Global warming

There is terrible news for environmentalists today.

Global warming has apparently stopped.

The official temperature records stored at the University of East Anglia shows that the average global temperature has not increased in the past 8 years. Global warming stopped in 1998. From 1970 until 1998, the average global temperature increased by almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit. However, in the past 8 years, the temperature has dropped a fraction of a degree.

The really horrible news for environmentalists is that in those same eight years, human production of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide was at its highest levels ever. Our factories, power plants, and SUVs continued to pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than ever before, and yet the "human caused" warming trend reversed.

Even before this latest example, there was plenty of evidence that there is no correlation between human activity and the temperature cycles of the earth. A previous warming cycle occurred from 1918 until 1940, well before the major increase of "greenhouse gas" emissions, and the following cooling cycle lasting from 1940 and 1965 coincided precisely with the period of greatest increase in emissions worldwide. Environmentalists love to make wild claims such as "This is the hottest year since 1500!" And what made 1500 so hot? Was it the Hummers and the coal-burning power plants? Was it caused by Republicans not signing on to the Kyoto Treaty? Perhaps Christopher Columbus was to blame, because we know that it is always a European American, and he is the closest thing there was to a European American at the time.

You would think that environmentalists would be overjoyed to discover that humans are not causing global warming, that the earth has natural temperature cycles, and that we are not on the brink of a worldwide cataclysm caused by American industry. But they are not. In fact, they are more hysterical than ever. They point to their computer models which say that by the year 2030 the global temperature will have increased by 6 degrees. Or 2 degrees. Or 1 degree. It depends which model you look at, how you set all of the very sensitive parameters, and who you ask. They won't tell you that in 1990 those same models were saying that by 2005 the global temperature would have climbed by three degrees. Nor will they tell you that in 1970 those same models said that by 1990 the global temperature would have dropped by six degrees, sending the earth into an ice age. That's right, thirty-five years ago the environmentalist panic was over global cooling caused by American industry. The only thing which has stayed the same is the identity of the villain.

So why are environmentalists so sad to hear that we are not all about to die as a result of global warming? It is because their power comes from the imminent threat of crisis. Looming disaster is their excuse to enact their real agenda, which is greater government control over industry. The environment is just an excuse to accomplish a liberal coup, seizing more power for the government and putting more of the economy under their control. If the earth is not about to be destroyed by evil corporations burning fossil fuels and building gas-guzzling SUVs, the impetus for more government regulation and greater socialization is gone. And worse yet, the opportunity to use fear mongering to increase their fundraising is dangerously threatened. If their global warming pseudo-science is debunked, how will they be able to write hysterical fund-raising letters convincing concerned people to send in $50 or face certain demise from melting polar caps?

The real crisis here has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, shrinking ozone layer, melting polar ice, or global warming. The crisis which has the left in a tizzy is the shrinking and melting away of their power and influence as people recognize them as the frauds they are.

Happy Tax Day

It's Tax Day, so I want you to stop and ask yourself one question:

Are you getting your money's worth?

Socialist Space Exploration

Forty years ago today, the first man orbited the earth in a primitive, Russian space capsule.

Twenty five years ago today, the first Space Shuttle lifted off from Florida and went into orbit.

Back in those days, if you asked where our space program would be in 2006, the answer would have been mind-blowing. By 2006, we were told, we would have cities in orbit, permanently manned bases on the moon, human exploration of Mars, and at least the beginnings of a manned interstellar program. Space travel, we were promised, would be as routine as flying from New York to London.

Our space program has failed to deliver on that early promise. It seems that the height of our achievement was the Apollo program more than thirty years ago. We could not send a man back to the moon today if we wanted to. The Space Shuttle program has never been as successful as we hoped. It was originally touted as being capable of flying ten to fifteen missions a year, but five missions in a year is the most it has ever achieved. The plans for the International Space Station are getting more modest each year, as the program slides further behind schedule and over budget.

So what is the cause of this lack of innovation or progress?

We have turned space exploration into another ineffective government program, blocking our greatest engine of innovation, the free market private sector, from reaching its full potential in advancing the technology of space flight. The same principle is true in space flight as anywhere else: the best and brightest people don't work for the government. If they did, the private sector would hire them away. NASA is crippled by the fact that it is government run, and thus not propelled by the market forces which fuel private enterprise. Instead, it is limited by the short-sighted nature of public funding and the whim of Congress. The private sector should, in theory, be far better than the government at developing new technology to achieve our goals in space. But there is not a single American company which provides a commercial satellite launch capability. Several companies have tried, but none have succeeded. It is not that the technical challenge is beyond the ability of American industry. We built rockets which could carry a satellite to orbit decades ago. The reason that there is no private sector business flying in space is that it is not economically feasible. To break into the business, a company would have to compete with NASA, a taxpayer subsidized entity. NASA can offer their satellite launching service at a lower price because they are funded by the government, and there is no way that a private company can compete with that. By maintaining a government-run space program, we not only have a sub-par space program, but we also block out private companies which could do a lot more if they could break into the industry.

So let's get back to the vision we had forty years ago, get the government out of the way, and unleash America's unstoppable creativity and the power of free market enterprise to reach our Space Age dreams.

Welfare crisis

In March, 2006 the number of New York City residents on the welfare rolls fell to the lowest level since December of 1964.

Today there are about 402,000 New York City residents on welfare, down nearly two thirds from the high point during Clinton's administration.

Is this good news or bad news? That depends entirely on your perspective.

If you are a liberal who measures compassion based on the number of people dependant on government assistance, this is a crisis of epic proportions. In fact, it is a threat to that which matters most to you in this world: your chances to gain power in the next election.

If you are a conservative who measures compassion based on the number of people who no longer need government assistance, it is very good news.

But how are her document forging skills

Katie Couric will have big shoes to fill as she takes over the CBS anchor job.

She certainly has years of experience reading a teleprompter, so that should not be an issue.

And she has well established liberal credentials, which is a basic qualification for the job.

However, there is no reason to think that she is up to the critical task of forging documents to create news stories damaging to conservatives. Without this skill, CBS News will just not be the same.

A challenge

So the fact that we have not found the chemical weapons which we know that Saddam had is proof that they don't exist?

Here is a challenge:

Give me five years and a $10 million budget to hide one hundred 50-gallon barrels anywhere in the state of Texas. During those five years, you can observe from England or Canada.

At the end of the five years, you will have three years to find the barrels. During that time, I will have a few thousand people shooting at you as you search.

Oh, I forgot to mention that I have the option of hiding the barrels in Oklahoma or New Mexico, but you can't look for them there.

If you don't find the barrels in three years, we can conclude that they don't exist, right?

Seen on monster.com

Wanted

White House seeking new director for Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Must desire to be held responsible for the ignorant behavior of every individual during the next hurricane, flood, tornado, terrorist attack, fire, cartoon snubbing Islam, or Cubs loss in the World Series. Job includes being held accountable for the failure of local emergency responders to do their job. Signing bonus is a 100% cotton t-shirt with the phrase "Designated Fall Guy" embroidered on the front in large script lettering.

Please hurry. Hurricane season begins in just two months.

Organs

Every year in America, thousands of people die while they wait for an organ donation which never comes. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of people die with perfectly good organs which could save lives, but are not used.

China has a solution to this problem. There are more than enough organs available in China, and many people go to China to buy organs which they can't get in other places. China gets these organs by killing people accused of political or religous crimes and taking their organs.

Other countries mandate that organs be harvested from anyone who dies with useable organs.

In America, we don't do things that way. We believe in freedom and individual rights, not tyranny or total government control. A person's organs belong to that person, and can not be taken away against that person's will. But there is something we can do to eliminate the shortage of organs.

Allow individuals to leave their organs to their estate.

The estate could then sell the organs at a price determined by the free market. This would encourage people to allow their organs to be used, because it would benefit their own family in addition to benefiting the organ recipient.

Some might object to this based on the idea that it would make organs unaffordable. The reality is that it would not. Organs are already sold at market price, only now the company who harvests the organs pockets the money generated. What claim does that company have on the value of the organ? They should be compensated for the cost of harvesting the organ, but the organ itsself belongs to the donor. The price for organs is determined by supply and demand. If the supply increases, the price will decrease.

Other people might have ethical problems with the idea of a person selling his organs to benefit his estate. The company which currently sells the organs doesn't have an ethical problem with that. They profit handsomely from it. But your organs belong to you. They are your property. The definition of ownership includes the right to sell your property. If you own your organs, there is no ethical problem with selling them after you die. There is a much greater ethical problem with burying the organs in the ground and letting someone who needed those organs die.

This is a win-win proposition. It allows an individual to help their own family and help someone in need of a new organ at the same time.

Limousine Liberals

Liberals like to pose as the champion of the little guy.

