Mrs. Obama lacks in pride for her country and its promise she more than makes up for with bottomless pride for her husband. Her standard campaign speeches include at least a dozen references to how "proud" she is of him. And of herself. And of everyone who has overcome The Man and pierced the "veil of impossibility" to get to the polls and vote Obama. An online MSNBC report on a joint appearance by the Obamas on the "Today" show in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright debacle included this tellingly narcissistic passage:

[Mrs. Obama]: "'I'm so proud of how he has maintained his dignity, his cool, his honor.'

"Obama gently tried to interrupt, admitting to being embarrassed by the praise.

"'But I am proud of you,' she said.

"'I know,' he replied."

We all know. So get over yourself already, haughty spirit. Pride doesn't photograph well. And bitterness leaves frown lines. Which means Botox bills. Which "struggling folks" like you and your husband simply cannot afford.

Try smiling for once. It's cheaper.

---

Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

WHO IS SHE KIDDING?

2008-05-06T13:58:00.002-05:00

Another Liberal going overboard. Whoopi is nothing a prostitute in a different setting and a different guise. She panders her face and words to a world of know nothings--no grasp of reality. Legalizing Prostitution does not solve the basic problem. Bust the Prostitute and the John/client. Don't let them off easy, a slap on the wrist is meaningless. Publish the names and pictures of the johns in the paper or on the Internet.

Whoopi! ABC’s Goldberg Calls for Legalizing Prostitution
The View’s hostess responds to the Spitzer scandal by arguing for decriminalizing the flesh trade, ignoring the pain of infidelity and the exploitation of vulnerable women.

By Colleen Raezler
Culture and Media Institute
March 11, 2008

It’s only natural that a political sex scandal would be discussed during the “Hot Topics” segment of ABC’s The View. But it’s not natural that a woman would become an advocate for exploiting other women.

On March 11, while discussing New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s apology for consorting with prostitutes, moderator Whoopi Goldberg plugged legalizing prostitution.

In Goldberg’s eyes, it would be safer for everyone involved:

GOLDBERG: I'm saying that this has been around since the beginning of time and it seems quite foolish now for us not to say, ok, with all the diseases out there, we need to do what they do in Nevada, which is they have a union, the ladies have a union, they're checked, they're taken care of, they're clean. You know what? Some people are in sexless marriages, as we talked about before, and if you don't have to sneak, if you can say, you know, I'm going to take care of it, there it is.

When questioned about her stance, Goldberg replied, “Some ladies make their living this way. Some women would rather do this and I’m saying I’d rather have them clean and safe so the guys are not coming home and giving [their wives] diseases.”

Legalization of prostitution may contribute to disease protection, but disease is not the only problem associated with the practice. The Nevada Coalition Against Sex Trafficking argues that prostitution always entails “profiting from women’s poverty, childhood sexual abuse, sexual harassment and sexual exploitation.” A fact sheet from the Coalition states “Regardless of its legal status, prostitution is extremely harmful to those in it.” The Coalition points out that legalized prostitution in countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Australia has led to an increase in illegal prostitution and trafficking women for the sole purpose of sexual exploitation.

In 2005, Concerned Women for America cited a LifeSiteNews.com article in which Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen said, “Almost five years after the lifting of the brothel ban, we have to acknowledge that the aims of the law have not been reached. Lately we’ve received more and more signals that abuse still continues.”

Goldberg also failed to acknowledge that “people are in sexless marriages” have better alternatives than visiting a prostitute. Why not try counseling and medical treatment rather than resorting to infidelity?

Thankfully, Barbara Walters recognized that there’s more than just the transmission of STDs at stake. She told Goldberg, “It still wouldn’t have made a difference. It may be a crime in what he did. That’s a big deal. But what he did in terms of the family, that would not have changed.”

Walters apparently understands that no amount of government regulation will help the families of men who visit prostitutes. Legalizing prostitution does nothing to protect a wife reeling from the emotional suffering that results from her husband’s unfaithfulness. It does nothing to ease the pain of discovering that the man she vowed to spend her life with has violated her trust.

Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.

Send this page to a friend! (click here)

Quote of the week

2008-05-02T23:42:00.000-05:00

AMEN!!!!

“The truth about black poverty today, as Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute has aptly put it, is that it is ‘intricately intertwined with the collapse of the nuclear family in the inner city.’ Consider that black households that are headed by married couples have median incomes almost 90 percent that of white households headed by married couples. The problem in the black community is that far too few black households are headed by married couples... It is not simply a moral claim, but a well-documented empirical one, that family and education are the keys to success in our free country. Black children don’t need politicians of any color who claim to hold the keys to their future. They need parents who know their names. Two of them.” —Star Parker

WRIGHT UNDER FIRE

2008-05-02T23:38:00.000-05:00

Wright's Own 'Chickens Have Come Home to Roost,' Black Critics Say
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
April 30, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Black clergymen are among those criticizing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for saying that attacks on him are really attacks on the black church. The pastors say it is Wright's politics, not his race or religion, that has caused so much controversy.

