Sell Out

Today in Conservative Truth, Cliff Kincaid, editor for the AIM Report-the newsletter of Accuracy In Media-takes CPAC and Bob Barr to task for selling out to the left.

Don`t miss any of the other great articles in CT this week.

Undissolved

There appear to be undissolved particles in our Melting Pot:

"A fascinating story in The Arizona Republic illustrates the growing gulf between assimilated Hispanics and unassimilated newcomers in a central Phoenix neighborhood. A community action officer with the Phoenix police says: '[Longtime Hispanic residents] feel like the neighborhood is being overrun by immigrants... A lot of them are not happy with the way their neighborhood has changed.' Meanwhile, the immigrants complain that assimilated Hispanics 'have betrayed their country by speaking English and not celebrating the Mexican holidays.' Said one: 'Our Mexican-Americans are even racist against our own people.' Doesn't that just about say it all?"

—Congressman J. D. Hayworth


Thanks to the Federalist Patriot

Miscommunication and Malaise

Jed Babbin gives the most coherent analysis of our current military malaise in Iraq and the War.

He states:

His (President Bush) speeches, such as the one he delivered to the American Legion this week, merely repeat the rallying cries of the past four years. To repeat, as he did then, that we are going to win the war by ending tyranny and by growing democracies in the Middle East, surrenders control of the outcome to religious leaders who reject democracy, who have no interest in freedom. President Bush cannot mean to do so, but if he does not, he needs to say what he does mean. We are still waiting.


IS THE PRESIDENT SO OBLIVIOUS to events that he doesn't understand that he has set Americans adrift in an ocean of hostile media, leaving the formation of public opinion to the New York Times, CBS, the BBC and Alec Baldwin? Are he and his principal staffers so mired in the Dubai port deal and the everlasting Katrina recriminations that they are unable to realize how badly the president is failing? Is it even possible to wake him up to the job at hand? I fear not. As the months pass, the Bush administration looks more and more like that of Lyndon Johnson. Instead of setting and pursuing a course to win the war, it is only responding to the press-inflicted beatings it absorbs each day. The president should remember what Lincoln learned the hard way, that the media are the worst war strategists. Allowing the media to set the terms of the debate is a clearly marked path to defeat.

Bear in mind, Jed Babbin is a former Undersecretary of Defense, and his military opinions should be taken seriously.

He speaks about the ``Great Miscommunicator`s`` propaganda failure in Iraq:

THE PRESIDENT MUST CREATE the solutions by thinking on two levels. First, in terms of our strategic goals, which are to defeat the enemy's ideology and destroy his means of threatening our people and our interests. Second, in terms of the symbolism: the political meaning of our actions in the religious context in which our enemies exist. In the latter, we can strike at the enemy's ideology and cut through the fog that shrouds the road to success not only in Iraq, but in the wider war. Symbols, be they editorial cartoons of Mohammed or the Askari shrine, are potent forces in Islam and on them power is built. To paraphrase an earlier Buckleyism, we need to immanentize their eschaton. To use religious symbology to defeat the ideology of the terrorists.

He`s right; we have failed miserably in propaganda-largely because of the imbedding of reporters who would turn purple with rage at anything which would actually advance our cause. The Media is doing the propagandizing, and they seem to be working for the enemy. They cry foul at any American efforts. (Remember the flap over entirely factual pro-American articles being commissioned by the military?)

You cannot win a war without propaganda-especially a war of this nature. If there is a propaganda vacuum on our side the enemy will be happy to fill it with their own.

Be sure to read the article in its entirety; Babbin sums up our current dilemma superbly.

A Call to Boycott Citgo

The Southern Agrarian argues for a boycott of Citgo gas stations in response to threats against America by Venezuelan President Chavez. He`s right; Citgo is owned by Venezuela, and the marxist Chavez is using American dollars against us.

We need to get this guy out of power as soon as possible.

Republican Crack-Up

Steve Rankin, proprietor of Free Citizen e-mailed this to me. The blogger explains just why so many conservatives are angry with the GOP and the President.

The immigration issue is the one thing which can destroy the Republican coalition, and the President is definitely on the wrong side of the issue.

Light Blogging This Weekend

Apologies for light blogging; I`ve had a flareup of tendonitis in my left arm and need to stay off of the computer. :( Also, I`m heading to the Ritz Carlton of the Ozarks (aka my cabin) for some smoke inhalation, bad food, and the chance to be attacked by stinging or biting creatures.

See you on Monday!

Grim Reaper Sporting a Turban

Christopher Orlet outlines the grim fact that America seems to have accepted a nuclear Iran, and that every other jack-booted thug and tinhorn dictator will want to follow suit.

The Iran problem is long past crisis stage, and America`s options have dwindled away. I have always advocated a Contra-style solution; use money, technical expertise, equipment to foment revolution. The Iranian people are sick of the Mullah-ocracy anyway, and American aid would allow them to do what they want to do. Furthermore, the ``insurgency`` in Iraq has been fostered and abetted by Iran and Syria, and a revolution in Iran would go a long way toward solving our problems in Babylon. Unfortunately, we`ve waited too long.

As Mr. Orlet points out in his piece, Condi Rice is now calling for financial aid to Iranian dissidents. That is akin to a football team down by 14 points inside of the two minute warning and trying to use their fullback to advance the ball-completely idiotic! Of course, Condi may be trying to throw the Mullahs off our scent...

It is clear we have dropped the ball (to continue with the football analogy) in this whole Iranian nuke business, and we may pay dearrrllllyyyy for that! Iran will proliferate, no question about that. They will assist any enemy of the Great Satan and Israel to develope or otherwise possess these weapons-and someone will use them.

I wonder if the Democrats and the rest of the Axis of Weasle will wake up to the danger then?

Hybridizing Darwin

I`m afraid I`ve been neglecting my Darwinist readers; a thousand apologies!

Patrick O`Hannigan at The Paragraph Farmer has a little piece which links to Michael Behe; you guys may want to check it out! I`ll jump in if I have time (I`m keeping rather busy right now.)

Enjoy

Ayatollya So, Says Carter

Jimmy Carter, the man who, when told that the Shah of Iran needed assistance, proclaimed ``F*** the Shah!`` (that is a direct quote) and allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to seize power, then seize our embassy, has graced us with his beneficient wisdom:

"The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists. My belief is that the president and his secretary of state, the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government or organization to manage their ports. I don't think there's any particular threat to our security... I've been to Dubai, and I've seen the remarkable port facilities they have there, perhaps the best in the world."

Remember what Jimmy recently said about the electoral victory of Hamas in Palestine. Remember Carter`s cozy relationship with Arafat. Remember that Carter was very friendly with Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and that he fought against President Reagan`s efforts to oust the communists. Remember that Carter`s group ``verified`` the overwhelming election of the Sandanistas when they first took power.

If the killer-rabbit fighting, malaise contending, friend of every jackbooted thug Carter thinks it`s a good idea, my own doubts about the wisdom of this deal are greatly increased.

A Portly Problem

The President has a weighty problem; his plan to hand over management of a number of U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates has run up against hefty opposition-both from his own party as well as the Democrats. Many are accusing the President of being fat-headed (some of the Democrats would like to paunch him in the breadbasket)in entrusting control of shipping into American waters to an Arab, Islamic country. I`ve held my peace on this until the facts are in, and will continue to reserve judgement-to a point. I would just like to make some observations, based on my own particular view of things.

The President is probably looking at it from the standpoint of free trade; Bush is a great believer in free trade and international cooperation (one could say he is an internationalist)and, I suspect, he views this issue through the same prism he views the boarder issue; why shouldn`t a foreign country get the job if they come in with the best bid? (Why shouldn`t illegal aliens get jobs if they are willing to work for what U.S. employers want to pay?) Furthermore, giving an Arab nation this contract would show our goodwill and bonhomme to the Arab world, would show that we hold no racial or religious bias. Bush assumes, I am sure, that DHS will make certain that any cargo coming into the United States is safe, and that nobody will be getting off of those ships who shouldn`t be.

The President is, unfortunately, a product of his childhood environment, and George Herbert Walker Bush (his father) was a member of the country club Republican set; he believed in internationalism, the promotion of business interests, the correctness of governance by an insider elite, etc. (My own grandfather was such a Republican.) George W. has always worked with foreign investors, especially Arabs (according to Peter Bergen in his book ``Holy War, Inc.`` Arbusto, Bush`s oil company, was originally financed by the Bin-Laden family.) That Bush Sr. changed his tune after becoming Vice President to Reagan does not cancel out these earlier influences. I suspect the President is bewildered by this opposition.

On the opposite side, the arguments are many; how can DHS control what the UAE does with the ports, when most cargo goes uninspected now? Why is it necessary to put an Arab country in charge of U.S. ports, when it is clear there must be Americans (or at least Westerners) who would be just as capable? Can we risk it, even if the UAE honestly tries to act in our best interest? etc.

