Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Push Made For Cellulosic Ethanol

by Krishnadev Calamur - February 27th, 2007 - UPI (monstersandcritics.com)

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Amid rising corn prices affecting the margins of livestock farmers, the Bush administration has renewed its call for cellulosic materials to eventually take the place of corn as the main source of ethanol.

'The problem is we got a lot of hog growers around the United States and a lot of them here in North Carolina who are beginning to feel the pinch as a result of high corn prices,' Bush said Thursday during a visit to Franklinton, N.C. - based enzyme firm Novozymes.

You will not see this on the main stream media (MSM). It is ironic, but whenever a Republican talks about renewable energy, the MSM takes a walk. Obviouosly they can't let anyone know that it is not just democrats that would like to see our energy prices go down. That view doesn't jibe with the socialist attitude (exmplified by the press) that everyone who supports free enterprise is an evil gouger of the public and just loves to see prices go up.

This whole push for ethanol has some potential though it doesn't alter the basic reality that energy from petroleum is still cheaper than energy from corn or trees or grass. Only government subsidies make ethanol attractive at all. For anyone who understands anything that Friedman (or any other reputable economist) has said about free choice, the actual consequence is that our nation's competitiveness is reduced and society suffers a reduced standard of living overall.

This discussion of the push for ethanol unintentionally increasing the cost of food is a truly sad condemnation of our political process. It proves again that our politicians are idiots. The push for ethanol is not a smart move but is a result of the need to reduce dependence on foreign petroleum because we have already stupidly shut down petroleum production and exploration here in America. Ethanol is simply the least stupid of the choices we are left with. The unintended consequence for food costs is just a reminder of what happens when you limit your choices to dumb choices.

The question I have is about the failure to anticipate the consequences of actions. Does anyone really think that the consequences to the paper industry of using wood products to make ethanol (paper is an industry already strugging here in America) will be benign? Just as food prices are being impacted by diverting corn into ethanol production, paper prices will be impacted by diverting wood products into ethanol.

Does anyone really think our politicians ever learn from their mistakes?

Monday, February 26, 2007

Dems "Cut And Run" On
"Cut And Run"

by Julie Hirschfeld Davis - February 26th, 2007 - The Associated Press (examiner.com)

Democrats Back Away From Iraq Plan
I could not resist a slight paraphrasing of the title on this article. The one at the top is mine. The one immediately above is the correct title

WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.

Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

Reid, who will huddle with Democrats Tuesday to discuss whether to postpone the Iraq debate . . . . .

Thanks to the bloggers for the title I used. One suggested that Dems have "cut and run" on "cut and run". I like that. Another suggested Dems "wave white flag" on "wave white flag" strategy. I liked that too. Both are cute ways to condemn the whole quit strategy that seems to be the only strategy democrat leaders will embrace.

What is clear is that the poll showing Americans unwavering in their desire that we WIN IN IRAQ has rattled the most feverish of the anti-war democrat politicians who had been leading the way to get out now. Seems that was not what Americans wanted. They just wanted the stupidity of letting Iraqis waste our money running a corrupt rebuilding process to end. They also were tired of a double standard where Shiites got even with Sunnis for years of abuse with our troops not allowed to intervene and safeguard them. It was well known that we were letting this double standard prevail when it violates everything we think of about fair play.

The "surge" is against both sides (Sunni and Shiite) in the civil war situation we find ourselves facing and that is as it should be. And the surge appears to be working. This was not something the democrats wanted or expected. They are showing their true colors as a result.

Global Warming As European Imperialism

by James Lewis - February 26th, 2007 - The American Thinker

The great Global Warming scare is only the latest eructation(Sic) of European imperialism. Euro-imperialism used to be known as socialism. Before that, it was just called British or French imperialism, because those countries were very proud of it. There was no need to lie. The only reason today's huge European effort to control the world isn't called "imperialism" any more, is that its supporters hate that word.


The BBC Class considers itself internationalist, socialist, and Green (and not just with envy). The Greens are of course Reds with camouflage paint. After the USSR fell of its own internal contradictions around 1989, the Left needed a new shtick. They could not admit that free markets and democracies worked better than their engrained ideology. So they found a different set of reasons to do the same thing. The old way was European imperialism à la Karl Marx. The new way was European Imperialism à la Al Gore.

