Interesting Point About President Obama's Legitimacy

This is a little dry, but it raises some issues that I hadn't heard about. I need to do some more research into her claims, but if what she is saying is true we have a real problem.

Part 1



Part 2

Let Them Eat Cake Instead

I just finished reading a very well-reasoned and argued article written by Steven Vasquez, the Interim New York State Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty, about why we should oppose any form of nationalized health care program. It is a long read but the arguments are brilliant.

Here are a couple of my favorite parts:

"When a government fails to obey its laws granted to it by the people, it loses its authority to exist."

"The idea that health care is a right is incorrect and immoral. Is housing a right? Is driving a right? Is fresh water a right? Are video games and toys a right? They are privileges earned through productivity, not consumption. The rights we are given are inalienable, and our government can not grant those rights and is prohibited from taking them away through the Constitution's Bill of Rights. We would no longer be a Constitutional Republic, but a Collectivist state, should this occur."

My biggest problem with this health care reform bill is that I see it as an overreaching by the US government in a massive power grab. The government can't run Medicare. It can't manage its own spending. It can't even run a ship disposal program. It has spent Social Security into oblivion and now they want to run health care? I don't think so.

People are very angry about this and the other things that are happening in our government with good reason. No one is listening to them. Is there any better example of gross negligence than the fact that our "representatives" are not even reading the bills that they are voting for? How can you adequately represent your constituents' best interests when you haven't even read the freaking bill? How well would that play in a malpractice lawsuit? "Well the patient looked pretty sick so the doctor just dove in and started operating without reading his charts or talking to anyone about the patient's history first."

And why is it necessary to have a 1,000 page bill ever? Who can possibly digest everything that is in it? And why the rush? If there is nothing to hide, then there should be no rush - especially on a bill that is thicker than an unabridged dictionary. Are people angry? Absolutely!

And instead of listening and slowing down, the administration and many senators and congressmen are ridiculing this anger. I fear that it will be to their own pain. I have never seen the people of this country as angry as they are now, and that is not likely to end well. The problem is the arrogance of the ruling elite right now. They are going to do what they have deemed the "right thing" to do come hell or high water, and anyone who refutes them is labeled "a mob" or "un-American" or "a Brown Shirt."

I managed to earn that scorn from a friend of a friend on Facebook this past weekend for venting a little bit about how utterly ticked I am. I find it funny that Brown Shirts seem to often characterize anyone who disagrees with them as a Brown Shirt. In truth it is the proponents of this bill that are acting the most like fascists.

Is it un-American to protest the loss of liberty that we are threatened with by this administration's policies? The left didn't think so when they were protesting President Bush's policies. I doubt that John Adams or Patrick Henry would have thought so. They both openly pushed for outright war with England! Talk about a rabble rouser! The founders would be appalled that the nation that they sacrificed so much to birth has come to this.

Most Americans have come to understand that the government doesn't listen to polite. It only understands passion - because passion is the only power that the people really have. When people get passionate enough they start acting, and that gets really unpredictable for politicians. Except the current group of Do-dahs that is up there now thinks that they'll be able to pull a Goebbels and repeat the lie long enough for the simple to believe it. And yet, even the President, master of rhetoric that he is, cannot avoid the truth that under his plan there will be certain points where treatment will be withheld.



I really wish I had time tonight to get into more detail about the problems that are coming out about this bill and about some of the alternatives that I have pondered, but it just isn't going to happen. Perhaps I can return to it soon and go into greater depth. Apparently Senator Burr from North Carolina has made a proposal of his own that I would like to read.

The bottom line is that the powers that be need to get a grip on reality, start listening to the people, pay attention to their anger, take them seriously, and readjust their thinking lest they, acting like Marie Antoinette, push the people too far and meet her same end.

HUZZAH!!!!!!! I Wish Every Republican Senator Had This Guy's Moxie

Mr. President, these words apply as aptly to you as they did to the British Prime Minister. It is equally applicable to every congressman and senator who has used his or her position to increase discretionary spending and line his own pockets. I am frankly sick of each and every one of you who uses political doublespeak to to pretend that you are actually doing something for this country when you are only busy serving yourselves. You will stand before a holy God one day and answer for your malfeasance and for your utter disregard of God's law. It would be better for you to be taken out to the deepest part of the ocean, chained to an anchor, and launched overboard than to be standing in that Courtroom on that day in your present condition.

Amen.

Pretty much sums it up...

Um, Can They Do That?

In an article titled Livid Democrats Demand AIG Return Bailout Bonuses I read today,

Whatever the process, lawmakers of all stripes said, the money — generally "retention payments" to keep prized employees — belongs back in the government's hands.

"Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in an unusually strong threat delivered on the Senate floor.

"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer of New York.

Not all Democratic leaders were racing in that direction. Penalizing people with the tax code could be inappropriate, declared Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the taxwriting Ways and Means Committee. He said, "It's difficult for me to think of the code as a political weapon."

I don't think that they can do that. How can the government legally target specific individuals for taxation penalties? If they can, then things are worse than I thought, and we might as well change the flag to a solid red field with a gold sickle and hammer crossed in the upper left hand corner.