National security issues aside, I question the wisdom of hiring foreign companies to run basic American infrastructure. I am a believer in free trade, but I think that should not extend to management of our own internal affairs. Transportation systems, utilities, military defense, etc. should remain in American hands, and I`m willing to pay more to keep them that way. I am certain that, somewhere in this great land, there are people who could do a BETTER job than some arab conglomerate.

This is akin to hiring a Mexican company to run border security; they may actually TRY to do it but will probably not do it well. (I`m sorry I mentioned that; the President will probably propose this scheme now!) How about selling Pan Am, or Amtrac to Hugo Chavez? Some things should be done by Americans.

Part of the problems with the later Roman Empire stemmed from their farming out such services to outsiders. The Romans used Germans as border guards, for instance, and the Germans let every distant relative and friend into the Empire. This business is reminiscent of that.

In fact, we needed to tighten the security of our ports, and this proposal will do just the opposite.

Politically, this is turning into another disaster for the President. I hate to say it, but President Bush and his administration is dragging the Republicans and, by extension, the Conservatives down. He continually makes these bone-headed mistakes, continues to drive reasonable people away from his party. If the Democrats had anything going at all, the Republicans would be toast in the next election. Fortunately for the President (who would be impeached, otherwise) they have nothing to offer but lunacy and Bush-hatred. Still, the Republican base is not very happy, and the party will suffer for the President`s errors.

On the other hand, this has taken Dick Cheney`s attempt to asassinate a fellow hunter off the front page! This could be the Administration`s cleverest ploy yet!

If Bush had any sound basis for this decision, he needs to come out with it now.

Saddam, Sudan, and Osama

Ray Robinson, a former member of the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) presents us with solid evidence of links between Al Quada and Saddam Hussein at the American Thinker.

Here is a point of interest:

The document is from the IIS and details plans to meet with an official from the “Egyptian Al-Jehad” via a Sudanese official named Ali Othman Taha. He is called the Vice Chairman of the Islamic Front in Sudan in the memo.

I looked up Ali Othman Taha on wikipedia and it says that he is the Vice President of Sudan.
Who or what is the Egyptian al-Jehad (jihad)?

Egyptian Islamic extremist group active since the late 1970s. Merged with Bin Ladin’s al-Qaida organization in June 2001, but may retain some capability to conduct independent operations. Continues to suffer setbacks worldwide, especially after 11 September attacks. Primary goals are to overthrow the Egyptian Government and replace it with an Islamic state and attack US and Israeli interests in Egypt and abroad.

Okay now we know the Egyptian al Jihad is also known as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a name you may have heard in connection to its leader

This is Al-Zawahiri`s group, which merged with Al Quada!

The EIJ is neck deep in al-Qaeda. And this documents shows an EIJ official to be escorted to Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1993.

In short, Saddam met with Al Zawahiri back in `93, through the mediation of the Sudanese. (Remember, Bin-Laden was living in the Sudan in `93.)

Interesting, no?

The Sudanese have been in this since the beginning.

A while back, the incomparable Jed Babbin wrote this piece arguing against any U.S. intervention in the Darfur crisis, claiming that we had no national interests in the Sudan. I wrote in response that we shouldn`t miss this opportunity to deal with the Khartoum Jihadists:

Re: Jed Babbin's Carterism, Janjaweed, and Lemonade:

Jeb Babbin is correct about our not having an immediate national interest in the Sudanese genocide, but he is wrong about our not having an interest in intervening in the Sudan. The Sudan holds the southern flank of the Jihadists, and this gives us a perfect opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. I agree, we SHOULD bring the U.N. into the picture (or, better yet, NATO) but we should see that regime change occurs, and that the Arab World understands that this is both an action against genocide AND a part of the War on Terror. The Sudanese couldn't have given us a better chance at a free punch.

The trick is to get in and out quickly. We need to bring the World Community (in the nuanced words of Kerry) in for the occupation. It is about time the U.N. earned the money we have paid them for decades! Maybe we should send Jimmy Carter on a fact-finding mission. We could finally have some use for the old guy! It would be hard for the U.N., or the people from Not In Our Names, to argue against this one.

This is Geopolitics at its finest. Secure the southern front! This is a large part of why we went into Iraq-Mesopotamia is a flat plain bisecting the Arab World. It was the logical spot to attack. A terrorist sponsor with weapons of mass destruction (I know!) and an existing state of war, with flat, easily invaded terrain right through the middle of Jihadistan! The Sudan is more of the same (without the WMD). The terrorist sponsor in East Africa who gives refuge to our enemies (although they offered Clinton Bin-Laden) We now have a chance to secure the southern rim! I say go for it! This will protect the entire region! It will also be a politically viable way to fight the War on Terror with a minimum of U.S. effort. We couldn't have asked for a better opportunity!
-- Timothy Birdnow
St. Louis, Missouri

Mr. Babbin Replied:


Dear Mr. Birdnow: I couldn't disagree more. Secure the southern flank by getting in and getting out quickly? Get NATO and the UN in to help? Both of your fundamental arguments are profoundly wrong. As I said in the article, you can't get in and out quickly and have any hope of imposing any sort of change. Once you leave, things will return to where they are now, albeit with a different bunch of thugs in charge. NATO is fully occupied in Afghanistan and lacks the ability to do more. The UN, if it chooses, can do what needs to be done in Darfur. And one more point: Iran, Syria and - soon - Egypt are and must be our priorities. We can't run down every rabbit trail that opens before us. We need to keep our eye on the main enemy. Sudan just ain't on the list. Best, Jed.

I pointed out to Mr. Babbin that, even if we can`t reform politics in the Sudan, at least we can ensure that the thugs in charge are OUR thugs, and not on the side of the Jihadists. I further pointed out that the African League would be more than willing to act, but that nothing was going to happen without American leadership. The Sudan sits on the Egyptians doorstep, and we can`t hope to secure Egypt without securing her Jihadist neighbor. (Sorry, I can`t find my e-mails.)

Jed responded:

Tim: It's a pleasure to argue with you. But argue I shall.

I still can't agree that we should spend American lives just to replace one bunch of jihadist scum with another. The trust between the soldier and the President is violated by such feckless adventures. Please read the "Defeat of Task Force Ranger" section in my book. I quote a former SEAL, a pal of mine, who landed in Mogadishu the day after "Blackhawk Down." He said it much better than I ever could.

Iran is a tough nut to crack. Air strikes are the beginning, and energetic covert ops at the same time. We can't wait for a rebellion; these guys are on the verge of having nukes.

I'm not interested in securing or stabilizing Syria and Lebanon. They are secure and stable now. What we need to do is to destabilize them, and make sure the terrorists have no sanctuary there. Beyond that, it's not our problem.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Not only do I contest the idea that doing anything in Sudan is going to be productive, you seem to discount the first area of disagreement. You can't get in and out quickly there and hope to have any sort of permanent change. As to Iran, to invade it would be very tough. That's not at all what I propose. I propose to use whatever weapons are necessary -- and I know the ones I'm thinking of are deliverable by the B-2 -- destroy their nuke program, and never let an American boot hit the ground. Let the Iranians sort it out from there. As to Syria, I agree we'd also have to take on Lebanon. Both are a weekend job. As to our being accused for doing it for Israel, who the hell cares? Maybe, on the other hand, we should do it WITH Israel. Cheers, Jed.

Now we know that the Sudanese have had their hands in this from the beginning. President Bashir has always been a would-be Saddam, and he would love to support Jihad. His problem has been the nagging rebellion which tied up his forces and kept him from consolidating his power. I believed then, and I still believe now, that we may regret leaving his junta in power. We had a chance to strike a blow against terrorism, and with popular and international support. We had a ready-made revolution waiting in the wings, we had French troops in Chad, we had the African League. The Sudan does not have Jihad supporting neighbors like Iraq, it is far less developed economically. The U.N. was actually begging us to take the lead; if they then weren`t on board we could have pulled the plug.

Instead, we went on the defensive in Iraq, with the resulting morass. Momentum is important in war, as in many sports, and we gave ours up in the interest of consolidation.

The worst acts in Darfur have quieted, but the problem is far from resolved. We may yet regret our inaction.

Brazil Threatens to Go Nuclear

Now Brazil may be developing nuclear weapons.

Granted, Brazil is a not-unfriendly nation, still, the more countries who have them, the greater the danger of one of these weapons falling into the wrong hands. Brazil hardly needs nukes (unless they fear they may need them against Chavez). The Brazilians would do well to spend their defense money in other, more fruitful areas.

Dr. Rice and company should push hard against this.

CPAC and the Big Tent

Don Feder is upset that Islamists and Soros-funded advocates of drug legalization were allowed into the CPAC conference this year.

He`s got a point; Ann Coulter`s remarks would have caused far less trouble had there been no Moslems present, and ANYTHING involving Soros should not be allowed into our midst. What`s next? A Moveon.ogr booth?

Presidential Wisdom

Presidential wisdom is highlighted by Alan Dowd at National Review Online.