The fact is socialism is alive and well. Like those who were communists back in the 50s and 60s, socialists talk two different ways about their beliefs. When they feel they are among the true believers they are open about their goal. When out in the public they deny they are socialists and they have a number of ways to talk about their desires to suppress America. They are anti-war or anti-pollution or anti-homophobic or anti-male or anti-whatever as long as it includes being anti-free-enterprise too.

If you support free enterprise they say you are hate filled and reject the possibility that you can be a decent person. Socialists are the only people who have ever argued that they can want the troops to fail but they are still patriotic because they want the troops brought home so they don't die. America may die if we don't fight our enemies but if they don't want the troops to die they are pro the troops and therefore patriotic. If you argue against this logic they denounce you for claiming they are not "patriots" whether you ever said it or not. Their logic is circular so you can never win an argument with them.

This article by James Lewis is very good. He documents his logical case that many environmentalists are merely socialists with a pro-European agenda. An equally good article can be written about the socialist agenda of PETA and the socialist agenda of NOW and the socialist agenda of the plethora of gay groups whose names change constantly.

The failure of socialism has not ended its fervent popularity among many and they continue their long term goal. The reality is that socialists have always used front groups to attract many other fellow travelers into helping their cause. European elitists, socialist true believers, are just using one of the current fellow traveler groups as double speak for their continuing cause. Left wing Democrats accept this logic of European supremacy and environmental supremacy since they are closet socialists as well.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Americans Slumber

by Mark Steyn - February 25th, 2007 - Chicago Sun Times

Patent case of no Yankee ingenuity
This is the title that Steyn put on his article, but it just didn't resonate with me. So I substituted "Americans Slumber" for my posting. Read his article and I hope you will see both are reasonable. I simply have a different take on the urgency of waking up our citizens versus pointing out how little innovation there is in government.

Five years after 9/11, we're not looking ahead, we're looking back -- in the legislature, in the courts, in the media: Bush's "lies" about WMD, the Senate vote to authorize the "use of force" against Iraq, Joe Wilson's trip to Niger, Joe Wilson's self-leaking of his mischaracterization of his trip to Niger . . . rear-view mirror stuff, all of it, endlessly. On the dark shapes looming in the windshield -- Iran, Sudan and much else -- we operate ineffectually through yesterday's institutions, like the U.N. and the EU. Two billion dollars from American taxpayers go to the government of Egypt and in return they give Hezbollah's TV network a slot on the state satellite system. At the gas pump, we fund Hugo Chavez and the Saudi radicalization of Muslim populations around the planet. The obvious transformative technology -- an alternative to the global economy's oil dependence -- is as far away as it was on Sept. 10, and the Alexander Graham Bells of our day are busy inventing the ''self-repairing condom'' -- a marvel of nanotechnology to be sure, but not one with much strategic use unless you can supersize it and unroll it down every Wahhabi mosque.

At a time when the world is facing some of the biggest crises in our history, most of my friends are appalled that I am concerned. They are quite content to accept the democrat line that we just need to look inward. The MSM beats this endless litany of trivial topics enumerated by Mark Steyn in the paragraph above. Anna Nicole Smith is the major story of the moment.

It is unfortunate. A large part of our population is sleeping. The only question of importance is "will it be too late" on the day they wake up and one or more of our cities lies in nuclear ashes because we slept while we should have acted.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Shhhh... The Surge Is Working

by Patrick Ruffini - February 24th, 2007 - Townhall.com

The media is chomping at the bit [to] tell the story of an America, bruised and humbled and exhausted, heading for the exits in Iraq.

But something interesting is happening on the way to the "new direction." Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn't been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it's safe enough to return. The strategy that Congress is busy denouncing is proving to be our best hope for victory.

There is an excellent reason to read the nations Internet "News-sites". It is the ony way you can read what is happening in the world without receiving a MSM (Main Stream Media) left wing biased "view" of the news. That does not mean there is not a modicum of bias in everyone's view of the news, but at least on the Internet, they will tell you where their bias is. Each site is easily identified.

One of the most amazing aspects of the New York Times is that they are convinced their far left bias is "center of the road". Bernard Goldberg reports that the left wing news reporters are convinced (since the only people they ever talk to are far left extremists) that they are in the mainstream of America.