If the people in Congress and the White House had intended for these funds to not be used that way then they should have had the foresight to stipulate that. Or even better they should have let capitalism do it's thing, letting the companies that have been competently managed thrive and the ones run by boobs sink. The share holders in these companies ought to be out for scalps.

According to the article it would seem that these bonuses were contractual.

Administration officials said Geithner did all that he legally could to avert the payments.

Geithner urged AIG's Liddy last week to renegotiate the contracts that called for the bonuses.

"He recognized that you can't just abrogate contracts willy-nilly, but he moved to do what could be done," Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, told the AP in an interview Tuesday.

How do I get in on a contract that will pay me million dollar plus bonuses if I run the company into the ground on top of a multi-million dollar salary? I need to get me some of that. How is it that the share holders allow this sort of thing to go on? Something stinks like five-day-old road-kill. The "little people" don't get deals like that. No wonder American business is floundering. Toddlers are sailing the ship. Wait, toddlers would probably do a better job.

Powerful Ad

This kind of puts things in perspective if you ask me. Too bad NBC decided that they wouldn't run it. But what's the first amendment for anyway, right? Apparently free speech only applies to the people that agree with their godless view of the world. We can be exposed to perverse, voyeuristic ads like the Doritos ad and the Big Daddy ad, but apparently this was just a little too much for us poor Americans to see.

A reckoning is coming. Mark my words. It is on its way.

HUZZAH! Tom Daschle Backs Out!

Oh this is some of the best political news I have heard in a long time. Tom Daschle didn't get a free pass on his failure to pay his taxes. It is one thing to not pay when you don't have the money to pay, but an entirely different matter when you are making millions of dollars a year. And it seems terribly suspicious for someone who helped to write the tax laws to not understand them. If he really didn't understand them, then how are the rest of us proles supposed to?

I hope that the President will begin to do a better job of selecting people with the character to fill the offices that he is appointing them to instead of selecting his old Washington insider buddies for these jobs. I thought we were supposed to be getting change? I guess it is like Cal Thomas said in his article Leona Helmsley Lives,

"Recall President Obama's vow to "change the culture of Washington." With Geithner and Daschle (and prior to them, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who withdrew his nomination for commerce secretary under pressure of a federal investigation into how his political donors landed a lucrative transportation contract), we are still waiting for "change we can believe in."

The article I read points out that not one, but FOUR of the President's nominees have been tarred with character weakness. Thank God that three of them won't be "serving" (most likely themselves) in these roles anymore. I'm glad that America still gets ticked off about some moral issues. Too bad that the list doesn't seem to include outrage over the wholesale slaughter of the unborn in our nation.

The White House announced that Daschle had asked to be removed from consideration as health and human services secretary and that that Nancy Killefer had made the same request concerning what was to be her groundbreaking appointment as a chief performance officer to make the entire government run better.

"They both recognized that you can't set an example of responsibility but accept a different standard of who serves," said spokesman Gibbs.

Sounds like the same old Washington to me.

Need more? Here it is:

Bill Richardson had been Obama's first choice for commerce secretary, but the New Mexico governor bowed out amid a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors. And last week, the Senate confirmed Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary, but only after days of controversy over the fact that he had only belatedly paid $34,000 in income taxes....

Democratic lawmakers were surprised, too - and disappointed. Axelrod rushed to Capitol Hill to soothe frayed nerves.

"I was a little stunned. I thought he was going to get confirmed," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the panel that would have voted on Daschle's nomination. "It's regrettable."

Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Daschle's former Democratic colleagues had leapt to the former Democratic leader's defense. And it seemed that the clubby way that senators treat one of their own was likely to help Daschle survive the controversy.

But particularly after the divisive Geithner debate and vote, it apparently became too bitter a pill. Tax issues are easy for the public to understand, and also particularly easy to resent in wealthy officials at a time of widespread economic crisis.

They also created an opening for a drumbeat of criticism from Republicans and on newspaper editorial pages that Obama was engaging in a double standard: proclaiming his administration to be more ethical, responsible and special interest-free than his predecessors' and yet carving out exceptions almost daily.

All I can say is "THANK YOU JESUS!" I hope that the Lord will continue to expose every single scalawag in Washington and remove them - even though that might mean starting from scratch. I am sure that we wouldn't be worse off than we are now.

God Help Us

I just read a very distressing article about the downward ethical trends among our nation's youth. According to the article:

The Josephson Institute, a Los Angeles-based ethics institute, surveyed 29,760 students at 100 randomly selected high schools nationwide, both public and private. All students in the selected schools were given the survey in class; their anonymity was assured.

Michael Josephson, the institute's founder and president, said he was most dismayed by the findings about theft. The survey found that 35 percent of boys and 26 percent of girls — 30 percent overall — acknowledged stealing from a store within the past year. One-fifth said they stole something from a friend; 23 percent said they stole something from a parent or other relative.

...Cheating in school is rampant and getting worse. Sixty-four percent of students cheated on a test in the past year and 38 percent did so two or more times, up from 60 percent and 35 percent in a 2006 survey.

Thirty-six percent said they used the Internet to plagiarize an assignment, up from 33 percent in 2004.