The Nose of the Camel

BobG over at Sweet Spirits of Ammonia tells of Saudi Arabian demands for the curtailing of freedom of speech in the West.

How long before the rest of the camel is in the tent?

A Fowl Approach to Reporting

The Federalist reminds us of the galling double standard our intrepid mainstream media holds:

Tony Blankley writes of the week's top stories: "In the absence of any pressing news these days—other than Iran's nuclear-weapons development crisis, the election of Hamas terrorists in Palestine, ongoing worldwide Muslim riots and killing in reaction to a cartoon, Al Gore's near sedition while speaking in Saudi Arabia, the turning over of our East Coast ports to be managed by a United Arab Emirates firm, the criminal leaking of vital NSA secrets to The New York Times, Mexican military incursions across our southern border, the Iraqi crisis, Congress's refusal to deal with the developing financial collapse of Social Security and Medicare, inter alia—the White House press corps has exploded in righteous fury over the question of the vice president's little shooting party last weekend."

They are outraged that Dick Cheney was too busy making sure his hunting buddy, Harry Whittington, was okay to contact the White House press corps (though the local media was given the whole story). Apparently, they think 911 should have been Mr. Cheney's second call.

Of course, the press has been more patient about notification about accidents involving certain past administrations. For example, you may recall that a month after 9/11, a former White House Co-President, Ms. Hillary Clinton, was a party to a hit-and-run. Senator Clinton was in a hurry to get to her local Westchester County, N.Y., airport on her way to a fundraiser—such a hurry in fact that her driver refused to stop at a security checkpoint at the airport entrance, running down a police officer and dragging him some 300 feet beyond the checkpoint before stopping.

The victim, officer Ernest Dymond, said, "I didn't know if we had a terrorist," and expressed his considerable dismay that neither Senator Clinton nor anyone from her office bothered to contact him in the hospital to check on his condition, much less apologize.

Mr. Cheney, on the other hand, spent most of the last week ensuring that Harry Whittington was getting the best care possible—obviously far more concerned for the welfare of his friend than the feelings of the press elite.

We've heard that, upon being greeted by his wife at the hospital, Mr. Whittington, a devoted fan of Ronald Reagan, said, "Honey, I forgot to duck." He is expected to make a full recovery.

No word yet from PETA on the condition of the quail.

Greens Land

Think Greenland is losing her glaciers due to Global Warming? Think Again.

Just more proof that the purveyors of this particular junk science will manipulate data as they see fit to panic America and the World into hysterical action. This is the hallmark of confidence men and demogogues.

I am reminded of ``Professor`` Harold Hill from the Music Man;

``Yes, we got trouble folks! Right here in River City!``

And they, like our Music Man, have the answers to our crisis!

Oily To Bed and Oily To Rise

Mark Hutchinson, writing in TAS this morning, has a piece which complements my post Oils Well That Ends Well; he argues that the alternative-energy policies enunciated by President Bush are more lip service than real policy. He points out that the President never spoke of purchasing cheap sugar from Brazil, where it has been used to augment gasoline for years.

He states;

There's a reason for the absence of sugar-cane from Bush's speech: the demands of domestic U.S. politics. Sugar-cane growers in the Caribbean and South America are unlikely to provide significant campaign contributions, so are not a favored class. Indeed, sugar imports to the United States are currently regulated by the "Global Refined Tariff Rate Sugar" program, which prevents significant competition to coddled domestic sugar producers. Needless to say, domestic sugar producers are major campaign contributors, particularly in the key state of Florida.

This set me to thinking (which is such a novel experience I marveled at it for minutes); sugar cane grows as far north as Missouri. Why shouldn`t America increase sugar production for fuel use? Furthermore, sugar cane is not the only source of sugar; in Europe sugar is extracted from beets, and there is no reason why sugar beets can`t be grown here in abundance. Perhaps it`s time for a sugar-beet industry to sprout in the heartland!

It`s simply too expensive to make alcohol from midwest grain. Essentially, one must make beer first, then distill it to alcohol. This is a two-step process in that the starches in the grain must be converted to sugars, then the sugars must be fermented to alcohol (I used to be a homebrewer, and dabble in winemaking now.) The final alcohol levels are considerably lower than one would obtain from grapes (which contain considerable amounts-22% or so-of sugar as compared to the 10% or so obtained from malt) and far below what is easily obtainable from sugarcane. I`m not sure how much sugar comes from beets, but I`m certain that it is considerably more than is obtained from the starch-conversion process.

Also, don`t forget trees; many maple trees may not make suitable syrup, but could potentially be used for sugar production (Vermont RUM is some of the best in the World, and it is made from Vermont maple sugar). Also, native Americans used Birch trees for sugar production, in addition to Maples. I don`t know how practical this would be, but it would be renewable and means the planting of more trees, which should make the Enviro-Mentals happy...

Of course, my objection to alcohol as fuel remain; alcohol produces considerably less energy than gasoline, and that means you would have to fill up more frequently (or have a larger tank). Still, if it were cheap enough, people wouldn`t mind having to pump more fuel in their cars. It ultimately is a cost/benefit ratio; is it worth doing compared to the difficulties and price?

Furthermore, I`m not sure we will successfully defund the oil kingdoms of the middle-east. China will simply get gas cheaper, which could hurt us in the long run. Also, oil is the only thing keeping Russia afloat. What will happen if their economy collapses as a result of decreased oil production?

Still, it is sensible to reduce OUR dependency on our enemies for fuel. I just don`t know how useful government financing of this idea will be.

Putin It To Us

There is a good analysis at Tech Central Station of Russia`s rising international strength and the trouble they are wreaking on U.S. policies in Central Asia and elsewhere.

Comrad Putin and his Dancing Teeth are trying to re-tyrannize Russia and return the Great Bear to her former bedeviling glory-at America`s expense. Putin seems to think that a statesmanlike policy is to imitate the French by finding new ways to scr, er, undermine the United States. This, to Putinoccio, is the path to national greatness. That he is making the world a more dangerous place and is endangering Russian national security seems lost on our man-who-would-be-king, and his government is ignoring the great dangers Russia faces-such as depopulation, illegal immigration, Islamification of traditional Russian areas, Iran, etc. He, like the Democrats and the mainstream press, thinks that the Bush administration is the real danger to the world; he`s been reading too much Time.

The problem is, we NEED Russia. We need a free, prosperous Russian ally. Putin seems determined to reinstall the old order under a new, corporate face. He, and indeed much of Russia in general, doesn`t understand the importance of civil liberties, the Rule of Law, and free-market economics. Russia seems incapable of embracing a decentralized system; they have endured too many centuries under a dictatorship. We could help them learn-if they would only be willing to listen.

We need to get Russia to engage. IF we could find a way to bring them on board in a real solution to Iran, that might get them to see us as partners. The problem is Putin is too interested in sticking it to us. Also, Iran is a lot closer to Russia then to America; Putin may think Dhimmitude is safer than defense.

We need to take steps to get Russia to be Putin him out to pasture; perhaps we can funnel money to the opposition to get someone else elected. Any way you look at it, we need a free, prosperous Russia as a bulwark against both the Chinese and Islam.

Someone in Washington really needs to take action.

Sharia and the Single Girl; Matchmaking for Mo

Since we`ve been on the subject of the Blue Fairie, my brother, after reading MoDo`s Feb. 7 column, decided to play cupid, and help poor Maureen with her faltering love-life.

She wrote:

DON`T TAKE ALL THAT CONSERVATION TALK TOO SERIOUSLY


The Saudi ambassador summoned me to the embassy last Thursday, across the street from the Watergate. He wanted to know if Americans were still addicted to oil. I assured him we were.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, the charming new envoy from the royal family, was confused about W.`s suddenly morphing into Ozone Man, as Poppy Bush called Al Gore in `92. At the State of the Union address at the Capitol Tuesday night, the prince watched with chagrin as the ex-Texas oilman urged breaking our dependence by replacing most Mideast oil imports with wood chips and ethanol, a word usually heard only quadrennially when pols pander during the Iowa caucuses.

The prince, dressed in long white robe and checkered headdress, explained that last fall, when Condi Rice was in Jiddah, the Saudis and the U.S. launched a ``strategic dialogue,``which included a promise by the Saudis to pump more oil. Now the President promises that the U.S. will need less oil.

Which way are the desert winds blowing?

I told the prince it was politics. W. is just mouthing conservation arguments to offset Americans` disgust at gas prices, teh obscene profits of Exxon Mobil and Halliburton and a conflict in Iraq that Rummy now gallingly dubs ``the long war.`` Shouldn`t it be ``the wrong war``?

Bush presidents, I told Prince Turki, sometimes say things without realizing that they are expected to acto on their words. I expressed some doubt that Cheney, the Duke of Halliburton who dismissed conservation as a ``personal virute``, would let W. go all ``Earth in the Balance.`` It`s not easy being green with smoggy Dick keeping a gimlet eye on you. The Saudi ambassador says he likes the vice-president.
After some Turkish coffee, some reminiscences about the time the religious police in Saudi Arabia almost threw me in a dungeon, some chat about Iraq-there are two possible outcomes, one good, one awful-and some mutual puzzlement about the administration`s lack of zeal in going after Osama bin-Laden, we parted.