The Internet does not permit them to maintain this delusion. The Internet is dominated by libertarian and conservative sites. However it includes a balanced representation of left wing sites. Thus it really does closely represent the actual proportions of the American populace. It is not desirable for anyone to be able to pretend that they and they alone represent the "truth".

What I call the extreme left, socialists, are approximately 20% of our population. They make up just over half of the democratic party base. Therefore they dominate the democrat voice. Moderates in the democrat party sometimes try and ignore this, but the current attempts to use democrat control of congress by a slim majority to shut down the war in Iraq make this clear.

In the news media of our nation, surveys indicated that over 70% of news reporters are socialists and have an extreme left view of the world. That means they are over-represented in the news media by 3-1/2 times their fair representation. The result is the kind of news blackout that is currently happening in Iraq. Nothing good is ever reported.

That is one reason that people need to read at least 3 Internet sites every day. A conservative site, like lucianne.com, a libertarian site like townhall.com, and a liberal site like democraticunderground.com.

We need more people in America to be cognizant of the complete dialog going on in our nation. Democracy only works with a well informed electorate. The MSM no longer serves this role in our society.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Clint's New Hat

by Warren Kozak - February 23, 2007 - The New York Sun

Most people today do not realize that there were really two Holocausts of World War II. There was the one perpetrated by the Germans against the Jews. The lesser known one was committed by the Japanese against the Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese.

In this second Asian Holocaust, 17 million humans, most of them noncombatants, were slaughtered in ways not used since medieval times. These victims were exterminated by imposed starvation, slave labor, and brutal executions by Japanese soldiers.

This is an excellent article pointing out Hollywood's savage indifference to brutality committed by anyone who is not an American patriot. American patriots are the only people Hollywood accepts it is politically correct to condemn. Clint Eastwood has joined the liberal elite in whitewashing any group that can pretend they are just innocent victims of America. The lesson of Iwo Jima is that the Japanese people would fight to the death, giving their lives in glorious tribute to their country, even when it was their country that had started the war and executed millions with barbaric evil. However that is not the lesson of Clint Eastwood's film.

Clint Eastwood tries to make the case the Japanese were simply victims of American agression, sitting on their island helplessly waiting to die at the hands of the American attackers. He claims the Japanese were forced to fight for their nation and bear no responsibility for the acts of brutal savagery that were committed during the war by their side.

This kind of rewiting of history is in its own way a form of contemptible savagery. It stamps Clint Eastwood a barbaric and ignorant man. No matter how well made the film is, this story is a complete lie. That Eastwood directed it proves he is as evil as the former Japanese culture he obscures.

America is not evil for having defeated the Japanese Empire. Eastwood is evil for lying about what we did and why we did it.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

The Terror Never Ends

by Andrew Bolt - February 21st, 2007 - Herald Sun

(Please note the date inconsistency is caused by the International Date Line - it is already the 21st in Australia even though still the 20th here in NC)

If Muslim terrorists attack us or our allies, in Iraq, Israel or the West, we'll notice. If they attack almost anywhere else, we ignore.

But to see only the attacks that hurt us makes it too easy for some politicians and commentators to now pretend this terrorists' war is about us, and not a[bout] them.

Too many now coo that if we just stop fighting, stop aggravating, then the terrorists will . . . stop?

Reality check. Here is a summary of news from just this past week.

Great summary of the news about terrorism (read Islamofascism). The number of countries being attacked that are not on our side and that have never done anything to the Islamofascists is simply amazing. That we did not cause this war is so obvious that only a socialist politically correct democrat could seriously argue the premise. Stopping the battle for Iraq will do nothing to end this war. It will simply change where they are fighting. There is an extremely high likelyhood that it will move the battlefield to America.

Global Warming - Some Thoughts And Research

Is global warming real? YES. There was from around 1980-1981 until 1998-1999 some slight global warming. That is not the question. The three questions that matter are: Is man causing this, is it serious and will it continue? None of these can be answered "Yes". Global warming fanatics insist that if you are not sure the answer to these three questions is also YES, then you are a denier of YES to the first question. That is not a valid argument.