Forty-two percent said they sometimes lie to save money — 49 percent of the boys and 36 percent of the girls.

Despite such responses, 93 percent of the students said they were satisfied with their personal ethics and character, and 77 percent affirmed that "when it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know."

Is it just me or does anyone else detect a disconnect between the data in the first part of this quote and the statement in the last paragraph? This is utterly appalling to me. Such a discrepancy would either indicate to me that there are some really bad people not accounted for in this survey or that a whole bunch of people have absolutely not clue about what is moral or ethical.

Just as scary as the results of this survey is the responses that the article reported from educators that were presented the results. A typical response came from Peter Anderson the principal of Andover High School in Andover, Massachusetts. He said, "This generation is leading incredibly busy lives — involved in athletics, clubs, so many with part-time jobs, and — for seniors — an incredibly demanding and anxiety-producing college search."

Another "educator" said, "We have to create situations where it's easy for kids to do the right things," he added. "We need to create classrooms where learning takes on more importance than having the right answer."

I think though that Michael Josephson hit the nail on the head when he "contended that most Americans are too blase about ethical shortcomings among young people and in society at large. 'Adults are not taking this very seriously,' he said. 'The schools are not doing even the most moderate thing. ... They don't want to know. There's a pervasive apathy.'"

Why are many adults not taking this seriously? I would suggest that a similar survey given to adults about the age of the kids' parents would find that they are no better than the kids surveyed. The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, America is in a serious moral crisis.

Good grief! The guys I quoted above made excuses instead of even acknowledging that these behaviors are wrong. I wonder if the tone of these individuals would have been different if the survey showed that intolerance, ethnocentrism, or conservatism were on the rise. And one suggested that if we make it easy enough then they won't have to cheat! These people are morally bankrupt! It is a classic case of the blind leading the blind. No wonder we're so screwed up!

Information like this just convinces me that a reckoning is coming and coming soon. God help us.

This Annoys Me

According to a Michelle Malkin piece today, eHarmony has wimped out and agreed to change its business model to include homosexuals because of a lawsuit leveled against them. Would somebody please get a spine?! If nobody stands up to this crap it will not stop - in fact it will get worse. I would rather shut down my business than give in to this kind of unconstitutional coercion.

The absurdity of this lawsuit is beyond bounds. That the AG of New Jersey even countenanced it is an outrage. Are there not plenty of websites that help homosexuals hook up? Are there not plenty that help them find a "life partner?" Well, hooking up homosexuals or adulterers isn't, er, wasn't eHarmony's thing. They were serving the portion of the market that they wanted to serve. Should a business be forced to serve all portions of the market? I suppose that the pedophiles and folks that like our four-legged friends will be up in arms demanding equal access too. Perhaps they could serve necrophiliacs too?

Where does it stop? Perhaps I should sue JC Penny's because I can't get milkshakes there.

My My My

Pulpits that once held high the banner of the gospel, standing strong for life and the family, started preaching equality and “common good”. The Kool-Aid of “Social-Justice” was dispensed freely from fountains installed in Evangelical churches across America. The result? Hundreds of thousands of evangelical Christians marched into voting booths and pulled the lever for increased abortions, homosexual unions, socialism, loss of religious freedom and Marxism because the pulpit told them that it was okay because in doing so they would be ending poverty, homelessness and AIDS—not to mention the end of racial division and the beginning of world peace! How could Christians be so easily deceived when it is abundantly clear that socialism has never delivered anything it has promised? Look no further than the pulpit.

America can survive a bad president. America cannot survive continued compromise in her pulpits. The solution to America’s greatest need is not in the next election—but in next Sunday’s sermon.

- Bob Burney

I Am One Of Only Four Percent In America...

who believe the following things:

1. Absolute moral truths exist.
2. The Bible defines these absolute moral truths.
3. Jesus Christ lived a sinless life during His ministry on the earth.
4. God created the universe and continues to rule it today. He is omnipotent and omniscient.
5. Salvation is a gift from God. It cannot be earned through good works or behavior.
6. satan is a real living entity.
7. Christians have an obligation to share the gospel with the unsaved.
8. The Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.

This is according to a Barna poll that I learned about in an excellent article by Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

I must say that finding myself in such a minority in America is shocking to say the least. What was even more shocking was to discover that less than one in ten evangelical Christians hold to these 8 beliefs! (You can also reference the beliefs of those considered "Born Again Christians" by the Barna Group.)

According to Jackson's article,

Shortly after the Civil War, the Protestant church divided over this belief in a literal interpretation of Scripture. Liberals moved away from Scripture as the sole authority in order to accommodate “rational truth,” which they saw as incompatible with the Bible. These liberals embraced the “essence of Christianity” rather than the inerrancy of Scripture so they could synthesize their Christian thought with so-called scientific findings of the day.

One of the preeminent voices to emerge in defense of absolute truth shortly after the turn of the century was a Princeton Theological Seminary professor and Presbyterian minister, J. Grescham Machen, who would later lead a split within the Presbyterian Church over the rejection of biblical orthodoxy. In his definitive work, Christianity and Liberalism, Machen said that liberalism was not only theologically wrong but was not connected at all to true Christianity. “What the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to belong in a different category.” Machen felt that the argument was no longer between two views of evangelicalism, conservative and liberal, but rather a conflict between two religions. Liberalism is “a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core,” Machen wrote. (Emphases mine.)