I need no coat or sweater. It`s so warm this winter, we`ll soon have palm trees (the Saudi insignia) on the Potomac. A recent Washington Post story warned that global warming was progressing so fast that within decades, humans ``may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.`` Sounds like a plot for a thriller with Cheney as an enviro-villain, especially if you throw in that the Bush administration has been trying to gag NASA`s top climate scientist from issuing Cassandra bleats about global warming.

Conservatives were so gob-smacked by W.`s promise to have the government drum up nonpetroleum energy options-Robert Novak huffed that it not only violated GOP free-market philosophy, but it also had ``a lengthy pedigree of failure``-that the vice president had to swiftly lumber onto conservative radio shows to praise drilling and gas guzzling.

Asked by Rush Limbaugh if drilling in Alaska was now out, Cheney said:``no, it`s not off the table by any means. We`ll keep pushing it because we think it makes eminent good sense.``

Asked by Laura Ingraham if he agreed with Tom Friedman that the administration should impart pain with a gas tax, Cheney demurred, ``Well, I don`t agree with that.``

He said he and W. are ``big believers`` in the market and letting the market work, and that people ``make decisions for themselves in terms of what kind of vehicle they want to drive, and how often they want to fill up the tank, and from the perspective of individual American citizens, this notion that we have to `impose pain`, some kind of government mandate, I think we would resist.``

W.`s energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, clarified that the president`s words shouldn`t be taken literally. He said the aim of replacing 75 percent of Middle East oil imports with alternative fuels was ``purely an example`` of an action that could be taken.

Back in the Ford White House, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller pushed a plan to have the government help develope alternative energy sources and reduce our dependence on oil and Saudi Arabia. Dick Cheney helped scuttle it.

If he hadn`t, we would no longer be oil addicts. And Dick Cheney wouldn`t have to go to the trouble of scuttling a new plan to have the government help develop alternative sources of energy and reduce our dependence on oil and Saudi Arabia.


I would like to point out that this, like all of the Blue Fairie`s columns, was long on wind and empty of content. She tries to dazzle us with her own importance, since a ``prince`` has solicited her counsel. Isn`t our darling important! She moves on to Global Warming, and shows that she has no clue about what it is, how it works, or what the causes are. (I suppose she thinks using alcohol in automobile engines will solve the problem.) She then launches a diatribe against Bush and Cheney, without a sliver of fact in the entire assault.

Somebody, please explain how such a vacuous person has risen to such a place of prominence?

This from my brother:


Dear Maureen,
I sense from your column of February 7,2006 that you and the Saudi ambassador, Prince Turki al-Faisal, hit it off famously when you met for the first time. I dare say that your column fairly reeked of romance and a woman with a crush on the Arab Turkey! Given your now famous lament that you can't find a husband because you are so intelligent, so successful, so sophisticated and so humble, I believe that this chance meeting offers unlimited possibilities. Imagine, if you will: A man who is much wealthier that you ever thought you could be, a man nearly as successful as your self, certainly an intelligent man and a cosmopolite who is as sophisticated as you are! What are you waiting for? Yes, Muslim men do sometimes seem rather sexist and chauvanistic, but if you put that behind you and try to make this thing work, the two of you might be very happy together...if not...well that business about Muslims cutting off the heads of those who have displeased them is a lot of vast right wing conspiracy scare-mongering...isn't it?

With Kindest Regards,
Brian E. Birdnow


He is, of course, absolutely correct; The Blue Fairie would quickly change her tune if she were forced under Sharia Law. The fact is, women are PROPERTY under Islamic Law, and an uppity woman like Mo would find herself on the fast track to an ear-to-ear haircut. That such a woman as Maureen Dowd attacks the very policies which keep her from being buried under a Burkha (or under the good earth) illustrates the insanity which has gripped the entire Left. Their hatred of George W. Bush and company leads them to support the very people who would crush their freedoms. If they think Ashcroft was a religious zealot...

This is symptomatic of the modern era; liberals have lived in a society which has been so kind to them, so tolerant of any crackpot idea, that they can`t believe in real enemies, in the uncomfortable fact that there are people who are deadly serious about killing them. The only enemies most liberals see are political opponents. This is a sure sign of societal decay; we can`t pull together against a common enemy in time of war.

Great societies aren`t conquered from without but collapse from within. Maureen Dowd is a bellweather of this decay in modern America.

False Democratic Rumors

Our friend Tom Joseph sends the latest on Cheney`s hunting accident:


False Democratic Rumors



Unfortunately, some unscrupulous Democratic leaders have tried to take advantage of Vice President Cheney's sad and tragic accidental shooting of a member of his hunting party. Since this amounts to more than half of the Democratic leadership, it seems reasonable to dispel most of their vicious rumors.



1.) After the accident, the Vice President did not say, "That's enough practice" and then promptly invite Senators Harry Reid, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy and Representative Nancy Pelosi to his next Texas' shooting. There is, however, still hope.

2.) When a member of the Secret Service pointed out that he had just shot an attorney, Cheney did not respond with, "One down, one million to go."

3.) Contrary to a New York Thyme's report, Dan Rather did not sell his Texas ranch because he feared for his life. The copy of a deed that was emailed to the NYT has been proven to be a forgery by a 2nd grade child who identified the printing as Classical Sanskrit from approximately 500 BC ( 500 years before Christ).

4.) The Secret Service denied issuing a hunting advisory warning to Representatives Foxx, Gibbons and Otter; saying that such warnings were the responsibility of the FBI.

5.) Cheney has never invited former Vice President Quayle or Senator Byrd to a hunt. Everyone knows Quayle isn't a sporting man. And not even the Vice President can get Byrd to stop rambling on long enough to listen to an invitation.

6.) The joke about Cheney's doctors screwing up during surgery and installing a peacemaker instead of a pace maker did not necessarily come from Texas. Peacemakers were handguns used to kill varmints all over the West.

7.) When asked whether the Secret Service was concerned about someone shooting the Vice President under similar circumstances, the White House did not say it couldn't be a problem because other hunters were only allowed to point their fingers and shout bang.

8.) Since most Democrats know very little about guns, relax, the ammunition was birdshot, not Byrd shot. And no, you can't label shot guns as assault weapons unless you want to be assaulted big time at the polls.

9.) Vice President Cheney was not testing a new Republican method for campaign contributions. This is an old Democratic method that has been used in many major cities.

The Broken Heart of Maureen Dowd (A Blue Fairie Retrospective)

Valentine`s day wouldn`t be complete without poking some fun at our favorite lonely heart-Maureen Dowd!

For new readers of Birdblog, I refer to MoDo as The Blue Fairie because she is eternally unhappy (blue), the National Review once referred to her as a fairy or pixie because her columns lack substance, she is the ultimate ``Blue Stater`` and, like her namesake, is trying to breath life into an inanimate object (the Democratic Party, and, especially during the 2000 election, Al Gore.)

I miss my old darling; she was the source of much jocularity back when her columns were free for the picking. It`s too bad the killjoys at the New York Times tired of conservatives poking fun at their columnists...


From the Archives:


Boo Hoo From The Blue Fairie

Our favorite AAA battery charged intellect, Maureen Dowd, spends her latest column crying about how men don`t seem to want to get involved with firebrand feminists and testosterone injected female career types. I came across this and was going to comment on it at length, but Rush Limbaugh beat me to it on his show, so I shall endeavor to make just a few observations about the Blue Fairie and her hapless love life. http://nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html

It seems our blue state gal is feeling a bit bluer than usual, and it`s all because she can`t find a fella who is willing to undergo surgery to remove his gonads. She rails against this fact, saying men are looking for mommies to take care of them. The Dowdy one just always seems to miss the point; nobody wants to marry their rival. Feminism has pushed the idea into these naive young ``ladies`` that they are to compete with men, that they are to scorn men, that they are to butt their way forward like goats to feed at the career trough. Any man who becomes involved romantically with a feminist like MoDo will either be engaged in a constant struggle of wills with his darling dearest, or will have to detach certain dangling body parts for his overlord. Neither option is particularly pleasant. Our poor sap will spend his life competing with his lover, and will be hated and reviled for it, or he will have to waive his tidy-whities in surrender and face the scorn and contempt which will be his. Feminists spend their days belittling and scorning men, then are surprised that men don`t care to keep company with them.

Here lies the terrible conundrum for our Blue friend; no woman would have any respect for a man who allows himself to be the doormat under her Blue State Shoes, while she will hate him if he refuses to knuckle under. Feminism has told these women to assert their ``rights`` and to be ``strong``. These are the exact opposite qualities necessary for a healthy and loving relationship. A giving spirit and a serving nature are key attributes in the success of any marriage or long-term commitment; and this applies to both woman and men. Real love, as opposed to lust or infatuation, means giving and serving, and forgiveness (feminists are notoriously short on forgiveness). There is no love without these.