Has this been a long term trend? NO. For the 40 years before 1980 there was a steady downtrend that led the same radicals who are proclaiming global warming a problem to proclaim the new ice age they were forecasting then was a problem. They were wrong. Why does anyone believe them now? Why is anyone sure "warming" will continue? As an example of contradictory evidence about the seriousness, during the Renaisance world temperatures were warmer than they are now. That was a period of great advances. If global warming is such a catastrophe, why was it a good thing then? Rather than the less than 1 degree change that has provoked all this hysteria, the Renaisance period saw temperatures rise over 3 degrees.

Is this just happening on Earth? NO. There is evidence of reduced polar ice caps on Mars . The chicken little global warming advocates do not bother explaining how man is causing warming on Mars.

Here are a few articles that attempt to introduce some sanity into this discussion. (Thanks to a blogger on Lucianne.com for compiling the list!)

Plus Ça (Climate) Change - The Earth was warming before global warming was cool. --Pete Du Pont, Wall Street Journal, 2/2007

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change --Nigel Calder (former editor of New Scientist), Sunday Times (UK), 11/2007

Blame cosmic rays not CO2 for warming up the planet --Lewis Smith, Times (UK), 2/12/2007

The real deal?: Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists --Lawrence Solomon, National Post (Canada), 2/2/2007

No: It's a fact that their [polar bears] numbers are up fivefold since the 1970s --H. Sterling Burnett, McClatchy-Tribune News Service, 1/2/2007

Al Gore Is a Greenhouse Gasbag --Penn professor Bob Giegengack has a few quibbles with the former VP on this whole global warming thing --John Marchese, Philadelphia Magazine, Jan 2007

Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence. --Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT), Opinion Journal, 4/12/2006

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 --Bob Carter (geologist in paleoclimate research), Opinion.Telegraph (UK), 4/9/2006

Open Kyoto to debate: Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming --National Post [Canada], 4/6/2006

Aliens Cause Global Warming (lecture) --Michael Crichton, California Institute of Technology, 1/17/2003

The only serious problem with global warming is the efforts to presuade us to do stupid things to our economy without understanding the duplicitous agenda of the global warming fanatics who are proposing the changes.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Islam Is Not The Enemy

by Frank Pastore - February 18th, 2007 - Townhall.com

As Christians, we believe Islam is a false religion–and the belief is reciprocal.

As Americans, we believe in the free exercise of religion, including Islam–but this belief is not reciprocal.

So, how do we deal with tolerating a religion that is itself intolerant of us? Ought we to pride ourselves on our tolerance and eagerly embrace their intolerance even if it leads to our own destruction?


As I wrote a few weeks ago, “Americans are alarmed by the advance of Islam into our society, and properly so, for who will assimilate to whom? Could a Muslim have written the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution? Does Islam believe in the separation of church and state, that all men are created equal, that there should be no religious test for political office holders, that government ought to be secular?”

The answer, of course, is no.

This is a second article on a subject that Pastore addressed recently. He calls it part two, but it really stands as simply a much better article on the same subject.

We are at war, not because we started it, or because we have done anything to justify it, but because another religion is populated with extremists who wish to recover a gradeur from a time in history when their religion was on top. They want to be on top and they are willing to die to kill us to make this happen.

Their religous text, the Quran, says they are supposed to be on top and all non Muslims are supposed to be dhimmis, slaves. There is nothing reciprocal in the bible or our government that rivals this arrogance and evil. However there is a large element in our society that despises our form of economic organization, called free enterprise. They are called socialists. The Muslim religion has inherent in it a complete acceptance of the concept of socialism, since it believes their religion should dominate everything, including government. It is not great distance from that to accepting socialism as the method by which Muslims are on top and all non-Muslims are dhimmis to the state.

For some reason atheists who are socialists accept Muslim as a superior way because they adopt socialism. They proclaim the Muslims to be better than our current government. They do this without thinking through the reality that they will be forced to adopt religion if the Muslims win. They will have to pray daily and abandon equality of the genders, as Pastore notes in this article.

This blind spot to the evil of Islam by socialists in the democrat party is a real problem. We have two enemies, Islamofascists and the socialist wing of the democrat party. Both want our form of government changed.

How do we deal with that? Any ideas?

Thursday, February 15, 2007

What's Bin Laden Up To?

by William Rusher - February 15th, 2007 - Townhhall.com

Is it too much to suspect that bin Laden concluded that bombing America itself had been a strategic mistake, and that when he noticed that the American public was dozing off to sleep again he decided not to give it another poke in the eye?