They claim to be the ones who are in tune with the blue collar worker.

They sympathize with the plight of the downtrodden.

They stand up for those who are exploited by evil corporations.

But occasionally, one of these big-hearted liberals slips up and reveals what he really thinks.

On Sunday night, Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin was co-hosting a radio program with Brian Whitman on WABC in New York. He made some disparaging remarks about Sean Hannity, and Mr. Hannity called in to discuss the remarks. Alec Baldwin, who has publicly called Vice President Cheney a terrorist and suggested that Henry Hyde be stoned to death, was not willing to defend his comments with substance. Instead, he immediately launched a personal attack against Sean Hannity. The actor searched for the deepest, darkest, most demeaning insult that he could conjure up, and he came up with this gem:

"Why would I want to come on the show with a no-talent, former construction worker hack like you? "

In a single sentence, Alec Baldwin revealed what he truly thinks of real Americans. Construction workers are the people who make America work. We all depend on them for the houses we live in, the buildings where we work, shop, and live out our lives, and the roads we drive on. Baldwin shows the height of his arrogance and condescension by using "construction worker" as an insulting epithet. He believes that his career of pretending to be someone not only makes him better than the rabble who pay admission to his films, but also makes his opinions more valid and more important than anyone else's. The fact that Baldwin thinks that calling someone a "former construction worker" is an insult reflects much more on Baldwin than on the target of Baldwin's diatribe.

Although Baldwin's self-importance has not yet reached the level of Richard Gere, who claimed to speak for the entire world, it is getting close.

Making it all worthwhile

Sometimes something happens which makes it all worthwhile.

Yesterday, my wife was talking with our 6-year-old son. He was telling her about how he was going to have eight boys when he grows up. He told her that he would need a big house for all of those kids.

My wife said, "You'd better work hard in school so that you can get a good job. You need to be able to support that family, and you don't want your wife to have to work and put the kids in day care."

My son said, "What is day care?"

At that moment, all of the effort we have made to be sure that one or the other of us is always available to be with the kids paid off. We could live in a fancier house, drive a nicer car, and have a bigger checking account, and get more sleep if we dumped the kids in day care while we both went to work. But what is the point of having kids if you are going to hire someone to raise them? Investment in things which last and things which really matter will always pay off.

Real Westerns

I used to watch the Academy Awards, or at least I was interested enough to find out who won. I watched two years ago when the third Lord of the Rings movie swept most of the categories. I will not be watching this year. Politics have taken over the Academy, and people are voting to prove how "enlightened" they are, rather than based on the quality of the films.

Brokeback Mountain is a perfect example of this. The Actor's Screen Guild was right in passing it up, but it will almost certainly win a bunch of Oscars on Sunday. Personally, I much preferred Crash for best picture. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it. Joaquin Phoenix would get my vote for best actor, for his role in Walk the Line. And why didn't Russell Crowe even get a best actor nomination for Cinderella Man?

One positive note is that Brokeback Mountain was not nominated for best documentary, even though the equally fictitious "Bowling for Columbine" won that category two years ago, again based on politics rather than merit.

Brokeback Mountain is not the only nomination which reveals Hollywood's political agenda. Other nominated films show a gay writer as a soulful artist, a transsexual as a responsible parent, a Palestinian suicide bomber as a thoughtful, conscience-driven activist, greedy oil company executives as, well, greedy oil company executives, and Senator Joe McCarthy as (gasp) a threat to American civil liberties. Positive representations of Christians, conservatives, or white hetersexuals are strangely missing.

Brokeback Mountain is popular in Hollywood because it is an attack on the American history of the west as a place of rugged individualism where the men are, well, manly. Although I am not a big fan of westerns, I love the distinctly American culture they reflect. I plan to spend Sunday evening celebrating the American West by watching a true, red-blooded American Western. I have not decided on which one to watch yet, but my prime candidates are: True Grit, The Shootist, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or Red River.

Chocolate New Orleans

In honor of New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and today's Mardi Gras celebration, I present the recipe for a Chocolate New Orleans.

1. Start off with a large brownie with chocolate chunks baked into it.
2. Apply a layer of chocolate mousse.
3. Add a second layer of brownie.
4. Lay down a thin layer of chocolate pudding.
5. Add a third brownie.
6. Put two large scoops of chocolate ice cream on top.
7. Cover it with a generous layer of hot fudge.
8. Sprinkle dark chocolate shavings on the hot fudge.
9. Have a transvestite from the French Quarter pee all over it.

Self-centered little brats

Was I the only one who was a bit embarrassed by some of our Olympic athletes?

I'm not going to mention names here, because these people seek attention at any cost. What is sad is that these few high-profile athletes and their childish actions overshadowed many fine athletes who have worked hard for years to get to the Olympics and competed honorably.

We had one world-class skier who was favored to win a number of events, but messed all of them up and walked away empty-handed. That would be excusable, except that in an interview after he lost the last event, he had a very blasé attitude, and talked about how it was all good because he had fun hanging out in bars until midnight before competing.

Then there was the American snowboardcross racer who was leading the gold-medal race but felt the need to show off with a showboat jump move. She crashed a stone's throw from the finish line, and lost the gold medal. There is certainly a time to celebrate a win, but it is on the other side of the finish line.

One snowboarder said that he hoped to win a gold medal because it would "help me pick up lots of chicks."

And of course a lot of attention went to the two American speed skaters who had a public name-calling match in the media over who would or wouldn't skate in a relay race.

It used to be that being a part of the American Olympic Team was about national pride and sportsmanlike competition putting team and country ahead of self. These days it seems to be about individual attention at any cost. This trend appears to have started with professional athletes and celebrities such as Dennis Rodman who depend on media attention to get bigger contracts and higher-paying endorsements. By doing something shocking, they can get their names in the headlines, which builds their name recognition. This year's Olympic Team reflects that self-focused culture, and the attitude they display is being picked up by our teenagers as well. Our teenager sees sports as a way to attract attention by showing off flashy moves, but without the discipline, persistence, or focus on teamwork to excel as an athlete. If we can't get rid of this "it's all about me" outlook, we are going to turn into a nation of self-centered brats.

Why I love old movies

This clip from the 1940 movie "The Ghost Breakers" starring Bob Hope shows why I love old movies. I nominate this as the greatest line in film history.

Other old movies I have recently watched:

Witness for the Prosecution -- a courtroom drama with interesting characters and an amazing ending

The Big Sleep -- a mystery with Humphery Bogart. The plot is dizzyingly complex and I had to write down a list of characters to keep it all straight.

Affirmative Action Arson

Whoever is setting fire to Baptist churches in Alabama seems to believe in Affirmative Action.

The arsonists appear to be using a quota system to assure that each race is represented in the church burning in proportion to the racial makeup of the general population. Of the first six fires, five were set in Baptist churches with predominately white congregations, and one was in a church with a predominately black congregation. The 16% black representation is good enough to prevent even Jesse Jackson from shaking them down for some extra cash.

The media seems to be very relieved that the arsonists are so progressive. Each time more churches burn, the news articles conclude with the current tally. As long as the arsonists continue to employ a quota system, it is all good. Using the right kind of racial discrimination is enough of a virtue to overshadow the crime of burning houses of worship. After all, hate crimes against Baptists are excusable.

U2

Fifteen years ago I was a huge U2 fan. I first started following them when they put out the album War. That is still one of my favorites, along with Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, Boy, and Achtung Baby. I have seen them in concert three times. At one point I could recite the lyrics to every song they had ever recorded. U2 had a passion and a fervor which made their music powerfully compelling.

However, since Achtung Baby came out in 1991, U2 has lost its soul. Zooropa was worthless, and besides one faint glimmer of their former selves, Pop was just as bad. I still faithfully line up to buy their albums, hoping that they will rediscover that unforgettable fire which made them great, but their last two albums have been equally disappointing. U2 has gone from being revolutionary to being clichéd and formulaic.

As a U2 fan, you would think that I would be thrilled that they won 5 Grammy Awards last night. Actually, I am a bit puzzled. What in their last album makes it worthy of a Grammy? I listened to it a lot, and finally gave up on trying to appreciate it. The songs are trite and shallow and the music is pop rock drivel. Perhaps they were on to something a few years ago when they wrote "What do I do now that its all been said, no new ideas in the house, and every book has been read?"

So why does a has-been band like U2 win 5 Grammy Awards with such a dull album? It clearly doesn't have anything to do with the quality of their music. It is due to the memory of their former greatness combined with their present-day political activism. However, neither of these is a substitute for present-day musical creativity or innovation.

U2 has always been political. One of their great early songs is "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" a protest of the Irish revolution, about the bombing of a vetrans day parade in Dublin. This is a matter close to the heart of U2, being native Irishmen, and the passion of personal conviction comes through clearly in the music. "In the Name of Love" is another great anthem from U2's early days, honoring Martin Luther King in soaring, spiritual verse.