These are concepts which go right over the heads of feminist career types. Maureen moans about men marrying their caregivers or service personnel. She complains that these men are looking for women to be, in essence, kind to them. She is completely without a clue; if she had a half a brain she would be looking for men to be kind to her. That she can`t find one suggests that the fault, dear Brutus, is not in her stars but in herself. Feminism has made her incapable of seeing the log in her own eye while she peers desperately into her red state brothers eyes for a speck.

Poor Maureen. She will never be happy. The more she looks for a red-blooded man, the bluer she becomes. The bluer she becomes, the angrier she becomes, which reinforces her jiffy half-baked worldview, which makes her more and more unhappy. She is trapped in an endless cycle of anger, despair, and loss. She, like so many other women, took a wrong turn down a cul-de-sac from which she cannot escape because she will be forced to reject the choices she made in her youth. Feminism has destroyed Maureen Dowd.

The Real Valentine`s Day

(From the Archives)



The Real Valentine`s Day

Happy Valentine`s Day to all!

St. Valentine was a third century man imprisoned by the Romans for the terrible crime of being a Christian. One of his jailors came to respect him (since he was an intelligent and educated man) and asked Valentine if he would have regular visits with his daughter for the purpose of teaching her. Valentine became fast friends with the girl, and wrote her letters signed YOUR VALENTINE. The legend was born after Valentine was executed on February 14, 296.

I hope that makes you all appreciate the holiday a little more; it is more than just a greeting card company holiday!


Regards,

Tim

P.S.
(My wife chucked me in favor of our cat for her valentine this year-I guess I`ve been married too long!)

Oil`s Well that Ends Well

Jerome Corsi, writing in Human Events, takes the President to task for his Carteresque vision of alternative energy. If you remember, President Peanut scolded Americans for our profligate use of energy-particularly oil, and demanded we use less. (He then complained that the Country was in a malaise when the economy tanked after everybody cut back on energy usage.)

President Bush seems to be on the same track as the sweater-wearer; he wants to shove billions of taxpayer dollars down the rathole of alternative energy. There are reasons why alternative energy has failed in America.

Oil produces far more energy than alcohol, and requires less energy to process than hydrogen. Alcohol (Henry Ford wanted to use alcohol in cars) has an energy output considerably lower than gasoline, which is why it can be used in racecars and rockets; it won`t explode as easily, so MORE can be pumped into a high-performance vehicle. This is a matter of octane. Higher octane rates mean slower burn rates, which mean better performance at the expense of fuel consumption. (Lead used to be added to gasoline to raise the octane, now alcohol is often the ingredient in higher octane fuels.) Since alcohol is so much less energetic than gas, much more is required to travel the same distances. We are going to need a LOT of alcohol to run our cars, which will increase price. Alcohol in gasoline already raises the price-except in Iowa and other grain-producing states which subsidize the industry. Hydrogen, on the other hand, produces more energy than gasoline, but has to be produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the energy expenditures required are prohibitive. It takes as much energy to split the water molecule as the driver will get back when he burns his fuel. Also, hydrogen has a low octane (because it is so energetic) and safety is a factor. We could get around both of these in time, but it would require developing more electrical resources (ideally nuclear) for processing, and we need better safety technology. Why would this happen when oil is clearly a superior fuel for our purposes?

Increasing energy efficiency is not a practical idea because of basic physics; the principle method will be to reduce the mass of vehicles. (This was done in the `70`s by American automakers, and it nearly wrecked the industry.) Computer technology allowed the construction of more efficient vehicles during the `80`s, but that trick has already been used. Granted, hybrid vehicles offer higher fuel efficiency, but the cost of replacing the batteries is going to tank hybrid sales.

In terms of large scale energy production, the President dodged nuclear and mentioned better coal-burning technology. We actually developed that; Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generators were invented by rocket scientists, and they use plasma blasted through a fixed rocket engine to break a magnetic field and generate power. The plasma is seeded with metal shavings to generate current, and the system is far more efficient than traditional mechanical generators, since there are no moving parts. The energy for the system comes from coal, and it can be the dirtiest coal around since mechanical scrubbers are installed to remove the metal shavings from the plasma anyway. We never built more than a prototype, but the technology is still lying around and we should press forward with it. We definitely need more nuclear.

The problem is that the environmentalists fight these large-scale energy methods. Remember the power blackouts in California? That happened because California didn`t have enough generating capacity. Environmentalists fight to prevent building new systems, because they want us to scale back on our energy usage. They block building new oil refineries for the same reason. (How will we generate the power needed to produce hydrogen for our cars without new, high powered generators?) I can`t see nuclear or MHD systems in our near future.

Wind and solar are toys, and we have been playing with them since the `70`s without any measurable success. Part of the problem in California was that they wanted to follow this ``soft`` path, and they threw their backing to energy systems which generate watts rather than Gigawatts with the result that generating capacity dropped precipitously. Furthermore, to produce power at commercial levels you have to have giant windfarms or solar panels, and these disturb the ecology as much as any conventional energy system.

The reality is that we are going to have an oil-based economy for a long time to come. The free market does, and should, dictate energy policy, and there are good reasons why these alternative fuels haven`t caught on. Throwing massive amounts of government money and instituting draconian regulation will not solve this problem.

The question arises; why should we want to move beyond an oil-based economy? China is using more oil all of the time, and could well replace the United States as a gross importer of Middle-Eastern oil. If the U.S. leaves this market, the Chinese and developing nations will be able to buy oil cheaper, and their economies will grow faster as a result. Middle-Eastern oil exporters will not find themselves any poorer, and oil-based economies will find themselves in better shape. I don`t think that we will accomplish much in terms of defunding Al-Quada and the other terrorist organizations by cutting back on consumption.

What we need to do is increase our oil supply here at home. We have the means of doing this. We need to develope our oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of California, in Anwar and Alaska. Canada has a huge reserve of oil locked up in tar fields-we need to develope this. I`m not saying we shouldn`t keep our options open in regards to alternative fuel supplies, I`m saying we can`t rely on a government-driven movement to replace oil.

Like it or not, oil will remain king in the forseeable future. We need to find ways for it to serve us, and not our enemies.

Some Art More Equal Than Others

Rich Lowery argues that the New York Times and other proprietors of the Kulturesmog have lost their taste for defending avante guarde artwork in the Danish cartoon imbroglio.

It seems art offensive to Christians is acceptable, but art offensive to Moslems must be suppressed. As in the old Soviet days, some are more equal than others.

Advocacy

More on the gay agenda in our schools.

Crime Spree

Bonnie Blue Flag sent me this; I thought it was worth posting-even if many have already seen it:


I haven't checked these figures personally, but here is what I received this afternoon. I may have seen this before, so I don't know the age of these figures either.



Is it the NFL or is it the NBA?


36 have been accused of spousal abuse


7 have been arrested for fraud


19 have been accused of writing bad checks


117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses


3 have done time for assault


71, I repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit


14 have been arrested on drug-related charges


8 have been arrested for shoplifting


21 currently are defendants in lawsuits. and


84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year



Can you guess which organization this is?


Give up yet? . . Scroll down, citizen!






It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.


The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

More on Global Warming

Tom Joseph, American Thinker contributer and proprietor of Thinking Democrat sent me this e-mail in regards to my post Global Warming and Lost Faith:


Hi Tim,

Nice retort. You included almost all the stuff I would have; especially the increase in temperatures on Mars. I've been waiting for the global warming fanatical fantasizers to find a way to blame that on our omissions and propose a solar system protocol to eliminate the effects of civilization on the solar system. Obviously, it's against the natural order of things to land on Mars, let along let those hazardous machines trample all over the pristeen environment.

If memory serves, these idiots used one of their models to project an unbelievable disaster when Sad-damn threatened to blow up Kuwait's oil wells during Gulf War One under Bush 41. I think they used an example of 50 oil wells on fire for their Linus dark cloud scientific projection. Funny thing, the number of wells on fire exceeded 15 times their number while the result didn't even begin to approach their doomsday warning.

Newsweek, which was happy to print their propaganda, didn't bother to write an article on how badly they missed the mark. Bear in mind, we are talking a culminating effect. That means the mistake was larger than the difference between 50 and 750. It was a mathematically huge mistake.

It would be nice if there was a global warming predictions site that listed all the wonderful predictions over the past 5 decades and the results to date. Some people think they are never wrong. But how can other people never be right?

tom

I had completely forgotten about that business with the oil wells. Tom is right; they were predicting the Apocalypse when Saddam torched those wells. Didn`t happen.

By the way, check out Tom`s piece on Senator Corzine at Thinking Democrat; he does a fine job of taking him to task.

Also, National Review had an
article by Iain Murray a couple of days ago which really lambasted the Evangelicals for this Global Warming nonsense.

