Countdown to May Day, 2008

Tomorrow is May Day.  Once again, the open borders lobby is organizing protests across the nation to show just how much support there is for granting amnesty and all kinds of taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal aliens.  I'd like to take this opportunity to make some predictions:

1. There will be a lot of media hubbub, but it will be exaggerated.  If organizers say there will be millions marching, I predict there will be hundreds of thousands.  If they say hundreds of thousands, I predict there will be tens of thousands.
2. There will be many more Mexican flags than American flags.  I've addressed this many times before: if illegals were truly interested in becoming Americans, they wouldn't wave a Mexican flag and demand 'reconquista'.
3. There will be no talk of assimilation.  Again, if illegals wanted to join us, where are the conversations about learning English, getting education and jobs, and contributing to the American society and economy?  Instead, I predict we'll hear a lot of complaints about how Americans are racist meanies who are trying to deny their 'rights'.  Might I preemptively remind everyone that the 'rights' they speak of so recklessly are only granted by the Constitution to American citizens?
4. Few, if any, arrests will be made.  This truly amazes me!  If our government was actually interested in cracking down on illegal immigration (and deportation), they'd be licking their chops at these protests.  What better way is there to identify and capture illegals than to go where they gather in huge groups to openly profess being here illegally?  We could remove a significant chunk of illegals in one day, if the government had the stones to do it.
5. This effort will backfire.  While protest organizers will see their marches as a way to illustrate wide public support, they'll probably only get a couple million people involved at best.  That would be a tiny fraction of the population of the country (three million people would be less than 1%).  But, when Americans -- real, legal, working, tax-paying ones -- see these marchers with their Mexican flags, their demands (in Spanish, naturally) for accommodation of non-existent 'rights', and their talk of what America can do for them rather than how they want to join America, we'll will get pissed off all over again.  Don't expect any groundswell of support from legal citizens.  If anything, the opposite will happen.

I'll report back to you later in the week.

There's my two cents.

Big War Update

Here is a rather large war update for you.  Some of these articles may be a bit old (I've been gathering links for over a week), but the info is still worth passing along.

Michelle Malkin helpfully created a chart that shows which terrorists support which Democrat candidate, but I've already mentioned that before.  Still, it's good to know who our enemies support, you know?

The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, still refuse to reinstate the wiretapping program that will check out known terrorists outside U.S. borders in order to help their trial lawyer supporters.  The legal argument for refusing this measure was flimsy at best before, but a new ruling makes it even more so - a child pornographer was caught trying to carry illegal material over the border on a laptop, but the ruling stated that communications crossing our borders are no different (when it comes to warrantless surveillance) than an actual laptop or physical letter.  So, the Democrats are continuing to protect terrorists (and trial lawyers) despite the ever-increasing legal precedent to do so.  Thanks, Nancy & Co.  This is why the Democrats cannot be trusted with the defense of this country!

Here's a heart-warming story of an anti-war protester's true colors.  A man showed up at a reading for Laura and Jenna Bush's new children's book, and began heckling them for the President's actions regarding the war.  When some bystanders in the crowd told them to be quiet, the anti-war nut attacked, repeatedly hitting an 18-year old wheelchair-bound girl with cerebral palsy.  Wow - protesting the war by inflicting violence on innocent disabled child - what class.

Michelle Malkin also reports on a story of Al Qaeda and the Taliban getting 'punked' in Afghanistan.  Nice!

In total contradiction of the conventional wisdom that says America's position in the world is worse because of the war in Iraq, get a load of this:

THE US war in Iraq has strengthened its strategic position, especially in terms of key alliances, and the only way this could be reversed would be if it lost the will to continue the struggle and abandoned Iraq in defeat and disarray.

Surely the author of this sentence is on the ganja, you might say. Something a little weird in the coffee? It goes against every aspect of conventional wisdom.

But the author of this thesis, stated only marginally less boldly, is one of the US's most brilliant strategic analysts. Mike Green holds the Japan chair at Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies and was for several years the Asia director at the National Security Council. He is also one of America's foremost experts on Japan and northeast Asia generally.

Now, who should we believe?  The MSM -- who have a history of being anti-war, anti-American, and anti-Bush -- or one of the nation's leading experts on the politics of the area in question?  Duh.  Let's consider why...

The world works as well as it does–and, granted, that's pretty marginal–in large part because the United States guarantees the security of its allies. Places like Taiwan and South Korea churn out magic toilets and miniature automobiles knowing that the United States will respond to incursions and aggression with overwhelming and sustained force. So far, our defense of the fledgling Iraqi government has confirmed that arrangement.

America does what it says. If you have an American security guarantee–and I'm looking at you,Saudi Arabia and Pakistan–you don't need to build a nuclear arsenal. America honors its commitments, and the world keeps ticking–well, arrhythmically stuttering, anyhow–because there are big U.S. guns ready to retaliate against aggression. No better friend. No worse enemy. If America is backing you, you're golden.

This is peace through strength at work.