It used to be that the music spoke for itsself. Today, the music is shallow and the activism is mostly offstage. And it has gone from being personal and passionate to being forced, calculated, and staged for an audience. They are political because they think that this is what people want, not because they believe their new poll-driven causes in the same way they believed Sunday, Bloody Sunday. Instead of singing about their homeland, where there is a personal connection, they sing songs bashing America. Americans certainly have a right to be critical of our government, but let's not forget that U2 chose to move here to take advantage of the great economic opportunity available in America. U2's prosperity is a testimony that there is opportunity for anyone in America, but their songs carry the opposite message. Certain segments of the public, along with the Grammy jurists, eat it up. But those of us who remember U2's roots see through it.

Cartoons

Muslims, angered by Danish cartoons linking their prophet Mohammed with violence, took to the streets setting buildings on fire, storming embassies, looting, burning flags, hurling bottles and stones, and killing people as they demand that Islam be recognized as a religion of peace.

One masked gunman barricaded in the EU headquarters said, "Until Israel is a charred cinder and the Zionist pigs, Danish Devils, and American infidels show respect for Islam and burn in a lake of hellfire, we will hunt them down and rip out their innards for depicting the prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him, or the Islamic faith as breeding violence."

Lifeboat

Tuesday morning at Oak Hills Elementary

Teacher: Good morning, class!

Class: Good morning, Mrs. Aryan.

Teacher: Today we're going to play a game!

Class: Yeaaaaaaaaaah!

Teacher: This game is called Lifeboat. All together...

Class: Lifeboat!

Teacher: Good! Lifeboat is a lesson in values clarification. Can you say values clarification?

Class: No.

Teacher: Values clarification is where your little minds decide which lives are worth living and which lives are worth ...ahem... not living. Now here's how we play. A big ship just sank. There are five people on the lifeboat. But the lifeboat is only made for two. I'll list the five people on the chalkboard, and you, class, will decide which three will be thrown overboard. Are we ready?

Class: Yes, Mrs. Aryan.

Teacher: Good! First, there's an old, old crippled grandfather. Second, there's a mentally handicapped person in a wheelchair.

Alison: What's mentally handicapped?

Teacher: It means they can never be a productive member of society. Third, there's an overweight woman on welfare, with a sniffling, whimpering baby.

Max: Is the baby on welfare, too?

Teacher: Let's not push Mrs. Aryan...

Sydney: Who else is in the boat?

Teacher: A young, white doctor with blue eyes and perfect teeth, and Jessica Simpson. Now, class, take five minutes to make your decision. ... Times up! Well class?

Throw over grandpa 'cause he's getting pretty old
Throw out the baby or we'll all be catching it's cold
Throw over fatty and we'll see if she can float
Throw out the retard, and they won't be rockin' the boat

Teacher: Very good! That was fun, wasn't it?

Class: Yes, Mrs. Aryan.

Teacher: For our next lesson, we're going to do an experiment!

Class: Yeah!

Teacher: We're going to test the law of gravity, just like Galileo, by dropping two objects out the window--one heavy and one light-- to see which one hits the sidewalk first. Now what shall we use for the lighter object? I'm thinking of something small and square...

Class: An eraser?

Teacher: Good! And what shall we use for the heavy object? I'm thinking of something round and bouncy... Tommy, I haven't given you permission to leave your sea...class, the bell has not rung. What are you... oohh! Class...put me down! Put me down this instant! Ooohhh! Ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[THUD]

Throw over teacher and we'll see if she can bounce
We've learned our lesson--teacher says perfection's what counts
She's getting old and gray and wears an ugly coat
Throw over teacher and we'll play another game of lifeboat

Throw over grandpa 'cause he's getting pretty old
Throw out the baby, or we'll all be catching it's cold
Throw over fatty and we'll see if she can float
Throw out the retard, and they won't be rockin' the boat

Two speeches

On Tuesday night, two speeches were given to Congress and the nation.

In one speech, the benefits of smaller government were proclaimed. The speech called for lower taxes, more free markets, less government interference with the economy, and more individual liberty. This speech acknowledged that capitalism, freedom, open trade, and the diligence and innovation of the American people are the greatest forces for progress and economic growth.

In the other speech, government was the solution to every problem. Increased government spending was touted as the great fix-all. More taxes, more regulation, and more government programs were presented as the path to prosperity.

What is truly odd is that both speeches were given by the same person.

Speaking as a fiscal conservative, President Bush made a strong case for lower taxes, tax code reform, and Social Security reform. He called on Congress to reign in runaway spending by cutting wasteful programs. He asked for the line-item-veto to help eliminate earmarks. At times he sounded almost like Ronald Reagan declaring that "In this crisis, Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

Unfortunately, the second speech sounded more like Lyndon Johnson than Ronald Reagan. President Bush proposed more than two-dozen new or increased spending initiatives.

He proposed a 22% increase in government subsidy into clean energy research and development. He also promised government money to build new nuclear power plants and to produce ethanol from wood chips. If these technologies were economically viable, the private sector would make the investment. Tax money should not be used to subsidize the development of new technologies which are not cost effective.

The President proposed spending tax money on the development of hydrogen-powered cars. Again, if this technology was economically beneficial, private businesses would undertake the effort. The President appears to have forgotten about the billions of dollars which President Clinton poured into a government program to develop hybrid technology, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. The program never produced the hybrid cars they promised. However, foreign automakers, Honda and Toyota, privately developed the technology which can be purchased by Americans today.

Bush also proposed increasing federal "investment" in math and science education. Vast amounts of research show that there is little connection between spending and educational results, and federal spending is the least effective way to improve the quality of education. Surely the President is aware that America did not become a world leader in technology and scientific advancement because of government subsidies. We have long surpassed the countries who tried to achieve success this way.

The president called for more government subsidies and tax preferences for health care. This ignores the fact that the current problems with our health-care system result largely because of government intrusion and subsidies which subvert the market forces of price and quality competition.

After listening to the contradictions in these two speeches, one was forced to ask "Which one do I believe?"

The first speech presented a real roadmap to progress and prosperity through opportunity and freedom.

However, the President's laundry list of new government programs and increased government spending is more in line with how Congress and President Bush have actually operated for the past five years. Since 2000, government spending has increased 40 percent, a figure larger than Clinton's entire eight years. The reality is that the American public expects a government solution to every problem, and any politician who does not promise more government money for every societal ill is committing political suicide. For real change to occur, Americans need to stop looking to the government as their paternal caretaker and start making the most of the opportunities we each have to achieve our own potential.

ANWR

Politicians love to decry our dependence on foreign oil and the high price of gas. The problem is that both of these things are a result of their own actions. We have plenty of domestic oil which is there for the drilling. However, environmentalists and their liberal allies have prevented us from using it. There is more oil in Alaska than in any middle-eastern country. We could end our reliance on foreign oil in two or three years by making full use of our own oil reserves on the gulf coast and in Alaska. Likewise, politicains blame oil companies for the high price of gas, but at the same time they keep increasing the gasoline taxes, and they let environmental lobbists block the construction of more refineries which would increase supply and drive down the price. As a result, no new refinery has been built in the United States for 28 years.

Drilling for oil in ANWR is the ideal way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while we develop new energy sources to meet our longer-term needs. Hydrogen-powered cars and fusion power plants are still a decade or more away, and conservative estimates say that our oil reserves in ANWR would last 50 years. It is time to start using our own resources so that we are no longer beholden to people like Hugo Chavez or middle-eastern nations who take our oil money and use it to finance terror.

The reason that we have been prevented from drilling in ANWR is that environmental groups along with liberal politicians and the media have waged a very effective PR campaign to prevent it. From reading media accounts, the area where President Bush wants oil drilling to be conducted is a pristine wilderness, with snow-capped mountains, green meadows, sparkling rivers, and blue lakes surrounded by teeming wildlife. Here are a few photos from news stories about drilling in ANWR:

One of these photos is actually in ANWR, but not in the part of ANWR where they plan to drill. The others are not ANWR at all.

Here are photos of the area where they actually plan to drill:

It is an ice rink the size of South Carolina. Not a single one of the politicians who opposes drilling has actually been there. People who have spent a lot of time in the Alaskan wilderness report that the caribou congregate under the pipelines. They love the pipelines, and use them for shelter. In ANWR there is one dirt road which runs part way along one edge of the 29,600 square mile area. Roughly one tenth of one percent of the ANWR land area would be affected by drilling, leaving 29,560 square miles for the caribou. The ANWR web site says that there are two herds of caribou living there. Each one would have to make do with 14,780 square miles of land.

I wonder how quickly the environmentalists’ argument would last if people saw these pictures instead of what the media shows.