I would like to make a final point; there are scientists who disagree with Kyoto and the Global Warming mantra-many of them. The usual response from the Left is to slander these scientists. They claim they aren`t ``really`` scientists, and that they are paid propogandists for the oil industry.

I, in turn, always point out that the scientists who believe in global Warming are paid by government grants, which are generally apportioned based on dire pontification (how much government money is a guy going to receive if he comes back with nothing spectacular?) and from grants from left-wing foundations and environmentalist-sponsored think tanks. Invariably, the GW enthusiast goes into denial mode, trying to claim that their hands are clean, but the other side is dirty with oil money.

This is often the response of the loser of an argument; as Saul Alinski advised liberals in his seminole book ``Rules for Radical`` one should attack the motives of your opponents when the facts are against you.

David Hogberg, senior analyst at the Capitol Research Center, deals with this tactic here, and here. Also, you may want to check out Greenwatch.org for more from David on this issue.

I attack both the science AND the motives of those who advocate Global Warming. I think the GW people are 1.habitual alarmists 2.utopianists who believe the Earth can be turned into some kind of mythical lost paradise 3.socialists who want to damage our free market system or 4.bandwagoners who want to be thought of as intellectuals. Global Warming is the Cause-Celeb of the modern era, and it`s hip to worry over this nonsense. There is no credible reason to panic, and there is no credible reason to institute draconian measures. The warming (a whopping 1 degree) STILL puts average temperatures below the midieval warming period (by 1.5 to 2 degrees) and is easily explained by normal solar variations.

Often defenders of Global Warming start with the end of the mini-ice age as their baseline, on the assumption that the industrial age began then. The fact is, industrialization was probably spurred on by the cold weather, but the amount of CO2 being put in the air at that time was negligible. The real reason they use that as their baseline is because it shows a dramatic increase in temperature. It is the equivalent of claiming Missouri is in a terrible drought by using the Great Flood of `93 as your starting point. OF COURSE we are in a drought compared to that!

If there is any dishonesty in this issue, it`s on their side of the Aisle.

Man made climate change is a crock. It`s too bad those Evangelicals became caught up in it.

More On WMD`s

Jack Kelly has more on the fate of Saddam`s WMD`s in the Post-Gazette.

Here are a few tidbits:

Last March, John A. Shaw, a former U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said Russian Spetsnaz units moved WMD to Syria and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

"While in Iraq I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives," Mr. Shaw told NewsMax reporter Charles Smith.


In January 2004, David Kay, the first head of the Iraq Survey Group which conducted the search for Saddam's WMD, told a British newspaper there was evidence unspecified materials had been moved to Syria from Iraq shortly before the war.

"We know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program," Mr. Kay told the Sunday Telegraph.

Also that month, Nizar Nayuf, a Syrian journalist who defected to an undisclosed European country, told a Dutch newspaper he knew of three sites where Iraq's WMD was being kept. They were the town of al Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria; the Syrian air force base near the village of Tal Snan, and the city of Sjinsar on the border with Lebanon.

State of Darkness

Does any sensible person believe that Iran can be dealt with rationally? If so, disabuse yourself of that notion!

If Iran is willing to execute a teenage rape victim for defending herself, what else are they capable of?

Don`t Miss `Em

Hunter Baker has started a very lively exchange about Global Warming over at The Reform Club. You may want to check it out.

Also, TJ Willms takes President Malaise to task at Twisted Steel. Check this out, and check out all of Tom`s latest posts-they`ve been outstanding (as usual).

Raging Bull

"Burger King...withdrew its ice cream cones from its British menus because Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe complained that the creamy swirl shown on the lid looked like the word 'Allah' in Arabic script. I don't know which sura in the Koran says don't forget, folks, it's not just physical representations of God or the Prophet but also chocolate ice cream squiggly representations of the name, but ixnay on both just to be 'sensitive'."

—Mark Steyn

``Riots were touched off today protesting the release of a photograph taken by the Huygens space probe which allegedly showed a likeness of Muhammed wearing a hat made out of a chicken, appearing in a frozenchunk of methane on the surface of Titan. Leaders of the protest complained that space agency officials sent probes to Saturn and its` frozen moon to degrade and humiliate Muslims worldwide. In response to this provocation, rioters burned several cars in Paris, broke out the windows of a jewelry store in Vienna, and looted a liquor store in Northampton, England. Several injuries were reported.``

Timothy Birdnow

A Scorpion is a Scorpion

Ever heard the story about the scorpion which begged a ride across a river on a pig (or some such). After convincing the animal of its good intentions, it stung in midstream. Before they both drown, the pig asked the scorpion why; ``I`m a scorpion, it`s what I do.``


"She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!" Rev. Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, turning Coretta Scott King's funeral into a political rally

"It was difficult for [the Kings] personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated, and they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance." Jimmy Carter alluding to the current brouhaha about wiretapping, and conveniently omitting that it was JFK (the original) and RFK who wiretapped Martin Luther King


Thanks to The Federalist!

Global Warming and Lost Faith

This morning on AOL we were treated to a story about ``conservative`` Christian Evangelicals demanding that Bush act to stop Global Warming. Here is the text:


WASHINGTON (Feb. 9) - A group of 85 evangelical Christian leaders on Wednesday backed legislation opposed by the White House to cut carbon dioxide emissions, kicking off a campaign to mobilize religious conservatives to combat global warming.

The group which included mega-church pastors, Christian college presidents, religious broadcasters and writers, also unveiled a full-page advertisement to run in Thursday's New York Times and a television ad it hopes to screen nationally.

"With God's help, we can stop global warming for our kids, our world and our Lord," the television spot declared.

The campaign by evangelicals coincided with a call on Wednesday by a leading U.S. think tank for the United States to take immediate steps to fight global warming, including working with other nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Pew Center for Global Climate Change said in a report that America has waited too long to seriously tackle the climate change problem and spelled out 15 steps the United States could take to reduce emissions it spews as the world's biggest energy consumer and producer of greenhouse gases.

"This transition will not be easy, but it is crucial to begin now," the Pew Center said. "Further delay will only make the challenge before us more daunting and more costly."

The campaign by the evangelical leaders represented a possible split in President George W. Bush's political base, in which Christian evangelical voters are heavily represented.

However, the names of most of the president's most influential Christian political backers were notably absent from the list of signatories joining the campaign. Possibly the best-known signer was Rick Warren, author of the best-selling book, "The Purpose Driven Life."


Specifically, and mirroring a proposal by the Pew Foundation, the leaders called on Congress to pass laws to create a trading system that would spur companies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which scientists say is a major cause of global warming.

One such bill, The Climate Stewardship Act, first introduced in 2003 by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and Connecticut Democrat Sen. Joseph Lieberman, would require that U.S. emissions return to their 2000 levels by 2010.

The United States, with around 5 percent of the world's population, accounts for a quarter of its greenhouse gases and U.S. emissions rose by 2 percentage points in 2004 alone, according to government figures.

The McCain-Lieberman bill has failed to win passage twice in the Senate, although a majority there did adopt a non-binding resolution to cap emissions. The issue has not come up for a vote in the House of Representatives.

The Bush administration opposes imposing mandatory limits and backs voluntary efforts by companies. It has also refused to join the Kyoto Protocol, an international accord signed by the European Union, Japan and most other industrialized nations that sets hard targets for cutting emissions.

The Christian leaders said they were impelled by their faith to launch the campaign out of a growing realization that the threat of global warming was real and that the world's poor would suffer the most.

Paul de Vries, president of New York Divinity School, said: "However we treat the world, that's how we are treating Jesus because He is the cosmic glue."

The leaders said a poll they commissioned of 1,000 evangelical Protestants showed that two thirds were convinced global warming was taking place. Additionally, 63 percent said the United States must start to address the issue immediately and half said it must act even if there was a high economic cost.

The Pew Foundation also recommended boosting renewable fuel output and providing financial incentives to farmers to spur absorption of greenhouse gas emissions on farm lands.

U.S. government weather forecasters reported on Tuesday that the nation's January temperatures were the warmest on record, beating the average for the month by 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Two weeks ago NASA scientists confirmed that 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded worldwide.

Additional reporting by Tom Doggett


This is a peculiar stand to take. First off, Christians believe in the salvation of Christ-both spiritual and temporal-and there is nothing in the Bible which says Christians should fight Global Warming. Much more than Catholics, Evangelicals believe in the primacy of the Bible, of the literal truth of the Bible. Where is the part about Global Warming? Where is the commandment ``thou shalt cut back thy emissions to prevente the coming of the end``?

Secondly, as I have pointed out in the American Thinker and on this blog, we are reaching a peak in solar activity, reminiscent of the Mideval Warming Period. Bear in mind, Global temperatures were higher then than now. Wine grapes grew in England, Olives in Germany, etc. This warming period was caused by higher solar output, and the Sun has been on an upward curve since the end of the Maunder Minimum (which coincided with the Mini Ice Age)in the 18th Century.

