I’m perplexed by the idea of an author being angry that you email them about something they wrote. I can understand if they’re mad at your argument, but to be upset at the simple fact that you took the time and energy and passion to read and respond to their piece? It makes no sense to me. Shouldn’t they be happy that you actually took the time to study their column?

Personally I like getting email. That said some ninety percent of the letters I get could be called “hate mail” but I enjoy it anyway. At least I know they read my article. And to think that I inspired them to think about it and write me back leaves me feeling like I’ve done my job. Yes I’ve gotten a few really scary, threatening letters over the years. But outside of that I don’t have a problem with people who disagree. I would certainly never suggest that they should be silenced simply because they don’t see eye to eye with me.

This goes hand in hand with something else: I always leave my email addy for people to write. Even if my email address wasn’t included, I still wouldn’t be mad if someone tracked it down to write. Over the years I’ve emailed a few people who acted like I called their house at dinner time while they were eating with their family. Why take it so personal? If your email is anything like mine you get about thirty junk letters a day. It’s no big deal – you just check the box and hit delete and it’s gone. End of problem.

If you’re writing something that is going to inspire passion in people, get ready for them to respond. It just comes with the territory. Isn’t it just a touch obnoxious that someone thinks they can write something and then acts like there shouldn’t be any rebuttals or responses? Everyone has a right to free speech/press, not just authors writing for popular publications.

This goes hand in hand with something else – I never put anything in my credit line that I consider sacred. There is a reason that I try to include a partial list of works and cursory summary of what I do. I’m proud of my record. I also always try to include links to other writing samples and other stuff I’ve done. People are invited and welcome to judge for themselves.

It’s bizarre to me that someone would write a credit line and get mad that a reader went to study. If you don’t want it to be known why did you write it?

Yes I have an agenda – everyone does. Yes I have passions – again everyone does. In my particular case it is a bit starker since my interests lead me to write blogs like this one. What do you think I’m going to say when I read stories about the Government considering regulating bloggers?

I also work in film and radio. What do you think I’m going to say about free speech/press issues? What do you expect me to say about the “Fairness Doctrine” and other attempts to regulate speech on the airwaves? I look at these things as my bread and butter and you’re dang tooting that I’m going to care when someone comes in and suggests silencing me for whatever the holier than thou reason they’re espousing.

But these biases don’t necessarily disqualify me from being a good source on the issues. And bias doesn’t necessarily disqualify anyone else – either inside or outside of a particular subject. And this is essentially what the First Amendment’s speech and press protections are about. It’s the basis of our republic and it’s okay to use irrational thoughts and feelings to come to political opinions.

The beautiful part is that the internet has made the flow of ideas even smoother still. A short ten years ago snail mail letters and intrusive phone calls were the only way to talk to authors. Today messages can be typed out and sent in minutes. This is a good thing.

You shouldn’t condemn people who take the time to read what you’ve laid out and you shouldn’t take it as a put down that people, even ones who disagree take the time to write. You should wear it as a badge of honor.

The old saying goes: “Don’t count your friends by who’s with you when you’re up. Count them by who’s with you when you’re down.”

The nation of Georgia is beginning to discover just how few friends it really has. Its Russian neighbor has almost seized the entire territory in less than a week. Its only real crime that the tiny nation committed is simply to exist.

The official reason is that Russia given is that they are protecting its citizens in the regions of Ossetia and Abhkazskaya. But from the numbers of dead civilians and other collateral damage, it doesn’t look like Russia is all that interested in protecting anyone. One must also factor in that (militarily speaking) it didn’t take Georgia long to capitulate to Russian demands and retreat from Ossetia…which lead to more outrageous Russian demands.

The Russians could pulverize the Georgians easily. The tiny republic offers no threat to their northern neighbors – not even in the form of terrorism.

So why is this going on? It’s because Russia’s leader is a diabolical lunatic. Vladimir Putin has stated publicly that he wants a return to the Cold War. Quick show of hands: who wants to return to that? A time when fear was rampant and two major powers were locked in constant struggle?

But the guy is ex-KGB and he’s been saber rattling for years and doing other unsavory things for years. And it’s the stuff we don’t know that should be scaring us. Anyone remember Alexander Litvinenko? Alexander was also ex KGB and went to London to warn the Brits that Putin was insane. Alexander made the mistake of dining at a hotel café and ingested just enough radioactive materials to kill someone of his size and weight.

News reports coming in from the front claim that the US is “surprised” by the speed and advanced tactics of the Russian military. This should scare everyone because if it’s true, then we truly do have no idea what is going on in Eastern Europe. And with troubles in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and other unsettled regions we probably should.

But that aside from what I understand Georgia has tried to make itself friendly to the West largely because it has a hostile power on its border. It sent troops to help out in Iraq as a part of that goodwill measure. It tried to enter NATO within the past couple of years or so. The membership was declined at the behest of the usual suspects: France and Germany, two “allies” that are sending nuclear weapon material to Iran even as Iran is threatening to nuke everyone around it. Don’t forget that France was also nice enough to trade with Iraq in violation of the UN embargo.

The ironic part is that France and Germany declined Georgia’s membership because they didn’t want tension with Russia. That really worked well didn’t it?

So now we’re left with Russia testing the resolve of the World at large. The Russian army could easily storm Georgia and take it over. What Putin wants to know is whether or not we’ll sit back and let him. The guy is ex Soviet intelligence. You’d better believe that he’s done his homework. I’m sure he’s well aware of a US election coming up. (Any guesses as to whom he’s rooting for?) His attack is late in the year. It’s possible that he’s trying to get the old Russian Generals January and February on his team. I’m even willing to bet that launching the attack on the opening day of the Olympics isn’t a coincidence.  