I couldn't agree more. Mr. Jackson went on to share the statistics that I referenced at the beginning of this post and pointed out just how serious this problem is. He wrote, "Unfortunately, a growing number of Christians are influenced more by the popular culture than Scripture in terms of their worldview. Even younger evangelicals, who tend to track conservatively on most core social issues, do not consistently view the world from a biblical perspective." (Emphases mine.) If less that 10 percent of all EVANGELICAL believers hold to this definition of biblical worldview we have serious flaws in our foundation.

All standards other than the Bible fall far short of acceptability when judging the culture. The Bible is the only pure standard that we have. When we abandon that standard we are telling God that we are wiser and smarter than He is. That never ends well.

Mr. Jackson went on to say,

In light of these dispiriting statistics, Christians must return to emphasizing God’s truth and God’s love. America currently stands at a crossroad. Many of our national problems are a result of our churches abandoning truth. It is not the institution that needs to seek God – it is every individual in each one of the nation’s pews.

A truly repentant church will experience a spiritual renewal. A renewed church can once again be salt and light to the nation. A critical mass of godly Christians must be reached. If we use the imagery of today’s light bulbs we don’t yet have a high enough wattage light bulb to truly lighten our nation. Once we have reached critical mass, the Lord will pour out tangible blessings upon the entire nation in honor of a faithful church that lives and preaches biblical truth.

I pray to God that the church will repent. The consequences are too great if we fail to.

Thank you, brother for the awesome article.

Revive us O Lord.

Why Would Anyone Want To Be President?

As I have been watching this Presidential race unfold (albeit from a distance - I haven't had the stomach for much political nonsense this year) I have wondered aloud more than once why anyone in their right mind would want to be President right now.

Our country is deeply divided and seems likely to remain that way. We are still in the middle of a war that cannot be safely walked away from. The economy is in a very tenuous state with the dollar falling and oil soaring. Russia is trying to restart the cold war. China is flexing its muscles and seems to have an appetite for expansion. Iran is working to develop nuclear weapons. Venezuela is stirring up trouble in Central and South America and the Caribbean too.

Add to that Congress' partisan impotence, daily corruption scandals at all levels of government, utter moral decay in the culture, and a whole host of other domestic issues and you have the makings of Excedrin headache numbers 2009-2012.

The world the next President of the United States will face won't be one for wimps. I hope we choose wisely or it's gonna be a long four years.

Truth For Sale

You really should watch this report. This is one very large part of what is wrong in America today.

When I was growing up during the Cold War we were always taught about the difference between the freedoms that we have in the United States and the oppression that the Soviets suffered under. We were told that one of the greatest differences between our two cultures was that in America we had freedom of speech. It is too bad that that turned out to be an American mythology on par with the story of Washington throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River.

Of all of the sacred cows that exist in this country, the First Amendment is probably the greatest. And yet this report shows just how greatly injustice, greed, and oppression are the rule of the day in this country I love so much. No wonder nature seems to be conspiring against us. If we don't change soon I fear that judgment will be unavoidable.

In the face of intentional distortion by the mainstream media is there any questioning why more and more people find themselves asking the very question that Pilate asked over 2,000 years ago? "What is truth?"

Calling The Low Down Varmint Out...

A voice of reason has appeared from an unexpected place. Czech President Vaclav Klaus has challenged alleged global warming 'expert' Al Gore to a debate about global warming. Not surprisingly, Gore isn't willing to intelligently discuss the evidence for or against global climate change or its possible causes. (Perhaps he is unable to do so?)

Klaus said, "It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda." Ahh, Joseph Goebbels and Adolph Hitler would be so proud!

The Czech President has recently written a book that questions the true motive of the climate change propagandists titled, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? Klaus says that the thing most endangered is basic human freedoms and prosperity.

Klaus compares the tactics and aims of the environmental alarmists to the tactics used by the communists in his country during his lifetime.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said. "In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added. Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he opposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change....

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming. "It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only," Klaus said.

Sound familiar? It is basically the same thing said by the founder of the Weather Channel months ago.

I have said many times (even in the midst of last summer's blistering heat) that I do not believe that any permanent global warming is taking place. I believe that any heating trends can be more easily explained by solar radiation patterns than by carbon emissions. This seems evident to me from a comparison of the amount of "greenhouse gas" emitted into the atmosphere by humans as compared to that given off by nature itself. A single volcanic eruption contains many times more "greenhouse gas" than all of mankind's pollution combined. Thus, you will have a hard time convincing me that any warming (or cooling) trends are being caused by man's usage of carbon.

But lets suppose, just for the sake of argument, that these Chicken Littles were right. Let's consider how life would be if the environazis got their way and took us back to the Stone Age. Even then it would seem that there isn't any feasible way for humans to avoid carbon-based environmental impact. Humans need heat to survive. Anything below 98° F and we start needing some supplemental heat. And there are precious few places on planet earth that are 98° F night and day year round. (Thank God!)