Whatever the explanation, it almost certainly doesn't mean that bin Laden and his fellow Muslim terrorists have forgotten about us, or decided that we are too dangerous to attack on our own soil. At best, they have simply decided to pick off easier targets first -- including American targets abroad. In due course, when they have infiltrated or recruited a sufficient number of agents here, and above all when they have acquired a few nuclear weapons from friendly nations, they will stage an attack on the American homeland that will make Sept. 11 look like a garden party.

Why is it that the democrat party does not understand this? Bringing our troops home before this war is finished does nothing but assure that the consequences will be horrible.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Will This Trusted Senator Be The Man
To Kick Bush Into The Long Grass?

by Alex Massie - February 11th, 2007 - Scotland on Sunday (scotsman.com)

"No credible person can doubt that, however we might try to disguise it, a withdrawal while Iraq is still in chaos would be regarded around the world as a victory by our enemies," said Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the senior Republican on the House foreign relations committee. "For we will have demonstrated that we will abandon allies, that we can in fact be forced to accept defeat and its consequences, however grave they may be."

The real question that this article addresses is whether any democracy, even America, can muster the will to fight a tough war. During the civil war of this nation there were major elements in the North who opposed fighting to stay one nation. They were not willing to take any losses. They were anti-war. The real genius and greatness of Abraham Lincoln was that no matter how decent he was as a human, he could see the importance to future generations of our nation not being fragmented. He was willing to endure the short term pain for what he could see was a more important principle. How few of our elected officials and our people are that prescient today.

Right now we are faced with two major forces that will fragment our nation and undo all that Lincoln accomplished. Islamofascism and Atzlantism are both enemies of our country who plan to tear it apart.

Islamofascism will never maintain us as a single nation but will split us up over regional grievances, just as it always had. These regional grievances do not mean they cannot defeat us first. The appeasement brigade leading the democrat party proves that we can be defeated by sapping our will to fight. With the vote in the last election it is clear that a major part of our population wants it all to just go away. They do not want to consider whether islamofascism is a threat. Let's just come home and spend the money for my health care is their answer. Like a child putting his hands over his ears and humming nah nah nah nah nah . . . nothing you say will get through.

Atzlantism also continues to defy the willingness of either political party to confront the consequences of givng up a major portion of our nation to Mexico. Many here in both parties simply cover their ears and hum nah nah nah nah nah nah . . . so they do not even hear the argument that continued illegal invasion will subvert our country and tear it apart. That is the plan of those who are advocating and encouraging the invasion of illegal aliens.

Like the threat of Islamofascism, Atzlantism is simply not something many American people want to hear, so they don't hear it. They vote what they want the world to be. If it is not what they want, the consequences will be horrible.

That leads us back to my major concern. Due to the prevalence of people voting what they want, due to the prevalence of people for whom the discussion about serious issues is not even heard, we are proving what the Romans proved 2,000 years ago. Democracy cannot survive in the long run. Unless we can get the discussion back to what Ileana Ros-Lehtinen understands (see her quote above), America is doomed.

That serious discussion of the consequences must start on both the wars we are currently in. The war on Islamofascism and the war on Atzlantism. We also need to continue the battle against the socialists who have long aimed to bring America down for espousing free enterprise.

Are you helping the fights or standing on the sidelines wishing they would go away?

An Experiment That Hints
We Are Wrong On Climate Change

Nigel Calder (former editor of New Scientist) - February 11th, 2007 - London Times

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong.

Once again the evidence that global warming is a phenomenon that is not yet understood is reported on by major credible scientists. Get ready for the parade of politically correct hack scientists or enlightened movie stars that the MSM will trot out to call these people "holocaust deniers" and declare them in the pay of "oil companies".

Sunday, February 11, 2007

California In The News

Arnold Schwarzenegger is bigger than life. Both his supporters and his enemies have to deal with that reality. Arnold tried diligently to correct some of the evils of big government when he became Governor of California. His enemies, socialists and labor unions, successfully portrayed his attempt as overreach and threatening to some powers of government that were popular. The 4 initiatives he advocated went down to defeat in the face of huge advertising budgets from unions and socialists. The defeats were based on lies and exaggerations. However the people had a vote, and Arnold lost. Arnold took the lesson and learned from it.