I believe in diplomacy. I believe that we can get fair trades with the Britain and handle shipping disputes with Japan and many other things. But diplomacy hinges on both sides wanting an agreement. It’s not going to work if one side isn’t going to bend or be reasonable. This is why diplomacy has failed in the Middle East, failed on Iran, failed on al Queda and basically with every other dictatorial tyrant to come down the pike. Militarily time isn’t usually something you have enough of. And dictators are masters of using idiot diplomats to give themselves more time.

What has to be the most depressing thing of all though is the thought that Russians are closer to their friends than Westerners are. Iran can make all the bombs it wants to and the Russians are at every diplomatic table stonewalling on the Iranian behalf, coming to the aid of Venezuela and taking up for terrorists the world over.

Meanwhile Western powers will sell you out for a small cup of coffee from Starbucks. Our liberal elite bloats with self importance of sitting down and talking with lunatics and warmongers as innocent people suffer. It’s truly sickening.

This is insane. Since when is telling the truth about someone stumping in a political campaign considered “out of bounds”? It’s a rhetorical question. We all know when the facts are to be ignored if they make left-wingers look bad. 

Case and point: Barack Obama’s globe trotting non-campaign trip. Actually, it was a campaign trip for the purposes of tax exempts and photo ops, but it was a non campaign trip.

The part of his trip that is getting him in so much trouble right now is the German leg. After making a glorious and monumental campaign speech, Obama decided not to visit with wounded troops at a military hospital. The key word here is “he”. The media has tried to twist and turn it so that it’s the Pentagon’s fault. But anyone paying attention knows the truth.

The Obama campaign’s version of the story is that the Pentagon knew Barack was going to the military hospital three weeks before the fateful day. Thus they were surprised when uponst touching down on German soil the Pentagon told them the media wouldn’t be allowed to accompany him. He would only be allowed to take a handful of aides in with him. Denied his fawning entourage, Obama decided to go shopping instead. There is a sweet irony in the fact that the man who wants to socialize everything is complaining about poor government service, but I digress.

The Pentagon’s statement said that military policy dictated that they can’t get involved in political campaigns.

And it’s probably a good thing for Democrats that the military doesn’t. If it did, it probably would have let Barry on to the base in Afghanistan only so they could officially kick him in the butt and arrest the media horde following him as enemy combatants. After all, Liberal Democrats like the ones that support Barry are the ones responsible for the laws closing military bases overseas. During the Florida 2000 fiasco, it was Liberal Democrats working tirelessly to throw out the military vote. And when Gore didn’t win, it was Liberal Democrats who proposed legislation that would close voting booths on domestic military bases.

Other left wing ideas include making military personnel subject to international courts. They pushed for enemy combatants to have “rights” making the military’s job harder. While enemy combatants will get millionaire Harvard and Yale graduates to defend them, the best our soldiers accused of doing wrong can hope for are tired, overworked government lawyers.

Worst still is the left wing media thugs that followed the Obama camp overseas. We’re talking about some of the exact same people who reported the Haditha “Massacre” as if it was true (it wasn’t.) They run stories about soldiers flushing pages of the Koran down the toilet. That wasn’t true either. They also happily make stars out of “whistleblowers” who report on military “tragedies” such as Jesse Macbeth. Turns out Macbeth was a liar – not that the media has apologized.

In light of all of this, I wouldn’t have let reporters in either. Who knows what footage, pictures, quotes or sound bites they would have taken out of context? Just like everything else the “unbiased” media presents it would have colored by how it makes their side of the argument look. Thus suddenly the trip is no longer a campaign tour.

I have always liked to judge people by their own standards. That said, a lot of people don’t live by their own high benchmarks and libs like Obama and his friends are no exception. Leftists have been screaming about Bush’s “Big Oil” friends making our energy policy for over seven years. With this in mind, I have to say that I’m a little nervous about having Barry’s Code Pink friends making our foreign/military policies.

Code Pink are the antiwar activists who think that our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq right now should be arrested and tried in world courts for the “illegal” war, despite an act of Congress authorizing action. These are the same people who carry signs saying things like “We support our troops that kill their commanding officers” and “honor” vets coming home by spitting on them.

These people compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam – which is really funny when you stop and think that McCain not only fought in Nam, but he was captured and tortured there. You’d think McCain would be the libs number one guy. It’s funny cause skin color isn’t supposed to matter (unless it’s black.) But that’s another column in and of itself.

Our media is such an embarrassment. I can’t figure out what is more nauseating watching them gush and drool over Obama or listening to their miserable excuses about how they’re not really gushing and drooling over Obama.

Recently the New York Times refused a column from John McCain answering an earlier column from Obama. The Times defended its decision by saying it often requires rewrites from its writers, Yeah – I’m sure Obama rewrote his column half a dozen times before it was accepted.

But the worst was watching the media chase Obama around the globe like drunken groupies at an Eminem concert. Truth be told, I’ll bet a sizeable number of people outside the United States have no idea who the President of the United States is or even that there is an election in a few months. Heck – a startlingly high number of people walking down the street in New York can name the current President of the United States.

Arguably one of the most insulting things the King in waiting did while globe trotting was refusing to speak too or even go see the troops. There are reports trickling out of Afghanistan from average soldiers about how rude Obama was while visiting. Towards the end of his trip, he cancelled a trip to see wounded soldiers in Germany when the Pentagon told him that the media would have to stay home. I guess there is a rule somewhere that the military isn’t supposed to be involved in political stunts. When told that his convoy of cheap floozies and yes men would have to wait outside, he backed out. Naturally his said envoys tried several different ways of writing the story to make the military sound unreasonable.