Tax cuts

The report published by the Congressional Budget Office last week indicates that the 2003 capital gains tax cuts have already more than paid for themselves.

In 2003, before the capital gains tax cut bill was passed, the CBO Budget and Economic Outlook report projected capital gains tax revenue at $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a total of $125 billion.

The capital gains tax was passed by Congress in 2003, and took affect in 2004.

Opponents to the tax cut claimed that it would reduce tax revenues by $27 billion in 2004 and 2005, resulting in $98 billion in revenue instead of $125 billion. They were wrong. Not just a bit wrong, but completely, 180 degrees wrong.

Tax revenues did not decrease as a result of the tax cut. They increased. The actual capital gains taxes collected were $71 billion in 2004 and $80 billion in 2005, for a total of $151 billion.

Instead of reducing revenue by $27 billion, the revenue exceeded projections by $26 billion.

Chalk up one more for supply-side economics.

Daniel Clifton of the American Shareholders Association predicted this result, saying

A capital gains tax cut spurs the growth of new businesses, increases the wage of workers, enhances consumer purchasing power, and grows the economy at large, resulting in more overall gains to be taxed. When capital is taxed at a lower rate, any revenue losses are offset because there is more overall capital being produced, and thus more total revenue being generated.

The reverse is true, as demonstrated by President Clinton. In 1993 he signed the largest tax increase in history, raising the top rate by 16 percent. However, tax revenues over the next four years only beat pre-hike estimates by one percent.

So what put the budget into "surplus" at the end of the 1990's? It was a combination of Republican-led reigning in of spending, and a 1997 capital gains tax cut engineered by a Republican Congress. In spite of cutting the capital gains tax rate by 28%, capital gains tax revenues exceeded projections by 11% over the next three years.

Now I reject any argument which claims that we should be trying to maximize tax revenues. The government already spends too much money and is too intrusive. Balancing the budget can not be accomplished by increasing the tax burden. When we face a budget deficit, the problem is excessive spending, not insufficient taxation. We can not blame Bush's tax cuts for the current budget deficit. The numbers simply do not support the claim that tax rate cuts result in deficits.

Instead, we must blame Congress for their inability to control spending. Republicans won control of Congress on this platform in 1994, and for a while, they remained true to the principle of fiscal restraint. But in the five years that Republicans have controlled Congress and the White House, they have failed miserably to keep spending under control. In 2005 the Federal government spent $2,472.2 billion, up from $1,789.2 billion in 2000. This represents a 6.68% annual increase in spending, outpacing inflation, population growth, and GDP.

There are two key elements to a successful implementation of fiscally conservative economic policy: low taxes and controlled spending. One does not work without the other. We are doing fine on taxes, but its time to get spending in check.

A relief

On Tuesday, liberal web site "Truthout" reported that they had proof that the NSA wiretaps had started earlier than 9/11/2001. They trumpted this news as evidence that President Bush was hellbent on depriving people of their rights by listening to the international phone calls of terrorists.

On Wednesday, the "Truthout" story was debunked, meaning that they do not have evidence that NSA wiretaps had started before terrorists crashed airliners into the World Trade Center, and Pentagon, and attempted to target some other site. They were not nearly so loud in admitting that they were wrong. Truthout, it seems, is aptly named. There is no TruthIn it.

However, "Truthout" author Lason Jeapold did express relief that the story was untrue. "It is a great relief to discover that the rights of the 20 hijackers and 3,000 Americans killed on September eleventh were not violated."

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice pointed out that "its hard to exercise your right to make an unmonitored phone call when you are dead."

Klanned Parenthood

KLANNED PARENTHOOD
Putting the "hood" in Parenthood

Abortion! Because lynching is for amateurs.

In America today, almost as many black babies are aborted as are born.


A black baby is three times more likely to be murdered in the womb than a white baby.

Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.

Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.

Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.

About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.

Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. This is not an accident. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger said "Negros and Southern Europeans are mentally inferior to native born Americans. Blacks, soldiers, and jews are a menace to the race -- sinister forces of the hordes of irresponsibility and imbecility. ... More children from the fit, less from the unfit--that is the chief issue of birth control." (Birth Control Review, May 1919)

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
-- Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

What the Ku Klux Klan Could Only Dream About The Abortion Industry is Accomplishing

Abortion

There is one central issue on the mind of every Democrat Senator in the confirmation hearings of Judge Alito: will Ted Kennedy ever shut up?

The confirmation hearings are more about liberal Senators grandstanding than about understanding Judge Alito's judicial philosophy. Kennedy talked for 24 of the 30 minutes allotted to him for the purpose of questioning Alito. Senator Biden went on for 18 minutes before he got to the first question.

These senators have already decided how they are going to vote. They are now just looking to score political points. They hope to do this by forcing Judge Alito to sound evasive, particularly on the question of abortion. But is Judge Alito being evasive when he refuses to say how he would rule in a case involving abortion? A better question is this: would a judge be fair to say how he would rule on a case before hearing both sides of the case argued in court? A judge who did this would rightly be considered prejudiced and unfit to try the case. While politicians can take positions based on their own opinion or what is politically expedient, a judge must decide a case based on the law, and only after hearing arguments from both sides.

That being said, I do think that Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He would not vote that way because of his own personal opinion. He would vote to overturn Roe because it is bad Constitutional law. In 1973, the Supreme Court made a life and death decision which resulted in the deaths of 46 million unborn babies. The Supreme Court came down on the side of death, and they did it based on a "right" made up out of thin air. The Constitution does not include a right to privacy, and depriving 46 million people of their right to life on the basis of a non-existent "right" is a travesty unequalled by our nation since slavery.

Abortion advocates have made many arguments in an attempt to justify abortion. These arguments are based on a "right to choose" and "a woman's right to do what she wants with her body." They claim that abortion is a decision involving a woman and her doctor. But they omit the fact that a third person is involved: the baby. All of the pro-abortion arguments crumble unless the baby can be dehumanized. Certainly no one's right to choose supersedes another person's right to live. A woman's right to her own body does not give her the right to dismember someone else. A decision between a woman and her doctor can not result in some other person being sucked into a sink.

Abortion advocates are forced to resort to arbitrary definitions for who is human and who is not.

The Supreme Court used a trimester system. They said that 179 days after conception, it is a lump of tissue which can be removed, but 181 days after conception it is human and the state has an interest in protecting the life. Why is 180 days the magic number? No reason.

Then there was the viability standard. If the baby is viable, it is human. But viability is determined by the level of technology among many other things. A person's humanity does not vary depending on the level of technology. Thirty years ago, 28 weeks was the limit of viability. Today it is common for babies born at 22 weeks to survive. By their argument, in 1975 a baby at 25 weeks gestation was not human, but today it is.

Others say that it is when the baby is no longer dependent on it mother for survival. As the parent of a teenager, let me tell you that this doesn't happen until age 19 or so. But seriously, a one-year-old is dependent on her parent for care. Leave her alone and she dies. Should killing her be a matter of choice?

Many other attempts have been made to define a point somewhere between conception and birth at which a baby "becomes" human. These tend to focus on the baby's biological or cognitive functions. However, it is not these functions which make us human. People who lose these functions through a medical condition or age are not considered unhuman.

Today abortion is legal up until the moment of birth. Humanness is determined by one's position relative to the birth canal. On this side, you are human, but on that side you are not. It is discrimination based on place of residence. But this doesn't even fit with standard usage. I did an experiment years ago where I approached dozens of obviously pregnant women and asked them "what is in there?" Some told me it was a boy. Others said a girl. Some said that it was a baby. Some even told me the baby's name. Not a single one said that it was a fetus, the product of conception, or a tissue mass. The working definition for an unborn baby's humanity is that it is human if it is wanted.

The only non-arbitrary definition for humanness is that at the moment of conception, a unique, living human comes into existence. She is unique because her DNA is distinct from either parents' and from any other person on earth. And if not human, than what species is she? The state has an obligation to protect the lives of all people, not just the ones who are big and powerful and can speak for themselves.

Vermont Real Estate

The value of real estate in Vermont jumped sharply on Friday, with the news that Judge Edward Cashman had sentenced a man convicted of repeatedly raping a 7-year-old girl to six months in prison because "he no longer believes in punishment."

It appears that the sudden surge in demand was a result of pedophiles from across the country moving to Vermont to take advantage of this new philosophy for dealing with child rapists.

Analysts say that the housing bubble is unlikely to last for long, as a glut of houses is dumped on the market by families with children moving out of the state.

Judge Cashman based his decision primarily the lack of facilities in Vermont prisons to rehabilitate sex offenders, saying "There's other families out there, and there's other people who could be victimized, and I'm trying to take the long view." However, prosecuting attorney Jack Harmon pointed out that there are no seven-year-old girls in prison.