Democrats and socialists immediately bragged, "He is done. We have won. " However it did not work out that way. Though the people did not support Arnold's initiatives, they still, by huge majorities, trust Arnold. He won re-election with ease.

The consequences of these two actions, defeat of the attempt to reduce the power of government, and re-election of Arnold, are going to play out over the next few years. The consequences are serious.

First and foremost it is because Arnold is both a great leader and a man with a huge desire to accomplish great things. Right after being elected Governor, Arnold floated a trial balloon of changing the American Constitution so he could be eligible to run for President. The effort went nowhere. Therefore Arnold is in the most powerful position he is likely to ever hold. I would be surprised if Arnold would ever consider being simply one of two senators from California and a hundred in the nation.

So what does a man in this position do?

A second reason is due to the reality that government in America is at a crisis. Because of the war in Iraq, the proper role of the federal government is being challenged by anti-war activists who both want government made larger (they are after all socialists) and yet also want government made smaller so they can intimidate elected officials by their rallies.

What do socialists do in this environment of conflicting goals?

The New York Times thinks they have the answer. They have published an article that promotes the idea of regions of America taking independent action to limit federal powers and become semi autonomous. The implication of the article is that Arnold is backing this move. I can see how the extremely smart and equally ambitious Arnold might well do this. You can read more about this premise in the article
California Split. [Just remember that it is an article from a paper with a socialist agenda.] California is our most populous state and has the power to lead our nation in this direction if the right circumstances play out.

That is one issue in the news about California.

Another article that talks about California and its power is also about the Republican Party and the direction it might take in the future. California is moving its Republican primary up to be one of the first in the nation. That will make this state, which is fiscally conservative (proved by election of Ronald Reagan, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger) but socially liberal (proved by the election of the same three men) a powerful voice in the selection of the next Republican candidate for President.

The article
California key to Giuliani presidential bid argues that the main beneficiary of this will be the former Mayor of New York. An interesting hypothesis that also creates an interesting dilemma for the Republican Party. They have in recent years attracted a large number of libertarians and neo-conservatives into their ranks. One of two things will play out. The party will split and once again become a permanent minority party. Or conversely a new coalition will work itself out that resolves the issues that are so controversial within the party.

California may hold the key to working out these issues, especially if it becomes the process by which Giuliani wins the nomination.

California has long been a state that people watch, some with fascination, some with revulsion. It looks like this trend will continue. Both of these issues, federal versus state power and the future of the Republican Party, will affect everyone in America. California is in the middle of both.

Bordering On Insanity

by Frank Miele - February 10th, 2007 - Northwest Montana Daily Inter Lake

. . . . . if you think it is just Republicans raising questions about this trial, you are wrong. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., requested a Senate hearing on the case in August 2006. Here’s what she said:

“After reading the August 11th statement of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton on the convictions and news reports regarding this case, I have significant concerns that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice... It appears that the facts do not add up or justify the length of the sentences for these Agents, let alone their conviction on multiple counts.”

Certainly, after the beating of Ramos, it is time for all of us to take a look at this case and determine just what kind of country we want — one that goes out of its way to protect drug smugglers or one that goes out of its way to prevent drug smuggling and to prevent illegal immigration. Whether or not, the Border Patrol agents made all the right decisions in this case, they were clearly doing their job and trying to do it well when the incident happened. It is hard to see why they should go to jail. . . . . .

The reality is that the two border guards, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, have been sent to jail by a government that is dominated by those who are opposed to some of the basic premises our citizens live by. They are socialists who do not support free enterprise and therefore see our country as wrong no matter what we do. They therefore side with the illegal immigrants and drug smuggleers. They oppose any action to protect our borders. People with this view of America went overboard to assure the conviction of these two agents.

George W. Bush and Karl Rove want open borders. Their political opponents therefore feel they can destroy these two men's lives and that no one will do anything to protect the border guards or correct the railroad prosecution that was done. They think that Bush will not get involved. The question is, do American citizens care? Do you care?

Don't Ruin Economy Over Tiny Temp Rise

by Mark Steyn - February 11th, 2007 - Chicago Sun-Times

. . . . Ellen Goodman: "I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

That would be yours truly: the climate holocaust denier. I wrote last week about "global warming," or "cooling," or "climate change," or (the latest term) "climate disruption" -- for those parts of the world where the climate isn't really changing but you get an occasional blip: a warm day in winter or a flurry of snow in late April, or (for British readers) a summer's day where it rockets up to 58 and cloudy instead of being 54 and drizzling.