Really strange coming from a bunch of people who as late as a few months ago were telling us that The War on Terror shouldn’t be used as a campaign issue. In typical left wing fashion, what they really meant was “The War on Terror shouldn’t be used as a campaign issue if it makes us look bad.” This is probably why the New York Times wouldn’t report on things like the national Iraqi elections, but I digress.

The other truly insulting thing Obama did was use his trip to the Wailing Wall as a stump. We know it was a stump because he took the media with him. If the Israelis refused to let reporters take pictures, he would have stayed home. This trip was insulting because the Wall is a Jewish holy site and Obama is a guy with ties to the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan. This is really repulsive when you stop and think about it. And it’s completely hypocritical when you consider that a good number of Obama supporters are hostile to religion in any form and political showboating in churches. Once again when they condemn these things, they’re only talking about when people they disagree with.

Naturally our media doesn’t see anything wrong with these things. They’re still taking pictures of him so he looks like he has a halo. They still write about him as if Obama is the Messiah. Gag. It reminds me of a High School Newspaper writing about the star football player. His trip in Germany resulted in many different reports of exactly how many were in the audience. Guess which one our media used? (I’ll give you a hint, it was the highest.)

But I’m not alone in my non-mystification by Obamania either. Israel National News.com published an open letter to the Messiah telling him to “just go home.” Even Al Jazeera openly wonders if the trip was “tripe”. You know it’s bad when the number one cover for Islamic terrorists think you’re pathetic. Maybe it’s because Obama gives the appearance of being his own religion. England’s Times online wrote a mocking piece written as if Obama was the chosen one.

I’m not up on my Christian lore, but isn’t there a prophecy about a false Christ coming preaching salvation and good will and peace and getting along but he’s actually an agent of the Devil? In a way, wasn’t his trip to the Wailing Wall a building of a temple of sorts (only this one is to himself)? And this antichrist was supposed to be in opposition to the Jews as well. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Obama want Israel to hand itself over to its Islamic enemies? No wait, he wants the Jewish population living in the Fertile Crescent region to not be there anymore. (I never used the word “war”.)

He must have slept through the Revelation teaching in church. It is pathetic when you stop and think about it, but not surprising either.

Oh geez, here it comes. A Junior High school student in Oxnard, Calif named Lawrence King who was fifteen years old was shot last Feb by a fellow classmate. Most people I know are startled and shocked to hear that, but there is another factor to this case. Namely young King was openly gay.

Despite the stunned response of myself and others I can already hear activists making their signs and writing their speeches. I can already foresee the red, angry faces of the Homosexual Rights spokespeople pointing their fingers in the camera on evening talk shows and blaming people like myself for “Homophobia” as if I endorse the killing of innocent people not like me.

Frankly I’ve had it with this charge, the media slant and all the other usual garbage that swirls around a case like this one.

A quick Google search brings up about three or four stories about Lawrence King. As with all of these PC cases, each of the stories has different (sometimes contradictory) details about what happened. Not that I’m accusing the media of bias or anything, but it is interesting to note that all the stories give the perp’s full name – something most media outlets usually hesitate to do based on the perp’s young age.

But that aside, it is interesting to note that all the stories say that King was shot, but none of the stories go into detail over why the alleged perp did what he did. The best answer I could find was King asked this boy to be his Valentine. But if that said Valentine was as over the top as the rest of King’s actions, I could see how someone could feel uncomfortable. Unfortunately instead of giving further details, all of the stories go on to talk about the struggle of gays for “equality” in our society, how there is still rampant “homophobia” at every level and so on.

I think that’s very offensive. Most normal people don’t walk around hunting for people who look and talk different to shoot and kill. So if the perp is otherwise normal, there has to be more to the case. Too bad our media doesn’t think we should be privy to the details.

What we can gleam from the case is that King was very flamboyant – apparently he often dressed as a woman, would talk in a high pitched voice, would openly ogle his male classmates and even chase them around. I guess when his classmates asked him to stop, King would follow them in to the locker room where he would stare and make comments like “You’re hot.”

At this point I have several questions that no one will answer due to the PC demographic young King fit in to. Firstly don’t his actions constitute sexual harassment? If he was chasing around his female classmates in such a fashion wouldn’t he be disciplined? We’ve all heard the story of the first grader getting sued for kissing his female classmate and whereas that is a gross over reaction, it sounds like King was definitely pushing the envelope on this one.

The second question is about the school dress code. I’m guessing that even in a state as left wing as California there is a limit as to what you can wear to school. In fact, in one of the stories I read a cursory interview with the teachers revealed that several of them thought King was stretching the dress code. Thus I’m guessing no one said anything because of his protected status as a member of a “minority” group.

It is quite the irony to think that Gay Activists campaigning for “equal rights” would raise a stink when asked to follow the same reasonable rules about how to dress and not harassing the people around them. It could be concluded that they don’t really want to be “equal” at all, since they want to ignore restrictions they don’t like without consequence.

But that’s not even the most offensive part of this story to me. The thing that really grinds about this is the reaction of the principal who blamed guns and the lack of social programs for kids. I’m sorry but when I was in school part of the principal’s job was enforcing the rules and maintaining discipline in the hallways and classrooms. I’m willing to bet that with a little digging I’d discover that there were a lot of problems festering in this situation that were ignored. So basically we’re supposed to set up another bunch of government workers who won’t do their jobs either.

No one is happy about this. A young person was shot. There were weapons in the classroom. There might be a couple of people out there relishing the end of another homosexual but most people (yes, even amongst conservatives) are horrified by this. King’s actions no matter how over the top some might think they are, are not justification for his murder.