An apology

In 1996 I was critical of Steve Forbes when he called Pat Robertson a "toothy flake." It was not that I particularly liked Robertson, or didn't like Forbes. In fact, my little green Nissan Sentra sported Forbes bumper stickers during the 2000 primaries, and I have never watched Robertson. But Forbes' comments on Robertson seemed excessively harsh.

Well, it turns out that Steve Forbes hit the nail on the head. Pat Robertson believes that he speaks for God, revealing exactly what God thinks on any topic, and why God does what he does in a specific situation. What arrogant presumption!

Mr. Forbes, I apologize for taking issue with you for calling Pat Robertson a "toothy flake." You were right.

52 months

It has been 52 months since a group of terrorists crashed American airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and attempted to attack a forth target, killing three thousand innocent people. Bin Laden intended the 9/11 attacks to be the first in a series of three attacks on America over a two year period, each attack more devastating than the previous. To this day, attacking America and inflicting massive casualties remains a top priority of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi. But nothing has happened.

But in reality, a lot has happened.

Of the 26 most wanted terrorists on the FBI list in January 2002, 22 are dead or captured.

We are holding hundreds of terrorists in secret prisons and at Gitmo. We are using the intelligence we obtain from them to capture more terrorists and thwart their plans.

We have listened to terrorists' communications here and around the world, giving us an advantage in stopping their attacks.

Jose Padilla is facing trial rather than plotting to kill Americans.

A dictator who sponsored terror has been removed from power, and the first democracy has been planted in the Middle East, where the people of Iraq elected their own government for the first time in history last month.

Zhalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, and others are in prison cells rather than directing more murder plots.

Thanks to the single-minded leadership of President George Bush, we are fighting an effective war on Terror which has prevented further attacks on American soil for 52 months.

Part of the problem with the War on Terror is that the benefits are often untangible. How many people were saved by preventing attacks which never happened? We will never know the exact number. However, it is clear that our aggressive, pro-active approach is working. Let's not mess with it.

Treason

Some day, America will be attacked by terrorists again. Their goal will be to make September 11, 2001 look small-time. Recent politically motivated statements and actions by Democrats make it more likely that these attacks will be successful at murdering many thousands of Americans.

I wonder if Democrats will stand up and take responsibility when this happens?

Will Charles Schumer address the families of the victims killed by the terrorists, and explain why the "right" of these terrorists to carry on their international phone calls without monitoring was more important than the right of the victims to not be blown up?

Will the politicians who complain about the high price of gas and our reliance on foreign oil, but then vote to raise gas taxes and to not allow us to use our own vast oil reserves or build new refineries accept the blame when terrorists use the money we pay for their oil to finance attacks against America?

Will Howard Dean meet with the wives of American soldiers killed by an enemy emboldened by his statement that America can not win the war in Iraq? What could he possibly say to justify his irresponsible comments?

Will Senators who voted to compromise our ability to stop terror attacks by weakening the Patriot Act and passing the Terrorist Bill of Rights stand by their position that the "civil rights" of terrorists outweigh American civilians right to life?

Will Senator Murtha resign in disgrace if we don't finish the job in Iraq, and the terrorists we left behind kill thousands of Americans with Saddam's hidden supply of nerve gas?

We all know who will take the blame when the next attack happens. It won't be the Congressmen who voted for the war and then stabbed our troops in the back when it became politically expedient. It won't be the leaker in the CIA who notified the terrorists that we were monitoring their communications. It won't be CNN or the New York Times, al Qaeda's propoganda branch. It will be the one man who has done more to dismantle the global terror networks than any person in history. the one man who has taken an unwavering stand against evil in spite of the political price. President George Bush will take the blame.

The War against Terror is a global confrontation of Good versus evil. The war in Iraq is a war between 25 million Iraqis and a few thousand terrorists. Democrats have joined with the wrong side in this conflict. In the long term, this will be a losing strategy.

Real journalism

News anchors from every major news network were quick to criticize Farris Hassan, the sixteen year old student who travelled from his home in Fort Lauderdale Florida to Iraq to report on what he saw there.

On CNN, talking head Paula Zahn asked, "How can he abandon traditional journalistic practices such as sitting in our news room reporting manufactured polls in favor of novel methods such as actually going to Iraq and discussing what he sees first hand?"

Bob Schieffer on CBS Evening News claimed that Hassan's trip was a stunt: "They ask us to believe that a sixteen year old was able to go to Iraq and report what is really going on there? I am seven times his age, and even I don't actually go there."

On NBC, Brian Williams asked "Don't the people we poll, sitting on their sofa at home, have a better perspective on what is beneficial for Iraq? If people start seeing the reality for themselves and actually thinking rather than blindly accepting our version of the story, they may not reach the desired conclusions."

Farris Hassan gained a very different perspective from his visit to Iraq than you would get from watching the news. He wrote:

Life is not about money, fame, or power. Life is about combating the forces of evil in the world, promoting justice, helping the misfortunate, and improving the welfare of our fellow man. Progress requires that we commit ourselves to such goals. We are not here on Earth to hedonistically pleasure ourselves, but to serve each other and the creator. What deed is greater than sacrificing one's luxuries for the benefit of those less blessed?

If I know what is needed and what is right, but do not act on my moral conscience, I would be a hypocrite. I must do what I say decent individuals should do. I want to live my days so that my nights are not full of regrets. Therefore, I must go.

What went wrong?

Senate Democrats, while noting that the Iraqi election voter turnout put American voters to shame, are wondering why the turnout was slightly lower than the turnout for Saddam Hussein's landslide victory.

Senator Harry Reid said, "You may say that a seventy percent turnout is a sign that democracy is taking hold in Iraq, but I must remind you that four years ago, Saddam got one hundred percent of the vote with every single Iraqi voting. Is this really progress?"

While some Iraqi voters were kept at home by a total ban on vehicles and the threat of terrorist attacks, it has been pointed out that the transit strike in New York deterred more people than these obstacles.

Democrats, who had partnered with their friends in the insurgency and the New York Times to undermine the elections, were discouraged by the results. Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said, "We can't let the unfortunate success of these elections give us the impression that we are winning in Iraq, because the results would be disastrous next November."

Senator Hillary Clinton was asked to comment, but an anonymous staffer indicated that they were still taking polls to determine if she would take sides with the 10,000 insurgents and the rest of her party, or with the 25 million Iraqi people.

Senator Ted Kennedy reminded Americans that the Iraqi election is not the only issue. "We can't focus solely on the thirty percent of the Iraqi people who did not vote. We must remember that there are other important questions. What should be done about Saddam being beaten by Americans? Should George Bush be impeached for spying on terrorists? Were Diebold voting machines used in Iraq? The American people deserve answers to these questions."

CNN Reporter Walter Jenkins, currently on assignment in Baghdad, interviewed a number of Iraqi citizens who did not vote, searching for an explanation for the decreasing voter turnout. One Iraqi said, "We knew that the entire world was not behind this election because Richard Gere didn't tell us to vote."

Golden Globe

The Hollywood elites of the Golden Globe film awards have proven what we suspected for a long time: they are so open minded that their brains leaked out.

Last week the Golden Globe nominees were announced. "Brokeback Mountain", the gay cowboy movie, received seven nominations. This box-office flop was nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Screenplay, Best Direction, Best Song, and Best Score. It is clear that politics was the deciding factor here, because the quality of filmmaking couldn't explain the nominations. The film is beyond tacky. It is an assault on the genre of the American Western. Fortunately, the American public demonstrates better taste than the Golden Globe awards. The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, based on the amazing book by Christian author C.S. Lewis was released on the same day as Brokeback Mountain, and to date has attracted 32 times the audience.

The other day I watched "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", a great western starring John Wayne and James Stewart. I shudder to think of what John Wayne would do to Heath Ledger if the two met in Dodge City. This year, instead of watching the Golden Globe awards, rent anything starring John Wayne and enjoy a celebration of what made America great.

How to get in real trouble

There are two ways to get yourself into a heap of trouble in this "holiday" season.

A music teacher in a Richardson Texas school told her students that there is no Santa Claus. The backlash was so severe that the school district was forced to issue a "pro-Santa" statement from the big man himself.

In Manhasset New York, a Catholic priest who had been asked to give the blessing during the lighting of the town Christmas Tree had the audacity to mention the name of Jesus. A city councilman interrupted him as he was speaking and chastised him for being "inappropriate."

We have Santa Claus, a fictional character based on a myth, and the historical person Jesus Christ, God in human flesh, whose name is the basis of Christmas, whose birth celebrated at Christmas is the central point in history.