As Steyn tries to wade through the complex science of this phenomenon, he keeps asking his readers not to give up and go read something lighter. That of course is the problem. Those who insist global warming is critical don't ever try and discuss the complex issue. What they do is repeat the big lie that man is causing global warming and insult those who disagree. A nice simple harangue of the evil opponents of their campaign to take over our economy is easy and not complex. Trust us is the mantra.

It is important to note however, the supporters of the premise "evil man is the cause of global warming" are also advocates of the premise "evil free enterprise advocates are the reason you are not as well off as they are". You see, they are socialists.

As a result, they get angry when you do anything rationale, like review their history of accusations and ask if any have come true. Two points that I keep making need to be kept in mind. First, ice on Mars is melting indicating that it is experiencing warmer temperatures on the same order as Earth. Second, less than 30 years ago these same people were predicting "a new man caused ice age". The evidence of the new "ice age" was a small blip down in temperatures. However then, as now, it was immediately considered man caused and the solution proposed was to turn over control of the economy to the socialists so they could fix the problem. Evidence of equal warming on Mars is ignored today since it conflicts with the premise that man is the cause of "global warming". If you don't want to ignore this evidence you are the equivalent of a "holocaust denier".

There actually are two questions not resolved. Is global warming a problem? Is man causing any of it?

With that as background it becomes easier to wonder how anyone can believe the people who insist "global warming is being caused by man and we need to turn over control of our economy to socialists right now if we are to survive"?

My take? You cannot trust socialists. Don't believe them.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Superior Stem Cells Shunned By Media

by Michael Fumento - February 8th, 2007 - CBS News (Web Site)

While the Democratic-controlled House voted 253-174 to expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, it fell far short of the 290 votes needed to override a virtually guaranteed presidential veto. A tragedy for victims of everything from Alzheimer's to warts? Not at all. Each year there are stunning breakthroughs with adult stem cells, and 2007 has already brought its first.

Adult stem cells cure and treat more than 70 diseases and are involved in almost 1,300 human clinical trials. Scientists also keep discovering that adult stem cells are capable of creating a wider variety of mature cells.

This debate is typical of so many debates in our current culture of liberal biased media, what I call the MSM (for Main Stream Media) as regular readers are aware. Those on the left who are supporters of abortion are determined that any dicussion of stem cells must be a discussion about the need to do research on embryonic stem-cells. If you are opposed to embryonic research, you are a stupid, bigoted right wing racist who cannot think and are the equivalent of a holocaust denier. (Of course racism and nazism are always inserted into this conversation as anyone knows you cannot possibly disagree with a liberal and not be both!)

I believe that moving research forward intelligently is the most important issue for mankind, and duplicitous arguments based on bias are harmful to people. The real question is whether concatenating these two debates helps society or hurts it.
There is also a question of what is and what is not true.

The following appears to be solidly proved:

Scientifically, all embryonic stem cells tend to become cancerous; they require permanent, dangerous, immunosuppressive drugs because the body rejects them as foreign; and they are difficult to differentiate into the needed type of mature cells. Non-embryonic stem cells, however, do not become cancerous; they are far less likely to cause rejection (especially the youngest, including umbilical cord and amniotic/placenta); and they have been used therapeutically since the late 1950s (originally for leukemia) because they have the amazing ability to form the right type of mature cell merely upon being injected into a body that needs that type of cell.

The logical argument of this article includes strong condemnation of some of the news media that is covering up the reality about stem cells because of their bias about abortion. I highly recommend the article to those who want a more honest dicsussion to emerge on both issues.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Panic In Boston

by John Stossel - February 7th, 2007 - Townhall.com

A few weeks ago, men working for an advertising agency installed light screens in cities to promote a Cartoon Network program.

No one seemed alarmed by the signs featuring cartoon characters flipping the bird -- until suddenly, weeks after the promotion began, the Boston police decided the city might be under a terrorist attack. They rushed to collect the devices -- bringing parts of the city to a standstill.


After the "perpetrators," two young men who'd been paid to promote the cartoon show, were arrested, the TV stations aired comments like, "I can't believe someone would be so stupid as to do that." And, "They shouldn't lock them up forever, but they should lock them up for a long time!"