Clothing can allow us to take that number down much lower, but manufacturing clothing in a modern society requires machinery, machinery requires electricity, and the most common source of electricity is combustion. Of course we could go back to using animal skins for clothing, but the environmentalists won't like that either.

There is also the problem of cooking food. Even vegetarians typically cook their food. And if we were to use animal skins for clothing, wouldn't it be wasteful to kill an animal just for its skin? (Seems like I have heard that argument somewhere before....) Thus, if you are going to eat yon mastodon, you'd best have a way cook it. Once again, combustion is going to be required.

Then there's the problem of shelter. Last time I checked there weren't that many habitable caves in the North Carolina Piedmont. That means we are going to have to figure out some place to stay. Well, we can go back to animal skins. (I can hear the animal rights folk howling even now....) There is also lots of nice red mud around here, but to make mud into brick requires baking it - more carbon. We could cut down trees to make cabins, but that reduces the number of trees which help to remove the carbon from the air. It would seem in our environmental Utopia that shelter may be a problem.

There is another problem that we have learned about too: animal flatulence. All those cows are farting the place up and pushing us towards global catastrophe. I guess it is good that all those cowboys nearly wiped out the bison herds back at the turn of the century. Millions of gassy buffalo would have probably pushed us over the edge.

I suppose that many who have read my rants against global warming might assume that I don't care about the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I care very much about it. My problem with most environmental issues is that they tend to tilt at windmills.

The issue of global warming is a hoax. It isn't an issue, but is something that is being greedily exploited to further other ends. Al Gore is exploiting "global warming" to put himself in the limelight and assuage his wounded ego after being rejected by the American people. He also, by the way, is exploiting it to make himself filthy, stinking rich through his investments in these "green" companies.

Politicians are exploiting it to line their pockets with bribes from companies that will benefit from new regulations and from those that would be hurt by new regulations. They are also using "global warming" to line their pockets with revenue from bogus carbon offset programs. And of course, let us not forget that it gives them a leverage point to obtain power over the people, exploiting this lie to induce people to give up their freedoms and prosperity.

Finally, environmentalists are exploiting "global warming" to make some marginal gains toward their agendas, and "scientists" are exploiting it to bilk grant money from various governments. These reasons are why I so vigorously oppose "global warming."

There are plenty of legitimate environmental concerns with real-world practical solutions. Pollution is a huge problem. It is clear that air quality has suffered as our cities have grown. Some progress has been made at reducing automobile emissions, but why don't we push on and see if we can't break away from petroleum and find a cleaner alternative? It will take some time, but if we can put a hunk of metal on Mars we should be able to collectively figure out a way to tell the gas companies bye-bye.

Why do we allow companies to dump their waste into our rivers? We should use the same policy with manufacturers worldwide that Momma did: "If you make the mess clean it up." Companies should have to have waste mitigation plans before they are allowed to manufacture the first widget. Would it be more expensive? Yes, it would. But I'd be willing to bet that manufacturers would find a better way to do it if they were forced to. Once they had discovered that way I'd be willing to bet that the prices could come down. (Whether they would or not is a different rant for a different post!) But what about the countries that wouldn't adhere to that standard?!! Don't trade with them. DUH!

Or perhaps on a more personal level, why do we allow people to litter? (This includes throwing cigarette butts out of cars, by the way.)

Why do we allow companies to use packaging materials that are not environmentally friendly? Why are we so addicted to plastics when glass, paper, and metal are much more easily recycled?

There are also water quality issues that are being raised by the irresponsible development taking place throughout the country. In North Carolina these practices threaten to destroy the state's only native trout. (Indeed, Brook Trout are threatened throughout their native range along the entire Appalachian Range from Georgia to Maine.)

All of these issues would be much easier to fix than "global warming." (Especially if it turns out that this purported climate change is being caused by the sun!)

North Carolina's Wildlife Commission has done a stellar job in reclaiming severely damaged river ecosystems. With the work that they have done they have begun to see very encouraging results in the resurgence of threatened flora and fauna. Their re-introduction of deer and turkeys have been wildly successful, and I have hope for the successful reintroduction of the red wolf and elk. It would be wonderful to see these animals thriving in our land again. (Although they will create their own problems too as we have seen with the invasion of coyotes.) I have also seen surprisingly quick results from the size and creel limits imposed on many saltwater fish species. There seem to be far more fish available in just a few short years following the introduction of these limits.

My point is that the real environmental problems facing our world can be dealt with successfully when they are approached with intelligence and TRUE scientific inquiry instead of the junk being passed off as science by so many. There are plenty of resources in our world to allow us to take advantage of them if we will be wise about it and not succumb to greed. It is high time that we start using our own brains and questioning why so many "scientists" are afraid of debate on issues like climate change and evolution. It is time that we stop giving these people money to perpetuate their lies. We cannot keep accepting that what "they" say is true. Too often it isn't. The money that will be wasted on "preventing" global warming would be much better used addressing real problems.

Hypocrisy

Many commentators are indicting Spitzer mostly for hypocrisy, but aren't we the real hypocrites? We watch and tolerate the most salacious television programs; we produce soft pornography to sell in grocery stores, displaying it on checkout line shelves, we post hardcore porn on the Internet; we feature on magazine covers women who have had babies with sperm donors they call boyfriends, but do not marry them; girls are sexualized at ever-younger ages; we equate shacking up with marriage as equal moral choices and then express shock when members of both political parties behave in ways that emulate what they see the rest of us tacitly approving….