Increases in Oceanic temperatures, while atmospheric temperatures have remained stable (or have slightly decreased) tend to bear this interpretation out; water holds head more readily, and increased radiation would make an increase in ocean temps first more likely. If greenhouse gases were the culprit, one would expect atmospheric temperatures to rise first.

The fact that Mars is warming at the same time is highly suggestive, no?

So, these Evangelicals want to fight a naturally occuring process. In short, they are trying to thwart the Will of God. This is being done, I`m sure, for political and P.R. reasons. Perhaps some of them have fallen for this particular con. Any way you slice it, they are advocating the establishment of Draconian measures to fight a problem that really doesn`t exist.

Environmentalism is the ultimate power grab; every human activity effects the environment. It is a doorway to the establishment of one world government-precisely the kind of government the Evangelicals fear. Perhaps the Anti-Christ is an environmentalist leader? Perhaps his reign will be instituted in the name of protecting the planet? Hmmm?

Remember, Evangelicals, Who is in control! (Hint: it`s not us!)


UPDATE: Iaian Murray deals with this superbly at National Review.

It`s Just a Thriller!

I just hope that his producers have the good sense not to let Michael use a choir of altar boys as backup!



Michael Jackson may sing late Pope's prayers
Mon Feb 6, 2006 12:54 PM ET
_
ROME (Reuters) - Pop star Michael Jackson could sing some of the prayers
written by the late Pope John Paul, the head of the music company coordinating
the project said on Monday.
Father Guise Moscati of the Edizioni Musicali Terzo Millennio, which
specializes in church music and organizes musical events at the Vatican, said his
company had the rights to 24 of Pope John Paul's prayers and wanted to put
together a group of international artists to set them to music.
"We have been contacted by people close to Michael Jackson who have expressed
interest and we are thinking about it," Moscati said.
He dismissed the recent controversy surrounding Jackson, who is living in
Bahrain after a Californian court acquitted him of child molestation charges
last June.
"He has been cleared of all charges," Moscati said.
"As a celebrity he is perhaps a bit remote from the teachings contained in
the Pope's prayers. But if he can help us put together a group of singers that
fulfil the criteria of the project then we'll study the proposal," he said.
Vatican deputy spokesman Father Ciro Benedettini said the Vatican was not
involved in the initiative.
The Catholic Church has been rocked by a U.S. priestly sexual abuse scandal
that began in Boston in 2002, when it emerged that priests who had abused
children and teenagers were transferred from parish to parish instead of being
defrocked.
Jackson, originally from Indiana, rose to fame as a child with his brothers
in the Jackson 5, and became one of the world's most successful singers.
"Thriller", from 1982, was one of the biggest-selling albums of all time.

Catholic Moral Decay

My friend 7lb. Dave sent me this piece about DePaul University instituting a ``queer studies`` program. I was certain it was a spoof, so I checked out the DePaul website. Sure enough, it`s on the curriculum!

The largest Catholic university in the United States has instituted a minor in ``transgender and queer studies``? I wonder if they are going to teach that this is a sin, according to Catholic doctrine? If not, what is the Vatican going to do about it?

Considering the pedophilia scandals in the Church, is a sympathetic study of perverse sexual behavior wise?

How long can Catholicism survive when those operating in its name flagrantly violate Church teachings?

Propoganda Mills

STL Scribe sent me this e-mail regarding mandatory student advisories in the Chicago school system. Apparently, taxpayer dollars are financing a pro-homosexual agenda for Chicago children without any regard to the wishes of the parents or those who finance the system:


I just learned that the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Student Network's (GLSSN) curriculum is being used in the mandatory student advisories that meet every hour of every day. Here is a sample from GLSSN's website:

Subject: Heterosexism alert
Calling all students and staff! Help GLSSN with a new resource of heterosexism by sharing your thoughts and experiences:
a. Is using the school bathroom a daily anxiety because neither "boys" nor "girls" match your gender identity/_expression?
b. Do the ...textbooks in your school erase your gay identity and history?

There were several more such questions. Here's a sampling from GLSSN publications:

Two Teenagers in Twenty. This book is a compilation of true first-person coming out stories written by teenagers. One 15 year old boy wrote: "I met this guy named Reggie, who was 23. I met him hanging out at the subway station...He spend the night with me a few times."

Be Yourself. This book is recommended by GLSSN. Here is a young man who is a cross-dresser and works as a prostitute in sado-masochism: "I've been doing drag for about 10 years, on and off..my fantasies were all about whipping. I started reading up on S/M, and it was making me interested in sex for the first time...I realized that, for what I was doing, I could be getting good money."

Rainbow Boys. On the shelf at your local public schools and recommended by GLSSN. Three 17 year old boys explore their homosexual attractions. The book features a scene where one of the teen boys has anal intercourse without a condom with a 29 year old man he has just met on the Internet.

GLSSN is in all Chicago public schools and have won the culture war there because conservatives don't push back. I am on a new panel of three people who are going to help push back; I'm looking for people willing to at least show up to meetings where typically we are outnumbered 100-1. I've been discouraged by the lack of courage on the part of conservatives.

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


This is an example of one of the most galling aspects of Liberalism; the Left will sneak something like this, something antithetical to Americans values and the beliefs of most citizens into schools without permission from parents or taxpayers, and will make the public support this financially. They will spit in our faces, use the force of law to compel our obedience and take our money. I wonder how many parents know that their children are being force-fed homosexual propoganda? I wonder what happens if they protest?

Remember, public schools were instituted because the law requires children be educated, and many parents could not afford to educate their children in private schools. This is, truly, a captive audience. Do schoolboards, does the State, have the right to instill values antithetical to those of the parents in children? Shouldn`t the parents have the final say?

This reminds me of the Hitler Youth, or of the propogandizing of children in communist countries. A cabal of busybody education gurus and beaurocrats believe that parents are barbaric throwbacks, and that THEY, the anointed, have the absolute right to ``re-educate`` these children, to mold them into the ``new man``. They can recreate the world in their own image, if they can ``reach`` enough of these young minds. This is social engineering at its foulest; it abrogates the most fundamental rights of parents to instill their values into their own children.

We see this all of the time in schools. Consider the environmentalist propoganda children are constantly bombarded with. A friend of mine pulled his daughter out of a school-run summer camp because of excessive environmentalism being taught to his child. Often, schools are forcing children write letters to the government protesting environmental destruction, or Global Warming, or the extinction of some cockroach. By what right do these teachers and administrators do this?

Is it any wonder that Johnnie can`t read, when so much of his class time is taken up by political causes and indoctrination?

Silly me, I thought the purpose of school was to teach, not to indoctrinate and corrupt.

Super Bowl lost in Ultima Thule

Our good friend Aussiegirl has written a critique of the Tepid Bowl, er, Super Bowl which says precisely what I should have said. She makes the case that this year`s game was lost ``in a distant, unknown, or mysterious land``. She has definitely scored a touchdown with this!

Check out the rest of her stuff; she has been on fire!

Nobility and Ingrates

Christopher Orlet reviews the book The Case for Goliath by Michael Mandelbaum.

Mandelbaum makes the case that our ``friends`` in Europe and elsewhere are really a bunch of freeloaders who use and malign the United States, while secretly being thankful America is here. He argues that America, like Rome, is a de-facto world government, and that if we ever tired of the ingratitude and disengaged ourselves, the world would be in dire trouble.

It`s an interesting piece.

Apologies for the Light Blogging

A thousand pardons for the light blogging; My wife and my mother both had birthdays, and Sunday was Super, so I fell a bit behind. (I`ve also seriously fallen behind on sleep, and am going to hit the sack as early as possible tonight.)

Speaking of Super Sundays, yesterday was one of the worst Superbowl games I`ve ever witnessed; it looked more like a couple of high school teams than the best the NFL has to offer. The Seahawks were abyssmal!

At any rate, I`m glad THAT`S over, so now I can get back to what`s important!

Alialioto

Robert Novak has an interesting analysis of the political ramifications of the Alito Confirmation:




Alito Confirmation: When John Kerry (D-Mass.) called from Davos to urge a Senate filibuster of Judge Samuel Alito he set himself up as the Left's White Knight. He also set up the Left for a huge disappointment. .

1) When the vote tally on cloture came down, it was a sign of how much things have changed in three years. In 2004, the votes on judicial filibusters were almost all party-line affairs, with the numbers coming up as 53-44, 54-44, et cetera. Monday's 72-25 vote in favor of cloture on Alito was a sound and unambiguous repudiation by Senate Democrats of the filibuster strategy that their leaders adopted after losing the 2002 elections.

2) The obstruction strategy was the brainchild of Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The two powerful Democrats had convinced former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) to lead the caucus in this direction. When Democrats held a tenuous and brief Senate majority between May 2001 and January 2003, they simply blocked Bush's judicial nominees in committee. But once they were back in the minority, they rallied with a series of successful filibusters against conservative circuit court nominees. Our analysis ever since has been that this strategy was politically disastrous, playing a huge part in Daschle's ouster and the net loss of six Senate seats over two elections.