The two ways to get into a lot of trouble:

Question the myth or declare the truth

Joy to the World, the Lord is come!
Let earth receive her King
Let every heart prepare him room
And heaven and nature sing

Making it right

I learned a few things last night as I listened to Tookie William's lawyer make the case that his brutal gang killer client should not be executed. I learned that guilt or innocence is not the important factor in determining if justice should be carried out. The important factor is that executions should be done in proportion to the demographics of the population at large. For example, more than half the people in the United States are women. Therefore, more than half of the people executed should be women. I have a proposal to make sure that this happens. We need to begin randomly arresting and executing white women. To assure that the system is fair, diverse, and equitable, we must take action now. I call on Senators Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein to take the lead in this issue by volunteering to be first on the list. We would be eternally grateful to them for helping to end decades of injustice.

Tookie's Last Book

Gang Murderer Tookie Williams will soon be executed, more than 26 years after he brutally killed four people.

Opponents of the death penalty want Tookie's life to be spared because, they say, he is a changed man, and he has done so much good during his twenty years on death row. He has written books encouraging kids to not join gangs. At the same time, he refuses to give law enforcement authorities the information which could help them shut down the lawless gang he founded.

But nothing that a murderer does in prison after being sentenced to death should affect the carrying out of the sentence. For one thing, there is no proof that his reform is genuine. Secondly, writing books does not bring back the people he killed. If Tookie is genuine in his regret for his actions, and if he actually has influenced kids to not join gangs, I extend my thanks to him, as they swab his arm with alcohol before they insert the needle. Got to avoid infection, you know.

For justice to be done, the sentence must be carried out. But if Tookie is really concerned about influencing kids in South Central LA to not join gangs, he has just enough time to write one more short book. In this book he can describe how he founded the Crips, how he killed people, and how he was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death. He can talk about how he wasted his life. He can tell kids who are considering joining a gang what it is like to spend twenty six years sitting on death row. Then he can tell them about the ultimate consequence for what he did: how tonight he will be strapped to a gurney, a needle inserted into his vein, and lethal drugs pumped into his body. Perhaps there will be a few kids who would read that book and see that justice is done in spite of Tookie claim to be reformed, and they will decide not to join a gang.

Tookie's life was wasted, but perhaps his death would not be wasted. What happens tonight is the most powerful anti-gang statement Tookie will ever make.

The Grinch who Stole Target

Employees are Target have been instructed not to mention Christmas. No Christmas signs. No Christmas music. No greeting customers with "Merry Christmas." Instead, they can say "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays." You see, they don't want to offend anybody. They want to be inclusive of all traditions, including those who would rather have a twig of holly stuck in their eye than wish someone "Merry Christmas."

We shop at Target quite often, and we are not going to boycott Target.

Instead we are going to pick up the slack. When I take my little boys to Target, we are going to wish every person we see a "Merry Christmas." Every customer, every employee, the police man by the door, and the checkout clerk. Then we will page the manager so that we can wish him a Merry Christmas, too. We may even sing a few choruses of "Away in a Manger" or "Joy to the World." If the security guard asks us to leave, we'll wish him a Merry Christmas too.

And to all you readers of this blog: MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Why our kids are not in public schools

These days many people delegate the responsibility to educate their kids to the government by putting them in public schools. Not only do they give up the opportunity to instruct their kids with the knowledge and skills needed for life, but they also entrust the state to provide their kids world view and moral foundation in their formative years. Public schools claim to be "tolerant" and non-religious, but they do promote their own political and religious views of liberalism and secular humanism.

We put our oldest child in public school for two years, but changed to a Christian school because of a number of incidents. Here are a few:

On the first day of seventh grade, the social studies teacher conducted an "ethnicity survey". The paper she sent home claimed that they are concerned with "ethnicity" not race. This paper informed us that there are four ethnicities: African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, and European American. An African American is any person with black skin, regardless of where their ancestors are from or where they currently live. A white native South African who is currently an American citizen living in Texas is not an African American. A black man from Jamaica living in France is an African American, even though he is neither African nor American. Likewise, any person with oriental features is of the same ethnicity, whether they are from China, Japan, Thailand, Korea, or Indonesia. Like I said, it is about ethnicity, not race. The most important factor in the quality of education is the "ethnic" makeup of the class. To adequately prepare students to avoid Affirmative Action lawsuits in the corporate world, the practice of using quotas to ensure a diverse classroom is essential. Defining everyone by placing them into one of four categories is critical in recognizing each of our uniqueness and viewing all people based on their character. To conduct the ethnicity survey, they went around the classroom and each student indicated which of the four ethnicities they belong to. When they got to my son, he said, "I am an American." The teacher was a bit confused, as that is not one of the four ethnicities in the world. "Yes, but what is your family background?" He replied, "Well, my biological father is half Hispanic-American and half European-American. My biological mother is European American. My mother is Asian-American. My father is part American Indian. My brothers are half Asian-American and half European-American. I was born in The United States, so you can list me as American or Native American." She looked at him and said, "You are white. You are a European-American." Like I said, it is about ethnicity, not race.

Later that year, the same teacher spent weeks talking about "non-violent social action." The class was supposedly about American history up to the Civil War. However, the teacher couldn't help but interject her own agenda into the class. "Non-violent social action" was held up as the paragon of virtue. The Civil Rights movement, feminism, and the homosexual movement were held up as prime examples of the good which could be accomplished by non-violent social action. The teacher asked for other examples of non-violent social action, and my son mentioned Operation Rescue, a movement of people willing to sacrificially place themselves between the unborn baby and the abortionist who wants to dismember her for money. Although violence has been inflicted on Rescuers, Operation Rescue has never condoned or initiated violence, and takes action to prevent violence on defenseless babies. However, the teacher told the class that Operation Rescue is not an example of non-violent social action because some Operation Rescue members support the death penalty.

Public schools promote tolerance for every idea except for Christianity. They will make accommodations for Muslims to do their prayers during school hours, but one teacher told our son that he could not bring a Bible to school. Separation of Church and State, you know. The First Amendment is a limit on the state, not on citizens, and it protects the citizen's right to practice religion. But public schools are bastions of their own state-sponsored religion, secular humanism, and they preach tolerance, but don't tolerate Christian ideas.

We spent so much time deprogramming our son from the crazy stuff he was taught at school that we came to realize that it is not the responsibility of the government to teach our kids or to guide them as they build a world view and a moral compass. It is a parent's job.

Don't reform the tax code, replace it

A few weeks back, the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform released a report. It includes some good baby steps in the right direction, such as eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax. However, it does not go nearly far enough. It does not address the regressive employment tax, which is the largest tax payed by most workers. The tax code is the primary source of power for politicians, and well-funded lobbyists have worked for years to coerce, bribe, and otherwise manipulate corrupt Congresscritters to shape the tax code into something that benefits them and the people who hire them, but makes no sence for the nation as a whole. Tax considerations cause people to do things in a highly inefficient and unproductive way. The book The Greedy Hand by Amity Shlaes gives countless examples of unintended consequences of the convoluded tax code. Decades of tax code manipulation has resulted in a 17,000 page monster which is beyond reform. We need to throw it out and rebuilt the tax structure from the ground up.

Our current tax system punishes activities which benefit the country, benefit the economy, and benefit individuals: labor, saving, and capital. As a general principle, if you tax an activity, you decrease the activity. We want to increase the motivation for people to work and provide for themselves, to save, and to invest in our economy. Ronald Reagan summed up our current approach to taxation: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." In combination with controlling and reducing government spending, we need to eliminate the tax on income and investment and replace it with a tax on consumption. Repeal the income tax, the employment tax, the capital gains tax, and the death tax, and remove these impediments to employment. Instead, tax consumption thru a national sales tax. Everyone would get an automatic pre-bate on the taxes paid to support a minimal standard of living. The poor would pay no taxes, income or employment. Money not spent on consumption would not be taxed, giving a great incentive to save and invest, driving down interest rates and providing investment capital to grow the economy. This would remove the maze of loopholes and hoops to jump through in our current system of tax deferred savings. All savings would be tax deferred. Small businesses and self-employed people would no longer be burdened with the impossible task of trying to cope with the complexities of the tax system. As interest rates fall, the economy grows, and employment rises, everyone benefits.

So why will Congress not make such a positive change? It would take away from their own power. The primary source of power for a member of Congress is the ability to take away the money that you earn and give it to someone who didn't earn it. Congress is unlikely to give up their own grasp on power, even if it is in the long-term interest of the nation.

The Fair Tax proposal is very similar to what I am proposing. For a great deal of information about how it would work and the benefits it would bring, visit http://www.fairtax.org.