"It appears he's made his career pandering to a certain constituency and it appears his chickens have come home to roost," said Bishop Council Nedd of the diocese of the Chesapeake, Episcopal Missionary Church in Harrisburg, Pa. "As clergymen, we have a mandate to preach the gospel from the pulpit, the good news of Jesus Christ. When you start preaching politics, it will lead to trouble."

Wright, who was Sen. Barack Obama's pastor for many years, made more inflammatory comments on Monday in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington. Among other things, he said the U.S. government is "capable" of having invented the AIDS virus as a means of committing genocide against people of color. He also accused the U.S. of supporting "state terrorism" against Palestinians and South African blacks.

Wright was responding to criticism of previous unpatriotic remarks he's made in various sermons over the years.

On Tuesday, Obama, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, was forced once again to distance himself from his former pastor -- amid questions of how Obama could sit in a church pew for so many years and not be offended by what Wright was saying.

"The person I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago," said Obama in his strongest denunciation yet of his former pastor. "His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

Earlier this year, Obama said he could never "disown" Wright. But on Tuesday, he appeared to do just that, admitting that Wright's comments "offend me. They rightly offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."

Obama also said Wright's comments are "a show of disrespect for me and an insult for what I'm trying to do in this campaign."

Mychal Massie, chairman of Project 21, a conservative black think tank, said he finds Wright's remarks about the black church "vulgar."

"There is no black church," Massie told Cybercast News Service . "There is no white church. There's only the Christian church. And if it's not (a Christian church), it's an abomination to God."

Massie, who holds theological degrees, said he bases his opinion on the Bible, specifically Acts 34-35: "Then Peter opened his mouth and said, 'Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

"I defy him to do a study of the word of God and produce anything that he has to say," Massie said. "It isn't in there."

Massie said Wright's message is anything but biblical. "You cannot preach division, you cannot preach hatred, you cannot preach any theology that goes against the word of God," he said.

Kenneth Hutcherson, senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Seattle, said Wright misrepresented himself by claiming that attacks on him are attacks on the black church.

"I didn't know Reverend Jeremiah Wright was the sole representative of the black church," Hutcherson told Cybercast News Service . "He was attacked for what he said, not because he represents the black church. And if he does represent the black church, he should be attacked."

Hutcherson added that he thinks African-Americans can learn something from what Wright has said. "I don't think black people as a whole will ever be free until they truly give thanks for America, not curse it," Hutcherson said.

POOR BABY. POOR POOR BABY

2008-05-02T14:27:00.002-05:00

should have thought about this before the Senator threw his liberal hat into the Presidential Ring. Thought about it and either withdraw or start distancing himself from the Reverend. Of course not every politician out there (pink red yellow or gold) can be smart all of the time. You are right, not Wright, about this hurting the children, but then children generally do pay for the sins of their parents. To have had the same pastor for 20 years and not pick up on the racist, bigoted, hateful vibes that should, I would think, should be obvious to any unbiased mind.

Mrs. Obama: Wright Drama Bad for Kids
By Amanda Carpenter
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Michelle Obama lamented the coverage of her family’s longtime friend and pastor in a joint interview with husband Barack Obama, who is running for the Democratic nomination for president.
“This conversation doesn't help my kids, you know,” Mrs. Obama told NBC’s Meredith Viera. “It doesn't help kids out there who are looking for us to make decisions and choices about how we're going to better fund education.”
NBC released early excerpts of the joint interview Thursday. The full interview will air Saturday.

In addition to the NBC interview, Mrs. Obama appeared on CNN Wednesday to discuss her family’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
“One of the reasons we try to do interviews like this is not to talk about Reverend Wright, but to talk about who we are beyond that caricature,” she said on CNN.” Sometimes things get bogged down.”
Mrs. Obama said, “We’re confident that the American people are ready to move to a different place. We just have to be confident and give them the benefit of the doubt, that they get all the information and we sort of come out of the muck [and] that they’ll be ready to embrace the truth.”
Earlier this week, Mr. Obama denounced Wright for accusing the U.S. government of creating and spreading AIDS among blacks, praising Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan and equating U.S. efforts in Iraq with terrorism.

Amanda Carpenter is National Political Reporter for Townhall.com.
Be the first to read Amanda Carpenter's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.