Culture once produced gobs of shame for people who engaged in such activities, but no more. Now the question becomes whether such laws are outmoded and if it should be considered a private matter between Spitzer and his family. This is the legacy of the Bill Clinton years. "It was only sex," cried Clinton's defenders of his tryst with Monica Lewinsky. It was no one else's business, except his family. Each time such behavior is excused, we ensure we will get more of it.

- Cal Thomas (excerpts from "Sex And The Married Governor" in Jewish World Review, March 12, 2008)

I wish that my writing was as consistently cogent as Cal Thomas'. Read the entire article. He hit it on the head.


Aside:
Don't know if Washington is like NY, but if it is the Gideons may have not been welcome to place their Bibles in his hotel.

New Partner In The Axis Of Evil...

Hugo Chavez and his puppets are laying siege to Columbia. I saw this coming. Hugo Chavez plans to rule all of South and Central America either directly or indirectly. All of his actions have pointed to this.

A few months ago Chavez sent "aid" to the victims of an earthquake in Peru. Printed on the packaging of this aid was propaganda about how the government of Peru had failed the people and how much better Chavez could do. Chavez has also been cozy with Nicaragua, Cuba, and Ecuador.

Several months ago Chavez "magnanimously" offered to help try to negotiate a truce between the terrorist organization FARC and the Columbian government. I knew that it was a mistake for President Uribe to allow that to happen. That agreement was eventually cut short when Chavez overstepped the bounds of his authority in dealing with FARC.

So all of this drama on the border of Columbia all came about because Columbia performed a military action inside of Ecuador against FARC without the permission of the Ecuadorian government. I'm wondering what this has to do with Chavez... oh yes, Ecuador is Chavez's lap dog. So Hugo Chavez, messiah of the downtrodden has rushed to the border with his troops.

I was originally very concerned about this and was hoping that the US was going to back Columbia. I mean, two countries against one (Ecuador and Venezuela vs Columbia) hardly seemed like good odds. According to an article that I read on My Way News the army of Columbia significantly larger than both of these armies combined.

Venezuela and Ecuador have about 172,000 active military troops between them. Colombia's U.S.-equipped, trained and advised military has more than 250,000.

Still, I am a little concerned about who else may be around. I know that Venezuela has been receiving military assistance from China. There is also the FARC to consider.

President Bush has backed President Uribe in this crisis. I am glad to see that. I would hate for us to have to become militarily-involved in South America on a large scale. I am concerned, though, that if something isn't done about Chavez soon, it may be too late to avoid a very costly war with dire consequences.

Since the raid, evidence has been discovered that all but proves that Chavez has been allied with FARC for as long as 10 years. There were also documents that seem to point to some sort of CIA overtures to the terrorists.

References to U.S. diplomatic overtures are scintillating, if vague.

In a Dec. 11 message to the secretariat, Marquez writes: "If you are in agreement, I can receive Jim and Tucker to hear the proposal of the gringos." ...

Writing two days before his death, Reyes tells his secretariat comrades that "the gringos," working through Ecuador's government, are interested "in talking to us on various issues."

"They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama," noting that Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.

Reyes said the response he relayed is that the United States would have to publicly express that desire.

This quote is disturbing to me on so many levels.

First of all, I feel confident that these spooks are not operating under the authority of President Bush. If this supposition is true, then I think that the organization is in dire need of a shake-up. It will probably never happen. There are things you find out sometimes that it would just be better if you didn't know - especially when you have no power to change things. A little ignorance goes a long way to a better night's sleep.

Secondly, the spooks seemed awful confident that Obama will not only win his party's nomination but will also win the general election. Perhaps they were only saying what they thought these terrorists wanted to hear. I hope so. I would really like to believe that it matters who I vote for in November. (And I REALLY hope they are wrong regardless of their motive.)

We live in a very dangerous world.

Update: March 7, 2008 21:50

Apparently the conflict is over - for now.

But What About The Polar Ice Caps?

So I read this brilliant article today about the polar ice caps. Turns out that they didn't move out permanently - they just went on vacation.

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

Call me smug. Call Gore a liar. AND QUIT INTERFERING WITH MY LIFE AND WASTING MY MONEY WITH YOUR STUPID LEGALIZED EXTORTION SAVE THE WORLD SCHEMES! There is one thing and one thing only that is going to bring about the end of the world: man's sin. PERIOD. Man's sin has created the whole mess.

Every time I turn around there is some new scam being perpetrated on the American people. "Ohmygosh! We're going to burn ourselves up! Global warming! Global warming! Let's make ethanol to save ourselves from ourselves!" "Ohcrap! That made the price of corn go up - and it didn't reduce greenhouse emissions in the first place! (And the oil companies are threatening to take away all that money they give me if I keep pushing this ethanol stuff.)"

I even heard a group of scientists the other day that are ready to suggest that it is actually another Ice Age that we need to fear. Good grief!