And kids can be extremely mean. I’m sure everyone has some stories of being ostracized as a teen for whatever reason: wrong skin color, wrong gender, wrong religion, wrong social clique. The idea that such problems only happen to one group of people is outrageous and offensive. But not nearly as offensive as the assertion that most Americans favor a slaughter of homosexuals – that is “heterophobia”.

Monday of this week was the 210^th anniversary of the Sedition Act. One part of the Act stated that it would be illegal for "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the US government. This made it awful convenient for the people in charge to silence their opposition. It was one of the first Congressional attacks on Free Speech and Press in our republic.

But what was controversial in 1798 gets a lukewarm reception in 2008. For one of the first times in our history, politicians (largely from the Left Wing) are not only asserting that they can regulate speech but that it is good to do so. Everything from the “Fairness Doctrine” to “Campaign Finance Reform” is acceptable by libs in the modern day.

But as awful as all these things are, there is something much worse going on. Namely leftists will openly and proudly tell you that they plan on silencing their political enemies. “The Fairness Doctrine” originally applied to any broadcast using public airwaves. As envisioned in 2008, it will only target radio. Campus speech codes are solely to protect minority students.

And the insane arguments in favor of these things often focus on the “greater good”. Drawings of the Prophet Mohammed are to be banned lest Muslims riot (absolving Muslim of any responsibility when they riot.) The Fairness Doctrine is supposed to be an attempt to bring “balance” to issues on public airwaves. Campus speech codes are to protect easily offended minorities.

But “greater good” arguments don’t change that it is fact that these things are all illegal under the Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”

-First Amendment, US Constitution

Unless there is a Constitutional amendment put in place, these laws should be thrown out.

This is usually where libs take on their holier than thou glow as they look down uponst me and lecture that they’re all in favor of free speech, but this and that don’t qualify because you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. This always leaves me wondering how someone so smart can’t see the difference between someone saying something they know is false, will cause a panic and leaves no time to verify versus a discussion of issues of the day. I would expect great intellectual think tanks to know the difference between the two. Since libs say they can’t, the only conclusions I can come too is their either stupid, crazy or know that they’re full of crap, but are lying to everyone so as to silence their rivals.

Unfortunately though, there are enough of these people asserting their stupidity that it is starting to take root in some places. And predictably, what started out as attempts to bring “civility”, “fairness” and “sensitivity” to debate is starting to reach an insane level as it always does. Dallas County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield recently called his county’s Central Collections Office a “black hole” to the umbrage of his (black) Fellow Commissioner John Wiley Price. (I can’t believe someone in the year 2008 doesn’t know what a black hole is.) An even more recent example is the next cover of the ‘New Yorker’ magazine featuring Obama the Muslim. The outrage was fast and furious.

Naturally there are no similar protections for Conservative politicians or issues. It’s okay to throw Oreo cookies at Michael Steele. It’s okay for ‘Rolling Stone’ to make a cover of John McCain in a tiny cage being tortured by Viet Cong.

The rules never apply to libs themselves. That’s why TV and college professors won’t be covered by the Fairness Doctrine, even though they also use public property to transmit their messages. And thus the double standards abound. Suggesting that Obama is a Muslim is out of bounds, racist, offensive and libelous. Suggesting that Bush not only knew of, but helped destroy the twin towers on 9-11 is not only patriotic but worth investigating (despite zero evidence).

Bringing “civility” or “balance” to the arena of public ideas isn’t the government’s business. The founders knew this and that’s why they implemented the first amendment. Censorship and speech laws are too easy for political leaders to abuse and in the places where they implemented their rules, the abuse is already leaking out.

If you give these people your freedom, they’ll take it – and they’ll be smiling when they do.

I don’t believe in Global Warming. I’m not a scientist, but that’s okay cause most pushing Global Warming aren’t using science to back up their claims. Instead they use “consensus” to reinforce their arguments. This means that rather than using scientific methods like observation and testing they’re using votes of their peers.

That’s fine. If their “consensus” is good enough, then I figure the “consensus” of me and my friends is good enough to point out the weaknesses of their lame ideas. On a side note a lot of these people are professors at Universities and Colleges. I wonder if they would accept research papers based on the “consensus” of the students working together. I’m guessing not.

Lack of Evidence

The media loves to report on every higher than average temperature anywhere on the global and begin lecturing us on a hotter Earth. One of the problems is that for every hotter than normal temperature, there is one that is cooler.

The Spring of 2008 (this last Spring) was one of the coolest on record for North America. The Russians predicted this cooling a few years ago but it was largely ignored by the “open minded” thinkers in the West until it happened. Then those same think tanks ran to their climate models and quickly reprogrammed in a cooling streak.

I’m sorry, but I thought a model was supposed to allow us to predict what will happen next. If a model can’t let us predict or measure, what good is it? Why keep using it? From what I understand, there are multiple models and they’re all wrong. This is truly perplexing you’d think that they’d only need one model if it had any credibility.

Strange Claims

There is a “consensus” claim that deserts will grow, the sea levels will rise, there will be a lack of fresh water and the salinity of the oceans will go down thanks to the influx of melting ice caps.

Let’s look at these things one a time:

Assume the Earth heats causing the ice at the poles to melt. That will increase the amount of fresh water. But heat causes evaporation, which causes the atmosphere to become saturated, which causes rain. So why would you believe that deserts are going to expand? What you’re doing is confusing two things that are cemented together in a lot of people’s minds: namely a heat wave and a drought. It is possible to have hot temperatures and normal rain. Conversely it is possible to have a drought and normal temperatures. Case and point Antarctica is a desert.