Public education

Rebecca Beach, a freshman at Warren Community College in New Jersey, sent an email to the faculty of the college inviting them to a speech by Iraq War veteran Scott Rutter. She got a response from English professor John Daly, in which Daly advocated the murder of American military officers, argued the superiority of communism over capitalism, propagated bizarre lies about the number of children killed in Iraq and in America by lack of medical insurance, and expressed his desire to suppress the expression of Rebecca's opinions. Is this what our colleges have come to these days? I had a few wacky leftist professors when I attended University twelve years ago, but nothing like this. Can this be defended as a free-flow of ideas? I don't believe that advocating that American soldiers killer their commanding officers is a responsible or defensible action. And if Professor Daly was so committed to a free-flow of ideas, he would not attempt to squelch someone else's ideas.

Colleges and Universities have always been breeding grounds for leftist ideologies, as young, idealistic, and impressionable kids lacking experience and a grounding in reality are influenced by tenured professors who are more committed to advancing a political agenda than educating. They say that if you are not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart, and if you are not a conservative at age 30, you have no brain. I guess I was a heartless 20-year-old, but I am not a brainless 30+ year old. Around the world, Communism, Stalinism, and other forms of collectivism are failing and crumbling away, but they are alive and well on the college campuses of the United States.

People such as John Daly denigrate the blood of the people who died to protect the freedom that they trample under their feet as they spew their anti-American garbage.

The writing skills of the people who instruct our kids in English is a topic for another day.


Below is the full unedited text of the email from Professor John Daly to Rebecca Beach.

Dear Rebecca:
I am asking my students to boycott your event. I am also going to ask others to boycott it. Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is extremely offensive. Your main poster "Communism killed 100,000,000" is not only untrue, but ignores the fact that CAPITALISM has killed many more and the evidence for that can be seen in the daily news papers. The U.S. government can fly to dominate the people of Iraq in 12 hours, yet it took them five days to assist the people devastated by huricane Katrina. Racism and profits were key to their priorities. Exxon, by the way, made $9 Billion in profits this last quarter--their highest proft margin ever. Thanks to the students of WCCC and other poor and working class people who are recruited to fight and die for EXXON and other corporations who earning megaprofits from their imperialist plunders. If you want to count the number of deaths based on political systems, you can begin with the more than a million children who have died in Iraq from U.S.-imposed sanctions and war. Or the million African American people who died from lack of access to healthcare in the US over the last 10 years.

I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won't dare show their face on a college campus. Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs--such freedom fighters can be counted throughout American history and they certainly will be counted again.

Prof. John Daly

Fitz reports

(11-19-2005) Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald dramatically unveiled the source of the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame in a press conference Saturday. "You know how you play that game in school where the teacher tells the first kid a message, and they pass it around the room, and by the time it is done, the message has changed? Vice President Cheney apparently told Karl Rove that Joe Wilson was involved with a CYA. By the time the message got to Robert Novak, it had changed slightly."

The person who leaked Valarie Plame's covert status to Valarie Plame is still at large.

Urban violence

Today French officials reported that urban violence fell to "normal levels."

Only 98 cars were torched last night.

By what measure?

Democrats recognize that a successful War on Terror would mean that they would have no chance of gaining power in Congress or the White House. For this reason, they are hell-bent on convincing the public that the war is going badly. By doing this, they are emboldening the enemy and putting our soldiers in greater danger.

I have to ask the question: by what measure is the War on Terror going badly?

In the four years since terrorists crashed airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the Taliban has been removed from power, most of the command structure of al Qaida has been dismantled, with dozens of high-level terrorists captured or killed, Iraq is liberated from an evil dictator and is beginning to establish a working democracy, Saddam Hussein is in prison facing trial and he no longer controls stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. Five years ago would anyone have believed that in 2005 Iraq would hold a free election to approve a Constitution establishing a democratic government? Even a year ago few people believed that the election would come off smoothly and the Constitution would pass.

The foreign terrorists and Iraqi Baathists who profited under Saddam's rule do continue to fight us, but did anyone really believe that they wouldn't? They think that there is a vacuum to fill, but freedom and democracy has already filled that vacuum, and it is a matter of time until it defeats the Islamofascists. The last thing we should do at this point is abandon the Iraqi majority who want freedom and let the Islamofascist minority impose their will on the majority. The insurgency does provide an opportunity to do significant damage to the forces of terror worldwide, as terrorists from throughout the middle east have converged on one spot, ready for our fine military to wipe them out. While our losses have been high, theirs have been much higher.

When you destroy a hornet's nest, you invariably stir up a bunch of hornets. The fact that they were not stirred up before doesn't mean that they were not there, or that they would not have stung you if you ignored them. Stirring them up is a necessary first step to wiping them out.

So I repeat the question: by what measure is the War on Terror going badly?

Let's talk about casualties. We won World War II, and along the way we lost 295,000 fine American soldiers. Our allies lost millions more. In Vietnam we lost 58,226 American servicemen. In the Civil War, at least 618,000 Americans died. By any historical standard, 2,000 casualties is a small number. Our modern society has had a major shift in expectations regarding the number of casualties we are willing to accept. We expect a Desert Storm style victory every time, when the reality is that a land war involves greater risk and more casualties. Not all objectives can be accomplished by air power alone. Although we never want to see any American soldier killed, it is a fundamentally American principle that freedom is worth fighting for. The winner is not always the side with the fewest casualties. In WWII, many more Allied soldiers died than Axis soldiers. In the Civil War, more Union soldiers died than Confederate soldiers. The key factors which lead to victory are the will to win, and the resources to win. Democrats who try to score political points by calling the war a failure are eroding away the will of the American people to win the War on Terror. Along with the liberal media, they have done more to help the terrorists and endanger our soldiers than you can imagine. CNN, the DNC, and the New York Times are the propaganda branch of al Qaida. We certainly have an advantage in terms of resources, so if we maintain the will to win, we have the opportunity to defeat one of the greatest threats in history and make the world a safer, freer place.

I'm sure its in there somewhere

Judge Alito drew criticism for his lack of knowledge of the Constitution, based on a letter in which he wrote that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion. Senator Barbara Boxer held the 1985 letter over her head as she railed, "I have based my entire career on the fact that the Constitution was written to guarantee all women an abortion any time they want one! How can this Alito guy claim to be a Constitutional scholar when he doesn't even think that this most sacred right is in there?"

When asked to point out where the provision for abortion was included in the Consitution, Senator Boxer answered, "We're still looking for it. Can I get back to you on that?"

Examination of the letter by Dan Rather's document validation experts is not yet complete, but initial analysis indicates that it was not produced by a laser printer using Office 2000.

Teens decry "stupid" parents

As the manhunt for David Ludwig, accused of killing a couple and abducting their 14-year-old daughter at gunpoint, expanded nationwide, teens everywhere recognized that the problem was that her parents were "just plain stupid."

Neighbors and friends of the family said that the parents often argued with their daughter about her curfew and dating 18-year-old Ludwig, who listed his greatest area of expertise as "getting in trouble" on his internet blog.

Randy Harris of Akron Ohio said, "Clearly these parents were not with the times. They should have listened to their daughter, because she obviously knew a lot more than they did."

Jennifer Lewis of Seattle Washington said, "Mrs. Borden must have had a big 'S' written on her forehead, just like my mom. I hate to say 'I told you so' but hormones are always a more reliable guide than experience and wisdom."

Sarah Westin of Boston said, "It is comforting to know that I am not the only one suffering under the unreasonable restrictions of old-fashioned parents who just don't get it."

Lititz Police chief Willyam Ecaes told reporters, "The lesson in this tragedy is that teens should ignore their clueless parents."

Appeasement is working

French President Jacques Chirac pointed to the decrease in burned out cars as evidence that his appeasement policy is working.

"A week ago, fourteen hundred cars were burned in one night. Last night, only two hundred eighty four vehicles were torched. Clearly this is a benefit of being in bed with Saddam Hussein, united against the violent American aggressor. I extend my hand of friendship to the insurgents who have recognized our partnership by burning fewer cars and schools."

President Chirac was eager to remind the public that Islam is a religion of peace. "Muslims are eager to be at peace in a world where all infidels have been wiped out in name of Allah."

Meanwhile, President Bush held emergency cabinet meetings to determine if America could still get the preferential treatment that France is receiving.

Global warming

Today's issue of Science Magazine has an article reporting that global warming caused a major shift in the foliage of certain regions. In particular, plants from warmer southern areas moved into the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. More evidence that President Bush not joining the Kyoto Treaty was a big mistake? Perhaps it was caused by evil corporations and Republicans driving Hummers. Before you rush off in your Prius to mail a check to Earth First, read a bit further into the story. "An increase in the planet's temperature 55 million years ago prompted major shifts in plant distribution..." I suppose that if we can blame President Bush for supplying the faulty intelligence which led Bill Clinton to bomb Saddam's nuclear weapons development plant in 1998, we can blame him for causing global warming 55 million years ago. But if global warming happened without any human help millions of years ago, why would we not expect these natural cycles to continue today? If there was evidence that global temperatures are increasing (which there is not) how can we think that man is responsible for it, when it has been happening for millenia?