I am so utterly sick of the corruption and the lies. They aren't even believable lies anymore. Back in the 70s they told us that we were running out of oil - said that we'd be out by the late 70s or early 80s. Guess what? We still have oil. In fact, every week I keep hearing reports of some huge new oilfield that has been discovered that I should invest in.

There is one reason and one reason only to develop bio-fuels: to provide an alternative to the oil companies' and commodity traders' greed. I firmly believe that the international community's about-face on ethanol has far less to do with corn-driven inflation and far more to do with threats to these spokespeople from the oil industry. Big oil doesn't want any other players on the field, and the politicians don't want to lose that Sugar Daddy. It would be awful hard for Exxon to post those record profits if demand drops by 85%. Yes, I am just cynical enough to believe that. It isn't even a stretch for me.

If I had the money, I'd hire a top-notch team of the brightest, most-creative engineers, chemists, and designers that I could assemble right out of college and I would set them to developing a feasible, cost-effective means of transportation that did not rely on oil for propulsion at all.

While we developed that, I'd have teams of folks scouring the US Patents' Office for any devices created to increase fuel efficiency in petroleum-powered vehicles. I'd set my "Skunk-works" team to improving the ideas that they find and then we'd produce and market those technologies.

I simply don't believe that we have achieved the pinnacle of fuel-efficiency and power that technology can afford. Do I know what I am talking about? No! But neither did Henry Ford. He simply didn't believe his engineers when they told him it was impossible to make an 8-cylinder engine work. Guess who ended up being right? Would it be easy? DUH-HUH! Nothing is EVER easy. I have learned that one the hard way. But then I have digressed, haven't I?

So anyway, the article pointed out just how far it would seem that we are from global warming with the ice caps growing, Chinese houses collapsing under the snow, and young cows dying in Vietnam from the cold weather. If you are interested in more, there was an interesting article published by the Daily Mail that is mocking Gore over this stuff too. Seems like I remember that the Weather Channel guy said that it would turn out like this months ago. If he isn't already mocking the global warming crowd, he should be. I know that I am.

Why Do I Support Alternate Fuel Technology?

Exxon shatters profit records

Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices.

Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said fourth-quarter net income rose 14% to $11.66 billion, or $2.13 per share. The company earned $10.25 billion, or $1.76 per share, in the year-ago period.

The profit topped Exxon's previous quarterly record of $10.7 billion, set in the fourth quarter of 2005, which also was an all-time high for a U.S. corporation....

Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006.

Do I mind companies making a profit? Not at all. Do I mind companies making monstrous profits? Not if they EARNED those profits in a FREE MARKET economy.

Some may argue that the oil companies compete in a free market, but the problem is that these companies have both intermarried and have grown increasingly greedy. No one is willing to leave any money on the table (i.e. undercut their competition.) It is only a hunch on my part, but I would be willing to bet that there are some major anti-trust violations taking place between the petroleum providers of the world.

These companies also cry that the cost increases are merely caused by supply and demand.

The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline hit an all-time high of $3.23 in May, according to the motorist organization AAA. The high prices were blamed on strong demand and a series of accidents that shut down refineries in the U.S. But slack demand for gasoline in the latter half of last year kept gas prices from rising as dramatically as crude prices.

That is a load of southbound hay in a northbound bull. These companies are restricting supply to create false scarcity. If demand is so great there should be new refineries or updates made to existing refineries to increase production. And frankly, I'm not buying the whole "we're running out of oil" deal either. At least once a month I hear about some massive new supply of oil that has been discovered somewhere in the world.

I'm not really sure what it is that has spurred it, but it is as if the oil companies have suddenly realized that American consumers really don't have any choices. We don't have the infrastructure for public transportation (not to mention being too busy, independent, and impatient to put up with the hassles of public transportation), we're too spread out to make walking or bicycling a viable option, and auto manufacturers (whom I believe are in league with the oil companies) refuse to produce fuel efficient or alternative fuel cars. They have a captive audience and they know it, and what's more they have their hands so deep in Congress' pockets that they are well aware that they don't have the cahunas, er, wherewithal to bring any serious remedy or action against this out of control industry.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. took a swipe at the two firms, calling on fellow lawmakers to break the country's dependence on foreign oil and rollback unnecessary tax incentives for oil companies.

I would agree with him if (a) I believed that he would actually do something about it and (b) if the oil companies wouldn't penalize us even further and whine about how they had to raise gas prices (again) to make up for losing the government subsidies.

(You have no idea how hard I am trying to keep from swearing.)

The oil companies have shot back with numerous excuses.

ExxonMobil representatives ... stressed the cyclical nature of the business and noted that growing global demand for energy will require companies to heavily invest in future growth. The company said it estimates that global demand will grow by 30 percent by 2030.

We'll see how they invest their money. All I can say is that I hope that a new energy source is discovered that will make this the last time the oil companies post profits like that ever again. As soon as I have an equivalent alternative to petroleum based transportation I will take it.

Some Good Resources

If you are like me, you are constantly inundated with requests from everyone under the sun for money to help some worthy cause or another. It is impossible to give to each and every one of these requests - and invariably a donation is welcomed by another hand out for more. No doubt there are many worthy causes and the need in our world is great. So how does someone choose a good charity? How do you know who the crooks are? How can you find out whether someone is a good or poor steward of the monies that they collect?