I would expect real people of science to already know this. So why do I have to point it out?

The sea levels will rise. I don’t believe this claim. Water is unusual in the fact that it expands when it gets cold. This is why it floats. It also means that it takes up more space when in solid form. Now consider that when you see an iceberg, you’re looking at a tiny percentage of the actual ice there. So if the ice should suddenly melt to water, it will take up LESS space. The North Pole is nothing more than a giant chunk of floating ice. If it suddenly melted the whole piece would take up less space. So simple common sense would dictate that odds are the ocean level would probably stay the same.

Again I would expect scientists to already be thinking about this, but I haven’t seen any of them discussing it. Why was it left out?

Claim: Lack of fresh water. Why? Those icebergs are just pieces of fresh water. Again the heat will cause evaporation, which causes rain, which logically will result in growing lakes and ponds as well as swelling rivers and creeks.

Finally the salinity of the ocean will change. Well I’d agree that it might change at the poles – it will equalize. The polar oceans tend to be saltier than the ocean at the equator. This is because salt lowers the freezing point. That’s why so many people dump salt on their sidewalks in the winter time. But I doubt that this is what Global Warming scientists were talking about when they talk about the saltiness of the oceans. Like most other things, their logic doesn’t pan out here either.

Strange Reactions

You’d think that any scientist would be happy to answer these basic questions. But not the Econuts. Oh no.  In places where they reign, they’re diligently working to pass laws against the “global warming deniers” to prevent them from talking, writing or asking questions like those above. I think it shows insecurity in their theory. Their tendency to declare anyone questioning them to be nothing more than either deluded or a tool of big oil only reinforces this belief in my mind.

They’re opposed to CO2 right? Then why heap praise on people like Prince Harry who have converted their cars to run on wine? His car is still burping out big clouds of CO2. In fact, any time you light a fire at all you’re creating CO2. So the real enemy isn’t “big oil” it’s fire. And yet several of their heavier handed regulations target “big oil”.

If CO2 is such a problem and vehicles are the primary criminals responsible for such things, why do Econut leaders like Al Gore continue to fly around in private jets and ride around in limos at exotic resorts where they sit in air conditioning and discuss how everyone else is polluting the planet? Because they buy “carbon credits”? What are “carbon credits”? And (assuming that Global Warming is such a problem) why is it good enough to just zero themselves out? If they really cared wouldn’t they stay home, eat peanut butter sandwiches with the windows open to stay cool AND STILL buy their “carbon credits” thus actually combating Global Warming?  

Yeah you’re right, the POLITICIAN Al Gore would never lie to us. He just wouldn’t tell us the whole truth like that the company selling him his “carbon credits” (Generation Investment Management) is run by him.

I also fail to see how gun control, gay marriage, raising taxes, socializing medicine and other miserable ideas are going to stave off Global Warming. None of the above cut back the amount of CO2 that is produced. I do notice that all the above are the left wing platform in a nutshell, which makes me really suspicious about the real motives of the people pushing this stuff.

Conclusion

I can already hear the flood of emails I’m going to get from Econut supporters accusing me of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, being a tool of big oil, being a tool of the Bush administration and several other things that do nothing to address or change my insightful observations. It’s just an attempt to assassinate my character.

Did I say that we should pollute the globe? Did I say we should dump our garbage in the ocean and hunt all the animals of the Earth to extinction? Did I say we shouldn’t conserve energy or look for other forms of energy? Did I say we should be wasteful? No. I didn’t.

Lastly – Did I say that Global Warming isn’t happening? No. I said that there is no evidence of it because there isn’t. I said I don’t believe it is happening. I’m open to new information, but I’m not willing to listen to fear mongering propaganda. Which is all the Econuts have.

Still wonder how the inquisition got so out of control? We're witnessing the modern day equal right now.

Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom decided that violent foreigners who will use any means at their disposal and have declared war on us are to be given all the rights and protections under our Constitution. It is a really strange decision coming from a bunch of justices who routinely look to international law for their inspiration. I do believe that the international law libs have been screaming about for the past few years (namely the Geneva Convention) are very clear on how trials are to be handled: with military tribunals.

The nice thing about a military court is that since it’s done in private away from prying eyes, classified information isn’t leaked out to everyone. The problem with this of course is that left wing pundits, idiot activists, know it all liberal journalists and pompous left wing politicians won’t get their tv time, photo ops and self important speeches. Even worse are the pilfering raiders who dare call themselves lawyers who are covering for the animals at places like Gitmo. Most of these people are upper income hailing from Ivy league schools like Harvard and Columbia. (It’s insulting enough that Yale won’t allow the ROTC on their campi, do their grads have to defend the enemy as too?)

Why doesn’t that make more people angry? Just think of these liberal lawyers riding around in their limos and dining on steak and lobster with those holier than thou halos around their heads are actively going out of their way to defend a bunch of human debris that are sworn to destroy our government and the Constitution that created it. Where are these people when 98% of us need a lawyer? Why do we get stuck with the tired, overworked, squealing little guy who got his license after spending 10 years in night school? Even private schools greedily gobble up every government grant offered. That means that we (the people) helped pay for the educations of these rats. It’s nice to think that the thanks we get is a giant kick to the jimmy.

Do these people realize that we’re at war? The Court is doing something unprecedented: its usurping the authority of the Executive branch to run wars. If this is being read correctly, all the dangerous people we’ve captured up to this point can now be released on technicalities. I doubt these people were read their rights when they were captured. I doubt the military went and got court warrants to enter the bunkers and other places these people were hiding when we got them. These things take time to get. Time is something you don’t necessarily have on a battlefield. Are our troops now going to have to be retrained to handle evidence and make reports about “crime scenes”? Can military personnel now be dragged in to court to testify one way or the other? Is our military now subject to laws against police brutality and other things? Is this a joke?