The TV anchors nodded gravely in response.


Why are the "perpetrators" the stupid ones? Why don't the media rant about how stupid Boston's authorities were to shut down the city because they thought light screens were a terrorist plot?

This is the first sane article I have seen on this topic. While this was a hot issue, not a single TV reporter that I saw commented on the fact that NINE other cities besides Boston had the screens for THREE WEEKS and no panic ensued.

Boston panics and no one asks, why didn't the other cities panic if it was such a bad idea? Is it perhaps because only in Boston are the officials left wing socialist idiots?

Monday, February 05, 2007

'The Bush Rally'
Thrills Wall Street

by Donald Lambro - February 5th, 2007 - Townhall.com

WASHINGTON -- Despite the gloom and doom we heard in last year's elections, a torrent of upbeat economic reports show the Bush economy is alive and well, and it is likely headed for a healthier performance in 2007.

Last week's report from the government's Bureau of Economic Analysis must have come as a shock to President Bush's Democratic critics when it showed the economy racing along at a brisk 3.5 percent annual growth rate in the last three months of 2006. For the year, the economy grew at a stronger than expected 3.4 percent, propelled by falling oil and gas prices, higher wage and job growth, increased consumer purchasing power and even an uptick in housing sales.

The bullish report came out at a politically perfect time for Bush, as he delivered an optimistic speech on the economy on Wall Street and toured the New York Stock Exchange, where [Bush] was greeted like a rock star . . . .

Two things George W. Bush is doing right, the war agaist Islamfascism and the handling of taxes. His support for long term growth of socialist government is a serious concern, however the current strength of the economy has to be placed in Bush's column. You will never get the MSM to acknowledge that though. Their support for socialism blinds them to any good news on the economic front. Expect a continued effort to claim things are going badly.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

What's So Hot About Fickle Science?

by Mark Steyn - February 4th , 2007 - Chicago Sun-Times

A thousand years ago, the Arctic was warmer than it is now. Circa 982, Erik the Red and a bunch of other Vikings landed in Greenland and thought, "Wow! This land really is green! Who knew?" So they started farming it, and were living it up for a couple of centuries. Then the Little Ice Age showed up, and they all died. A terrible warning to us all about "unsustainable development": If a few hundred Vikings doing a little light hunter-gathering can totally unbalance the environment, imagine the havoc John Edwards' new house must be wreaking.

The ice caps on Mars are melting. Please explain to me how driving an SUV on Earth is causing "global warming" on Mars? This "global warning" campaign is all about socialists who think government should rule everything about our economy, latching on to an agenda of ending free enterprise because "capitalists" cannot be allowed to ruin our world by not spending all our money the way socialists think we should spend it. In this case they think you should spend money on "wind farms" or "solar panels" or "electric cars" or blah, blah, blah, blah . . .

It doesn't matter what issue comes up. The socialist agenda is that you will not have choice. Government, socialist goverment, will decide because "you" are too stupid to choose.

"Global warming" advocates ignore any science that disputes that man is causing "global warming" because their issue is not "global warming". Their only issue is socialism and government control of your life.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

A Farce And An Outrage

by Mona Charen - February 2nd, 2007 - Townhall.com

We are in the midst of a criminal trial concerning the leaking of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame's name to the press. The man on trial did not do the leaking. The man who did the leaking is not on trial. The woman who is the subject of the fictional leak was probably not covert. The person who leaked her name did so in the course of gossip and almost certainly did not, as the law requires, "know that the government had taken affirmative measures to conceal" her identity (because if she wasn't covert, the government would have taken no such steps). Accordingly, there was no crime. And yet, a prosecutor presents evidence, a jury lobs questions and "Scooter" Libby may go to jail for 30 years. This charade competes with the Duke "rape" case for prosecutorial misconduct, brazen defiance of common sense and unbelievable jeopardy to the innocent.

On top of this there is compelling evidence that Fitzgerald has perpetrated this persecution as a personal vendetta against Libby, a man he has been angry at for years. Certainly, the evidence for that is strong enough that any judge with a brain would have made Fitzgerald recuse himself.

Our court system is nothing but a politically motivated system of blackmail as used by the liberal bigots who dominate the system.