Charles Colson has written an article over at Townhall.com that exposes a couple of crooked organizations that are exploiting our righteous sympathies for injured soldiers to make themselves rich. He also identifies some good web resources to help identify good charities. I hope that you will take the time to check out this article and these websites as you are choosing where to make your charitable contributions.

Stop the Stupidity!

I found this new career opportunity online today. Global Warming is going to make Y2K look like a legitimate threat! If you think that you got fleeced for Y2K you ain't seen nothing yet!

If you want to wallow sideways in the public trough here is the perfect opportunity for you. (What do you think Al Gore is doing? I'll bet he is beating these salary levels too.):

Carbon coach
Reducing contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, or the carbon footprint, is one huge step toward sustainability, but few guidelines exist for how companies gunning to be green should proceed. Carbon coaches offer this essential information. In addition to calculating carbon footprints and offering advice for offsetting them, carbon coaches help companies fit sustainability into their overall mission. Their services range from providing branding strategy for "green" product launches to advising companies on their relationships with NGOs....

Few guidelines exist, indeed. In fact I read an article today about how the UN is now saying that bio-fuels will cause more trouble than they will mitigate, but I will get to that in a moment. Back to the article at hand.

Most carbon coaches work at consulting firms, where they command salaries ranging from $40,000 to $60,000 for entry-level positions and $60,000 to $100,000 for mid-level positions.

Sadly, folks working for not-for-profit companies aren't going to make that much. "Non-profit organization salaries aren't as high; an entry-level carbon coach with a master's degree can expect a salary of $30,000 to $50,000." Well, it's for the children, though, right? Just like John Edwards' compassionate legal work for all of those poor children, right? It WAS for them, wasn't it? But then why did he take HALF of the rewards in legal fees? But I digress...

In another "What the crap?..." story, check out this headline from across the pond:

A British bus company has apologized to a girl who is led around on a leash by her boyfriend and describes herself as a human pet after one of its drivers threw her off a bus. Tasha Maltby, 19, told British newspapers she was the "pet" of her 25-year-old fiancé Dani Graves….

WHAT?!!! Yes, I read that right.

Maltby -- who lives on state benefits and got engaged in November -- said her choice of lifestyle might seem unusual but was harmless.

"I am a pet," she told the Daily Mail. "I generally act animal-like and I lead a really easy life. I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone."

Well, can't say that I could see that happening here... the very suggestion that a woman wear a leash would end up sending a fellow to the dentist for a new set of teeth with most of the women I know. People are weird.

So back to the UN article I was talking about earlier. I find it hilarious (in an infuriating sort of way) that the UN is backpedaling on its claim that bio-fuel will be the great messiah of our poor, little, carbon-polluted world.

...Regan Suzuki of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization acknowledged that biofuels are better for the environment than fossil fuels and boost energy security for many countries. However, she said those benefits must be weighed against the pitfalls — many of which are just now emerging as countries convert millions of acres to palm oil, sugar cane and other crops used to make biofuels.

...Foremost among the concerns is increased competition for agricultural land, which Suzuki warned has already caused a rise in corn prices in the United States and Mexico and could lead to food shortages in developing countries.

Is anyone besides me not surprised that no one stopped to think about the possible negative effects of this policy? Politicians never do. Just like the stupid bill that was passed by the geniuses in Washington that outlawed incandescent light bulbs - while favoring fluorescent bulbs that contain heavy metals and other serious toxins. I stopped needing someone to wipe my nose about 34 years ago, thank you very much.

Here's a shock for you: I am totally in favor of the development of alternative / renewable fuel sources. I suspect that I just surprised some of my more loyal readers with that statement. Why am I in favor of the development of alternative fuels and new technologies? Do you think that it is because I am concerned one iota about global warming? NOT A CHANCE.

The reason that I support bio-fuel development is because (based on my own reading) it looks like a relatively small farm could produce enough ethanol to allow a family to cut its dependence on oil severely if not completely. I am sick of the oil companies and commodity traders and the local gas stations charging as much for their product as they can without starting a riot.

They know that there is no competition for their product. They have a captive market. Americans can't just stop driving cars. The public transportation infrastructure does not exist on a large scale and the structure of our communities is not conducive to public transportation. Big oil knows that they have us between a rock and a hard place. The development of bio-fuel technology gives me the chance to produce my own fuel and stick it to the man. Viva la revolucion!

Anyway, this new "concern" by the UN is a big smoke screen in my opinion. They are already looking for a graceful way to escape the corner they have put themselves in by buying into the Chicken Littles' dire predictions and drinking the loonies' Kool Aid. See, it will cost all of the big wheels in the UN too much profit if petroleum goes away. They can't have that, but in the meantime they will line their pockets with ummm, spend waste trillions of dollars (yes, Virginia, that is trillion with a "t") until everyone figures out that the sun still keeps coming up in the morning and realizes that all this climate change is a bunch of hooey. (Then they'll blame Al Gore for it all, but he'll shift the blame to President Bush somehow.)

Come QUICKLY, Lord Jesus!