But all that aside, aren’t there a bunch of laws about the military not being used as a police force? I think there are. And I’m willing to bet that if I looked them up I’d discover said laws proudly written and put together by the same smirking bunch of liberal dinosaur politicians that still populate our government.

Okay fine. The sacks of vomit they’re defending are covered under our Constitution and to be treated as other American criminals. Now that we’ve established this, I say we immediately confiscate their pray mats, their Qurans and all other religious materials that were bought and paid for by taxpayer money. Liberal courts have been telling us for years that there is a “separation of church and state”. That means tax money is not to be used for such things. If we wouldn’t do it for American prisoners, why do it for these guys?

The next thing I want to point out is that we can hold these guys without habeas corpus under our Constitution:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

-US Constitution, article 1, section 9

If the Constitution applies to these people, then they are definitely in a state of rebellion. That aside though, one can definitely make the case that the public safety does warrant it. Of the people we have let out of jail, an alarming number of them have returned home to commit new acts of terrorism and violence.

Moreover, if the rights of the Constitution apply to these people so do the restrictions:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

-US Constitution Article 3, Section 9

A good chunk of these people are openly confessing that they hate us, don’t recognize our government and want to destroy us. Clearly they are acting in a Treasonous manner. Personally I think a good number of lefties themselves are “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” starting with the Supreme Court itself!

The worst part of all of this is that the enemy is watching. In the words of bin Laden himself:

They left after some resistance from powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only weapon is the belief in Allah the Almighty, and who do not fear the fabricated American media lies. We learned from those who fought there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who fought and killed them, while the latter were still there.

-Osama bin Laden, 1997 CNN interview

Unfortunately for us, they’re smarter than our intellectual elites making up our government and our academia. They know how to manipulate and play our media, our politicians and our court systems. And all of the above are just begging to be used by these people.

This is truly sickening. But we’re now living a world that is completely topsy turvey. You can’t go in to an airport without a body cavity search. Meanwhile the people who brought us these overaggressive searches can’t be touched. “Cowboy” diplomacy is being replaced with spineless, French elitist diplomacy. In a time when we should be standing up to these people, we’re laying down to die and it’s reinforcing their resolve.

These third world thugs don’t have to beat us. We’ll do it for them. How embarrassing.

This is truly pathetic. From now till the election any tough question leveled at Barack Obama will be responded to with screams of “racism”? Well it’s par for the course.

Oh but don’t take my word for it. Go look at about 10k liberal blogs backing Obama against Clinton. Why vote for Hillary? Because not voting for her makes you a sexist. Why vote for Obama? Because not voting for him makes you a racist. I guess libs care more about the plight of blacks than the plight of women. So ladies – to the back of the equality bus please.

Ninety five percent of the lefties I’ve argued with call me a racist for not supporting Barack. Conversely ninety five percent of the lefties I’ve argued with can’t tell me what Obama stands for. All they see is his dark skin tone and they get all gushy. I thought a “racist” was someone who judged people solely based on their color. So who’s the racist here? I know why I’m opposed to Obama and it has nothing to do with how he looks.

Obama loves to portray himself as the son of a poor single mother…a single mother who lived in Hawaii a place most Americans only visit in their dreams. Okay Hawaii has one of the highest costs of living in the US, I’m with you. I would believe that most people in the aloha state are working their butts off to make ends meet. But a few years later she moved back. Okay – I guess I’m still (somewhat) willing to believe the ‘Oh woah is me’ act…except that Obama went to a PRIVATE SCHOOL there.

Again most Americans can only dream of sending their kids to private school. Even if they have the Congressional connections to get the paperwork to send their kids to a place for a better education, most Americans can’t afford it. I can only guess how outrageous the cost of private school in Hawaii is.

He went to college at Harvard and Columbia. How many poor kids can claim attendance at these places? I’ve known people who were really sharp on the uptake and wanted to go to such places. But they couldn’t afford it even stacked to the gills with student loans and scholarships. Likewise his wife went to Princeton and Harvard.

What’s next – Steven Spielburg’s niece going to come out and lecture us about how tough it was growing up on the mean streets of Beverly Hills?

Now if you listen to the Obamas, black people can’t do what they’ve done in America today. And they’re going to be joined by the usual band of suspects: Oprah Winfrey, Spike Lee and before it’s over many, many others who’ll join the chorus of lecturing us about what a rotten place America is because people like them are getting screwed and have been screwed.

We’ve all felt ostracized at some point in our lives because we were the wrong race, the wrong sex, the wrong religion, the wrong political party and so on. To sit here and argue that it’s exclusive to only one race, religion or sex is so far off it is offensive. To argue that one single group got it worse than all the others is likewise offensive. During the early 1900’s laws all across America attempted to destroy German culture. You couldn’t even speak German publicly in a lot of places. Likewise the Indian tribes were forced off their lands. Likewise the Irish suffered from horrible discrimination during the 1800’s.

Yet people like the Obamas only want to talk about how they were shafted. It’s amazing to me. “God Damn America”, screaming about “white privilege” and other prejudiced stereotypes aren’t racist? But asking Barack a question he’s not ready to answer *is* racist? And the people who claim to be the smartest amongst us can’t follow that simple chain of logic? How stupid is that?