3) Democrats' decision to break ranks on the Alito cloture vote was more than just the result of the tactical blunders their colleagues made in the Alito hearings, although they were critical as well. In the Judiciary Committee hearings, Democrats spent their time carping on ethics questions that proved trivial, and attempting to create the impression that Alito would give the executive branch free rein. They even created a new conspiracy theory by misrepresenting the constitutional principle of the so-called "unitary executive."

4) But the underlying problem was strategic. The Democrats' Senate dam showed signs of cracking when the "gang of 14" deal allowed some of Bush's judges to be confirmed last year. But in fact, the collapse really began with the election of 2004, in which Democrats lost five Senate seats. The only effective way to shape the federal courts is to win elections, and Democrats failed to do that -- in part because their judicial strategy disgusted voters and energized the Right.

5) The lopsided cloture vote ensures that it will be difficult for Democrats to justify voting for further judicial filibusters in the near future. The final 58-42 vote in favor of confirmation serves as proof that if Democrats had really wanted to stop Alito, they could have. This will further enrage the Left.

6) The magnitude of the Democrats' problem here should not be underestimated. In his hearings, Alito refused even to give Democrats a deferential nod on the issue of abortion -- which, despite what anyone says, was really the central issue of the nomination. This deference had previously been considered essential for any nominee's confirmation. Yet despite this fact, the left wing of the caucus could no longer hold their colleagues together in a filibuster. Indeed, many of the Democrats who crossed the aisle and supported cloture had no reason to fear for their political survival.

7) On the other hand, the cloture vote shows that the Left still holds the Democratic Party by the throat. Every Senate Democrat who is reasonably considered a presidential candidate for 2008 -- including Senators Kerry, Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Joseph Biden (D-Del.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) -- voted for the filibuster. This will endear them to the base they need to raise money and win Democratic primaries, but it is a double-edged sword. The fact that the filibuster lost by such a huge margin gives Republicans ammunition to tar all of them as extremists who are out of step with the American people.

8) This is one more symptom of Democrats' current problems in general. The ideological Left wants to take a page from the playbook of Bush advisor Karl Rove, whose contribution to politics is the notion that one can win elections by appealing most strongly to one's political base. But their problem is that the ideological Left is much smaller than its counterpart on the Right. The Left makes up only a small portion of the Democratic Party base, which otherwise consists largely of ethnic factions and other interests not necessarily committed to liberal dogma.

9) Kerry's call for a filibuster drew complaints afterward from Democrats because it showed just how divided the party remains, despite the current political trends in their favor. In a sense, Kerry called his own bluff and showed his weak hand, in the hopes that the gesture would please the Left.

10) Kerry's action came in opposition to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's requests that senators avoid the filibuster confrontation. Reid wanted the 58-42 confirmation to be a sign of Democratic unity. Instead, the appearance is that his caucus was routed, and this was Kerry's fault. Then again, Red-state Democrats can now appear fair-minded by telling constituents that they did not filibuster Alito, even though they voted against him. Kerry may have unintentionally helped some of them.

11) While certainly not the closest of votes, the Alito confirmation was the most partisan in recent times, with just four Democrats and one Republican switching sides. But it says less about Alito than it does about the political party realignment along ideological lines. It also shows, again, that the abortion issue is the most contentious and unsettled issue in America today.

12) Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) may have gotten a White House OK to vote against Alito, but this will not help him with GOP primary voters back home. It was not a wise decision for him. He is increasingly looking like a one-termer.

Who`s Afaid of the Democrat Wolf?

Ann Coulter makes the point I have been making for quite some time; We win when we take these political/judicial fights head on.

The State of the Onion

Government is like an onion; peel away one layer and you`ll find another and another. President Bush, like Presidents before him, gave us the usual State of the Union address; he peeled away a layer or two of the onion, but added new layers. In the end we`ll probably end up with more government than we started with (which, I suppose, is very un-onion like and ruins my analogy.)


My impression of the SOTU speech was YAAAWWWWHHHHNNNN! The President rehashed his old themes,suggested eliminating some governmental boondoggles but proposed massive new spending programs. I really didn`t hear any new or innovative ideas; the Bush Presidency really has gotten into a rut.

He did get a nice dig at the Democrats when he said, ``second guessing is not a strategy`` and he did a nice job of rehashing his classic war speech. I wasn`t so pleased with his assertion that radical Islam is a perversion of a noble faith; it is the core of that noble faith and a passive Islam would be the perversion. If we refuse to face that, we are destined to lose this war. I don`t know if the President is saying these things for political reasons or if he really believes them.

By the way, did anybody catch the camera shots of John McCain? The man should have been smoking a corn-cob pipe and preparing to down a can of spinach; he looked like the twin brother of Popeye. I expected him to burst out with, ``that`s all I can stands, I can`t stands no more!``

Also last night, I realized that Hillary Clinton missed her calling; she would have made a dandy old-school nun! I`m talking about the really mean knuckle-rapping, fire-and-brimstone, I`m-coming-and-hell`s-coming-with-me type who would wack a poor child with her yardstick for not being able to afford to buy books. I`m talking a ``pray to the Lord for mercy, child, cause you ain`t getting it from me`` type of nun. I`m talking abusive orphanage nun. She would have been a natural!

Actually, I was struck by how Dickinsonian our government looks in general. It`s as if Fagin, Mr. Bumble, Jacob Marley, etc. had all gotten together in the same party. It`s no wonder radical Islam has no respect for us!

Getting back to the speech, the President really proposed nothing new-just more of it. His ``America is addicted to gasoline`` rehashed his alternative energy proposals of the past (which haven`t given us alternative energy)and he seems naive enough to believe that throwing money at a physics/chemistry problem will solve it. (Why hasn`t ethanol caught on? Because it produces less energy than gasoline. Why hasn`t hydrogen caught on for cars? Because it takes considerable energy to split hydrogen from oxygen. These are fundamentals. Gasoline is too convenient and relatively cheap.) His call for more wind and solar power was ludicrous (how long are we going to keep playing with these toys?). I liked his nuclear energy proposal.

Once again, our President has called for his guest-worker program. This guy just can`t get it through his thick skull; America, and his base in particular, are vehemently opposed to this hair-brained scheme. The President seems ``stuck on stupid`` in regards to immigration policy, and his unwillingness to come to grips with a growing crisis may well wreck his party. I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again-THERE IS NO REAL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. The illegals stand to gain, as do some crooked employers who offer serf-like, third world wages, but the rest of the country pays. Those Americans who would take these jobs find themselves unemployed and living off government largesse. The illegals send what money they make to Mexico, thus it leaves the economy. They use emergency room services (at our expense) when sick, they use (or cause to be used) police, firefighters, social workers, truancy officers, schools. They are not paying into the system. If they can manage to have a child born here, the whole family has a guaranteed ticket to permanent residency. They`ll then be eligible for social security and other goodies, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. A guest-worker program simply takes the heat off of would-be illegals, and makes coming to America more inviting. It is a monument to stupidity, and the President is determined to wreck his own party on the shoals of this reef of ignorance.

In general, I think this speech was like yesterdays coffee rewarmed.

Perhaps it`s time to end this pony show. Many Presidents never personally presented the State of the Onion speech, electing instead to send a written statement. The Onion is merely an exercise in partisan backslapping, and serves no real purpose. We generally know what is coming, and rarely learn anything useful. The spectacle of half the audience standing in applause while the other half sits grudgingly on their hands is amusing, but hardly worth the time devoted to watching it. I think it`s time to end this silly charade.

I love the Democrats response, too! As if we didn`t hear enough, we are treated to the opposition party whining about how mean and unfair the President is, and how they have a better way (if they had a better way, why haven`t they given us any particulars?) Tim Kain did a better job than Pelosi or Reid would have done, but it was still the same old Kerryesque ``we have a secret plan`` type thing. If there is ``a better way`` then tell us what it is, for crying out loud! They didn`t even have the sense to hammer Bush on immigration, moving on to discuss ENVIRONMENTALISM (as if anyone in the country gives a rats-rear-end.) His ending with a prayer was the heighth of hypocrisy.

I give the State of the Onion a C+. President Bush needs to find his focus.

Everyone`s a Critic

We have a furry little singing critic in our household.

Last night my wife put the American Idol program on while we were waiting for the State of the Union Address, and we settled on the couch with our big orange tomcat Goccia to listen to the atrocious vocalization while waiting for the President. When one particularly horrid woman began singing, Goccia voiced his opinion in no uncertain terms; he got up and began hissing at the television screen!

My wife and I were rolling on the floor in hysterics! Oh, how I wish we had a camcorder handy! Simon Cowell would have loved it!

I had to keep the mute on until this ``singer`` got through; the poor cat couldn`t stand the screeching.

Ryan Seacrest thought that particular woman was the worst contestant in Las Vegas. He was in good company!