Grandma defends herself with handgun

Yesterday, a few miles from where I live, a grandma used a 38 caliber revolver to defend herself and her granddaughter from a criminal intruder.

Police tried to stop Christopher Lessner for speeding in a stolen truck, but he fled, abandoned the truck, and broken into the home of 66-year-old Susan Buxton. She heard the breaking glass when he smashed his way into her house, and she went to investigate, with her revolver in hand. Susan's granddaughter used a cell phone to call police. The intruder jumped out of a closet "like a jack in the box" and ignored her commands to get down on the floor. Instead, he lunged for her weapon. Buxton, who is well-trained in the use of her firearm, shot him in the leg. He fled through the front door, but was found by police cowering on the porch of a nearby house. Because Buxton aimed for his leg rather than his torso, this criminal will live to face charges for his actions.

We should give Susan Buxton a medal for being prepared to defend herself and for doing it so effectively. If she lived in New York or Massachusetts, she would be arrested for daring to defend herself and her granddaughter. Fortunately, in Texas we still have a Second Amendment.

Conflict of interest?

Judge Samuel Alito has come under fire recently for ruling in a case involving Vanguard mutual fund company, when he held shares of Vanguard funds. Democrats are trying to make this out as a conflict of interests. The reality is that the performance of a mutual fund is completely unrelated to the profitability of the company which manages it.

A conflict of interest is created for a judge when his personal interests will be affected by a ruling in a case. For example, if a judge owned a million dollars of Microsoft stock, ruling in a case which would significantly affect the profitability of Microsoft would be a conflict of interest. If the judge ruled in favor of Microsoft, the decision could be called into question.

Senators certainly understand the distinction between investing in a company's common stock and investing in a mutual fund managed by a fund family. They are raising this issue because they count on a large percentage of the population not understanding the distinction. Judge Alito did not invest in Vanguard stock. In fact, Vanguard is not publicly held, so there is no Vanguard stock to invest in. Judge Alito invested in mutual funds managed by Vanguard. The money is invested in the stock of hundreds or thousands of companies. The performance of his investment is determined by the performance of all these stocks. His ruling has no impact at all on the value of his investment.

Judge Alito demonstrates great financial savvy by investing in Vanguard funds. My IRA is invested in Vanguard funds because it is one of the best fund families out there, ranking near the top in fiduciary responsibility, low expenses, and breadth of investment options. An investment in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is perhaps the investment which is least subject to conflict of interest of any investment. This fund tracks the Wilshire 5000 index, which is essentially the entire domestic stock market. The performance of this fund is tied to the strength of the entire American economy. Because the fund owns shares in several thousand American companies, the impact on the fund of a court ruling involving any one company is negligible. What is best for the country as a whole is what produces the best investment performance. Just as we would hope, the private interests of the judge are aligned with the interests of the nation. Most public officials' investment portfolios are riskier, return less, carry higher expenses, and are more subject to conflict of interest.

Calling in a You-Owe-Me

I have intercepted a letter from beseiged French president Jacques Chirac to Osama Bin Laden in his subterranean office complex. As a service to the reader of this blog, I present the text of his missive.

Mon cher ami,

Je suis tres fromagged off.

Pourquoi et vous bothering les Frogs? Nous sommes votre premier ami, Osama. Remembre vous que je ne attackez vous pas? En Afghanistan et Iraq je suis su votre side. Je dis "Fuckez vous" a cowboy American Presidente Busch. Je seulement sendez votre ami les bucketez du francs pour votre oile. Comment vous repaidez moi? Vous dit "merci" et burnez mon auto? Pourquoi? Vous desire que je surrenderez encore? Je surrendere! Seulement ne burnez mon palace, si vous plait. Je t'aime, mon petite Osama. Nous allons way back, mon ami.

Baisez vous,

Votre Jacques

Mission Accomplished

When George Bush was sworn in as President of the United States in January 2001, Saddam Hussein was a dangerous tyrant who was violating UN resolutions by having and developing chemical and biological weapons and attempting to gain a nuclear capability. He had used those weapons ten times since 1983, in some cases against his own people. And he would have used them again. He was an international threat, who had attacked his neighboring countries on more than one occasion.

Some will say that these are lies spread by George Bush. However, these claims do not hold up to inspection. First of all, it was well known long before George Bush was President that Saddam Hussein was developing these weapons.

Tell the Kurds who Saddam gassed that Saddam didn't have chemical weapons.

How is it that Bush was lying, but Clinton was telling the truth when he bombed Saddam's nuclear site in 1998 and said "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." (Feb 17, 1998) Was Clinton passing on George Bush's lies three years before Bush became president?

How is it that Bush was lying, but Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was telling the truth when he said "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." (Feb 18, 1998) Was George Bush providing faulty intelligence to mislead Berger?

How is it that Bush was lying, but Democrat Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others were telling the truth when they wrote to President Clinton "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (Oct 9, 1998)

How is it that Bush was lying, but House Democrat Nancy Pelosi was telling the truth when she said "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." (Dec 16, 1998)

And how is it that Bush was lying, but Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright was telling the truth when she said "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." (Nov 10, 1999)

How is it that Bush was lying, but former Vice President and failed Presidential candidate Al Gore was telling the truth when he said "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" and "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." (Sept 23, 2002)

How is it that Bush was lying, but Vietnam War Veteran John Kerry was telling the truth when he voted for the war before he voted against it, saying "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." and "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

How is it that Bush was lying, but Senator Hillary Clinton was telling the truth when she said "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Does Hillary even recognize that the man whose coattails she rode into the Senate is responsible for the inspectors leaving Iraq in the first place, giving Saddam four years to develop those weapons and hide them?

And finally, how is it that Bush was lying, but Ted Kennedy was telling the truth when he said "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." (Sept 27, 2002) Uncle Ted debunks the myth that weapons of mass destruction were a myth created by lies of President Bush by saying that we have known about Saddam's weapons development for many years.

Numerous intelligence agencies, including the British, Saudi, and Israeli, had independently verified that Saddam Hussein was developing chemical and biological weapons and was trying to obtain nuclear weapons. To this day, the British government stands behind the statement which Joe Wilson claims to have debunked: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Joe Wilson spent eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting dozens of people" as he put it. He did not find proof that Iraq obtained uranium, but he found ample evidence that Iraqi agents had been there and were hoping to obtain uranium, just as Bush said. In 2004 I spent 15 days in Africa and also drank tea and spoke to dozens of people. Given twice the time that Wilson spent, I found no evidence that Joe Wilson was ever there, so Wilson's trip must be a fabrication.

Perhaps the most compelling proof that President George Bush did not lie about the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction is that it would have been self destructive. My young son tells lies which are easily disproven. He does not stop to think that the truth is bound to become apparent, and his lie will be exposed. This is not a mistake that the President of the United States makes. If he knew that no weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq, he would not have based the argument for going to war on those weapons. There are certainly many other reasons for removing Saddam Hussein from power. He was a menace to his own people and to the world. President Bush had absolutely no reason to make a case for the war which he knew would be found faulty.

We know for sure that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. We know that he was actively working to obtain the materials to create nuclear weapons. We know that as little as two years before the war that he was busy building and storing these weapons. We know that he had used those weapons against his own people and against other countries. We know that he supported terrorist organizations in numerous countries. The only thing we don't know is what he did with those weapons before we liberated the country. He may have hidden them somewhere in Iraq or in Syria. He may have destroyed them. We don't know specifically what he did with them. We do know why he no longer has them. It is because he knew that we were coming. And we also know for sure that he no longer has control of the weapons, because he is sitting in a prison awaiting the justice that he denied his enemies.

Four years ago, Saddam Hussein controlled an arsenal of weapons which could have killed millions of Americans. Today he does not control those weapons, because one American President had the intestinal fortitude to do something about it.

Mission Accomplished.

Prop 2

The pro-homosexual forces are hard at work, trying to defeat Proposition 2. They know that no honest approach to defeating this good proposition is going to succeed, so they are using lies and deception. Thousands of people have been receiving recorded messages claiming to be from a Christian, pro-family group "Save Texas Marriage". This organization does not exist, and the person speaking on these recorded messages is not Attorney General Greg Abbott, as he claims. The calls are actually originating from the office of Glen Maxey, former legislator and homosexual activist who is leading the fight to defeat Proposition 2. These fraudulent calls claim that Proposition 2 will make all marriages illegal in Texas. The reality is that Attorney General Greg Abbott sent a letter last week calling these claims "baseless and frivolous". Anyone has the right to oppose a ballot initiative, but to do it using fraud and deception shows that they have no real arguments to support their cause.