He claims that he didn’t hear any of this while sitting in his church for TWENTY years. This is the guy who wants to go talk to our enemies. Is he going to listen to their answers? Or is he just going assume that they don’t mean it when they tell him they want us all dead? His wife was paying attention to all of those sermons. What’s he going to say to our enemies anyway? “Please don’t kill us.”? “Please don’t build nuclear bombs.”? We’ve been saying these things to people who don’t like us for 50+ years now. It hasn’t worked. They’re still working on nukes. They’re still drawing up plans to murder us. The idea that this is a change of any kind is naïve.  

One last thing: Barack comes from a long line of slave owning plantation overseers on his father’s side. Will Spike Lee demand forty acres and a mule from Obama? Will people like Spike Lee even point out Obama’s slave owning background? I didn’t think so.

Hillary wants to win the presidency: bottom line. Right now everyone is focused on her fight with Obama. This has been a bitter fight that has split the Dems and libs. She can’t win as an independent.

This leads me to believe that Hillary’s best option if she wants to win the Presidency is to run as a Democrat.

With the last of the primaries last week, Obama just barely squeaked to the minimum number of elected delegates needed to get the nod. But Hillary only needs a handful of the super delegates to have enough for the nod herself. To paraphrase Madam Pelosi it’s not about who has the most votes, it’s about who has the most delegates. Barrack has them. Hillary has them. If she can keep them together, she’ll have it.

It is possible for the Democrats to have two candidates on the ballot in Nov. Historically this isn’t unusual at all. Legally it is possible. The election of 1860 had three or four Dems all on the same ticket. Basically it would mean that Dems would have to split their campaign war chest between the two.

Most people can only think in two ways: Democrat or Republican, Good or Bad, etc. The idea of a third, viable candidate coming from one of the major parties is strange and confusing. It might be just strange and confusing enough to grease the wheels for a Clinton victory.

One of the big problems conservatives have with McCain is that he’s going for the Liberal/Democrat base. And Obama’s going for the same people. This means that the conservative base is largely being forgotten. It would be possible for Hillary to play to this forgotten group to carry herself to victory.

Hillary wants to win the Presidency. She can’t beat Obama in a Primary run – but she’s right that she had more popular vote than he did. In a three way fight she just might take it.

Ann Coulter has already declared she’d rather vote for Clinton than McCain. I know that I would support Clinton over these two losers. Politics makes very strange bedfellows.

I never thought I’d say this: but I feel for Hillary Clinton. I’m in to games of all kinds - board games, strategy games, computer games and so on. There is nothing worse than playing a close game that you think you can win while having a bunch of bystanders telling you to give up.

Bottom line: Barrack Obama doesn’t have enough votes to get the Democratic nomination. But they’re going to give it to him anyway. Why? Because he’s black and libs are going to prove how non racist they are by screwing the white person (as if whites aren’t a race). But in doing so, they’re screwing one of their other PC protected groups: women.

Don’t take my word for it though. Go check out pretty much any liberal/left leaning blog site online and you’ll see what I mean.

There are only a couple of Democrat primaries left. The odds of Clinton closing the gap are slim to none. But that’s not the important part now. The important thing is if Obama can get enough delegates to get the nomination himself. Unfortunately for him the last couple of states are places Obama and his elitist buddies sneer at and look down on. There just aren’t enough Harvard graduates and black people in South Dakota to clinch him the victory. Say what you want about the Clintons, they did have appeal in fly over country.

It’s going to be very interesting if the primaries end with neither Dem candidate having enough delegates to garner the victory. The decision will be thrown to the unaccountable party hacks (aka the super delegates).

But truthfully the Democratic plan they unveiled Saturday night was a joke. The party that cried about needing to count every vote in Florida in 2000, became the party of toss out enough votes to get the result they want in Florida in 2008. If Florida’s votes for Hillary aren’t going to count, why even bother of feigning to include them?

Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. Despite this – they’re going to give him half of the Michigan delegates anyway. It is Affirmative Action in progress. What a big middle finger to that state too.

The irony is at so many levels. The reason that these delegates were thrown out to begin with is that these states dared to defy the Democrat party elites by holding their primaries too early. The little guy doesn’t matter to the oligarchy of rulers. Of course this was obvious when the rulers demanded to know who had their nomination hours after the polls closed on Super Tuesday. Sure the other half of the states who hadn’t voted will have their ballots counted: it just wouldn’t matter.

So why include half the votes of Florida and Michigan? Answer: they want Clinton’s supporters to leave her.

Liberals have too long been warring with spineless Conservatives who drop their positions so easily for promises of niceness. For one of the first times in recent history the left is eating its own. Lefties don’t ever give up even when it’s obvious they’re lost. They haven’t given up on the war, the environment, affirmative action or any other failed, broken system. There is no way the Clinton supporters are going to drop their candidate of choice any more than the Obama supporters are going to drop their messiah. Counting only half the vote will be seen for what it really is: giving Obama the nomination.

So the next leg is going to be the joke of liberal damage control. It’s going to be fun to watch as liberals and journalists suddenly begin trashing and questioning protesters. Protesters have always been portrayed as good people who want needed changes in whatever society in which they live. But now that they’ll be protesting libs, get ready for trash pieces.

And Obama supporters will try to win the Clinton supporters the way they try to win everyone who disagrees with their cause: by talking down too, mocking and taunting. It’s already begun. Liberal good will never extends to those they disagree with. It’s going to be war in the streets like you’ve never seen before.

But the most obnoxious part of all of this will be the smug elitist think tanks going on all the talking shows to educate us all on what is really meant by the term “count all the vote.” See when they say “count all the vote” what they really mean is something other than “counting all the vote.” There might be a couple of libs like Nancy Pelosi who go out and tell everybody what they really think: that the little people are so stupid they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. But the vast bulk of these liberal think tanks will just cover up their opinions arrogance.

This is interesting to watch.

There are food price spikes going on all across the globe as I write this. The hardest hit by these rising prices are unsurprisingly the poor who didn’t have the money to pay the old prices. As leaders and activists try desperately to come up with ways to help ease the problem, allow me to make a few suggestions.

An international body should be set up to create standards for how much food the average person should eat. The recommendation of 2000 calories a day would be a good place to start. It can be changed as needed. Moreover this body would should have the power to distribute food as needed and have the power to punish nations that are not in compliance. This body should also have the power to repeal protective national laws prohibiting the exporting of food stuffs. Places like China have such laws.

People who do not meet their 2000 calories a day ration should be able to sell the calories they don’t eat to their neighbors. This will result in the equalizing of food consumption around the globe.

People should be required to eat slower. Say one spoon/fork full per every 30 seconds or so. People who eat fast don’t often realize how full their getting until several minutes later. Eating slower will allow people to sense exactly how full they are getting. This would go hand in hand with taking smaller bites – which is just a healthy alternative anyway. People who refuse to eat at the new speeds should face steep fines.

We should be required to buy new, smaller plates. Bigger plates invite bigger portions. Most people try desperately to fill their plate when at the dinner table. Smaller plates won’t let us take helpings that are so large and thus in addition to slowing down our eating styles help us all conserve food.

Taxes need to be raised on food stuffs. Any economist will tell you that higher prices reduce demand. But artificially driving up the price we can increase our supply rapidly. This will encourage people to stop eating simply because they are bored.

Scientists need to be encouraged to come up with drugs that can act as food substitutes. We already know that “uppers” like Cocaine and Meth curb the appetite. There have to be safer drugs that have similar appetite suppressing effects. People should then be given access to these drugs.

Greedy farmers who are the directly responsible for the high food prices need to be called in to answer for the high prices. Farmers are demanding more money for the same product. This isn’t right. If they’re not going to give us fair prices for their products, then our governments should take the surplus profit through the enactment of taxes and fees that will insure farmers don’t get any more than they deserve.

There are some who disagree with my progressive ideas above. I’ve heard their backwards arguments and ideas such as growing more of our own food. This idea won’t work. It takes a good two to three years before a field will start yielding a crop. It won’t help us now. Moreover, creating new fields will tear up the precious environment that in this era of Global Warming needs to be preserved.

My question now: why is this bad food policy good energy policy?

For the first time I can remember Hillary Clinton appears to be shedding real tears. Not just the fake ones for the camera, but actual real tears. You'd think she'd be crying about all the awful things she's done over the years – but no. Never in spoiled politician land.

Which brings up a good point, Democrats are going to real soon be facing the angry, bitter and vengeful side of Mrs. Clinton that we conservatives have been saying is there all along. Now secretly Dems have known that Hillary has a vicious record for years. They've just been able to pretty much ignore it since they're all on the same team. The Clinton wrath was directed at the enemy across the aisle. But now that there is a fight brewing within, odds are the ex first lady is going to pull out all the stops to defeat her opponent.

It is truly shaping up to be an interesting election year.

Sunday February 16, 2008 the Kosovo region of southern Serbia declared its independence from that state. The move prompted great fanfare from the ethnic Albanians who make up the region and stark horror from the nation of Serbia.

What is interesting to me is that despite the US’s “War on Terror” the Bush Administration has backed the move by the Kosovo Parliament. The Prime Minister of the new Kosovo state, Hashim Thaci has been accused of being a terrorist and is/was the head of the Kosovo Liberation Army at one time. The KLA is defined as a terrorist organization by both the United States and the United Nations. (And here we are helping them.) Cheering us along is the usual band of western “super powers” – namely the French and the British.

The list of people opposed to this declaration is much longer: Greece, Russia, Spain and Serbia just to name a few.

To back history up a little bit, Kosovo was the region that NATO got involved in during the late 1990’s. Reports were coming out that the fighting between the Kosovo Liberation Army and Serb security forces was getting out of control. There were stories of terrible things happening on both sides – of Serb Security Forces killing innocents and KLA thugs doing the same. Some of these stories were false. Some of them were exaggerated. This is to be expected of two peoples locked in bitter conflict. The only thing that can really be said for sure is that millions of noncombatants on both sides were fleeing for their lives.

NATO entered the conflict and drove the Serb forces out of the region before moving in to take control themselves. Civilian Serbs fearing their Albanian neighbors they thought would do bad things since they would now have the upper hand. The Serb population was supposed to be encouraged to come back, but instead it dwindled.

UN peacekeepers were brought in to manage the situation. I guess it was believed that the region should be governed by a neutral third party. And it has been this way for the past 9 years.

All of this noted, I think there is a bad precedent being set here. If I remember correctly, Serbia allowed UN peacekeepers into the region partly on the agreement that Kosovo would remain a part of Serbia. They have just been lied too. Now every UN Peacekeeping force that moves in to an area will be looked at with suspicion. And it is understandable why.

It’s also kind of nasty of Kosovo to declare it’s independence while hiding behind international forces that are not supposed to be involved in such conflicts. There is real potential for people who are truly are third party in this fiasco to be injured/hurt in a war that is truly not theirs.

Then you have to factor in the fact that just about every nation on Earth has populations looking to break away from the nations they’re a part of – including the United States, France and England.

How can the United States welcome a nation like Kosovo while denying the Kurds of North Iraq a homeland?

This is going to turn in to a very large mess that will drag on for years in to the future.