There is definitely a trend of laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran.  Iran continues to kill Americans in Iraq, our top military leaders say repeatedly that Iran is fighting a proxy war against the U.S. in Iraq, and captives from Iraq are actually being held by the Revolutionary Guard inside Iran.

One of the most important battles, the worldwide PR battle, is finally starting to show some real progress.  By showing that American and allied forces have the interests of Iraqis far more at heart than Al Qaeda does, more and more Muslims are questioning where the real evil lies.  This is the key to long-term victory, and the only thing that will really counter the brainwashing that goes on in the Muslim world.  Actions speak louder than words, and our military's actions are speaking volumes right now.

The city of Basra, Iraq's second largest city, has come alive again after a crackdown on black-garbed terrorists.  A surprise show of force by the Iraqi army pushed back another insurgency, allowing citizens to once again live in relative peace.

There continue to be problematic alliances with Russia, however.  A recent shipment of nuclear material being sent from Russia to Iran was intercepted by a U.S. ally, Azerbaijan.  It has been held for several weeks while a determination is being made on whether or not such a shipment would violate the most recent U.N. sanctions on Iran.  Regardless of the result, this Russia-Iran alliance could spell big trouble.  I could very easily see Russia fighting a proxy war with the U.S. through Iran, much like Iran is fighting one with the U.S. through Iraq.  The difference, of course, would be that Russia has loads of nukes at their disposal.

Another topic that should be of great concern is that of Syria.  Last fall, I passed along the story of how Israel snuck into Syria to destroy a suspected nuclear facility.  Since then, more news has come out that proves Syria was in league with North Korea to develop nuclear weapons: the Mossad (Israel's version of our CIA) released video of North Koreans working at the plant.  More details here and here.  President Bush said that that information was intended to be a warning to rogue terrorist-sponsoring states (i.e. North Korea, Iran) to stop spreading nuke technology:

Mr. Bush did not explain why exactly the administration disclosed the information at this point, but the timing coincided with renewed efforts to persuade North Korea to abide by last year's agreement to acknowledge all of its nuclear activities. The North Korean activities include what administration officials assert are a still undisclosed program to enrich uranium and the sale of nuclear technology to countries like Syria.

"We also wanted to advance certain policy objectives through the disclosures, and one would be to the North Koreans to make it abundantly clear that we, we may know more about you than you think," Mr. Bush said at a White House news conference.

This strikes me as a very, very good move.  Not only does it send a very clear 'shape up' message to North Korea (who's been a problem in recent years), but it also sends a message to others like Iran and Syria that our intelligence capabilities are not quite as lame as they think.  And, it also shows a definite position of pre-emptive strength (as well as partnership with Israel), which is extremely good.  All of these details are icing on the cake.

Finally, Newsmax reports that Dennis Ross, an architect of the Middle East peace process, predicts Iran will have nuclear weapons by 2009:

"Once they cross that threshold, we're going to be in a different ball game. We have to approach this with a high degree or urgency. We're running out of time."

Not only did Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vow to "wipe Israel off the map," but former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami has stated that it would "take only one bomb" to annihilate Israel, Ross told the gathering.

"Is that their intention?" he asked. "Can you ignore what they say?"

Very good questions!  Some interesting supporting details:

As Newsmax reported in mid-April, a leading member of America's Jewish community disclosed that a military strike on Iran was likely, and said Vice President Dick Cheney's recent trip through the Middle East should be seen as preparation for the U.S. attack.

The source also told Newsmax that Israel "is preparing for heavy casualties," expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution following a U.S. strike.

And Saudi Arabia is reportedly taking emergency steps in preparing to counter any radioactive hazards that may result from an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

I once had a conversation with someone about preemptive attacks.  We danced around it for a while, and then I just came out and asked if she would be willing to let hundreds of thousands of Americans die in order to avoid a preemptive attack (meaning, we let them hit us first even though we could prevent it).  She said yes.  This is the key question, and her answer is the problem we face here in America.  Not surprisingly, she's a die-hard Democrat, and her mindset is not only completely ludicrous, but it is the precise justification for why we shouldn't allow Democrats to control our national defense: they will refuse to take action until thousands lay dead in the decimated streets (of course, given the actions of the last two Democrat presidents -- Carter and Clinton -- on terrorism and attacks, we might not retaliate even then).  I wish I would have asked her this follow up question: would you still allow it if your children and their families lived in the city that was destroyed?  I truly wonder what her answer would have been.  Maybe I don't want to know.

So, there are the latest developments on war in the Middle East.  Keep an eye on it - it all affects you one way or another!

There's my two cents.

Steyn On Global Warming

Mark Steyn writes a great piece at NRO about Time magazine's war on global warming (with the infamous Iwo Jima mockery).  Go read the whole thing, but here are some excerpts:

For the last ten years, we have, in fact, been not warming but slightly cooling, which is why the eco-warriors have adopted the all-purpose bogeyman of "climate change." But let's take it that the editors of Time are referring not to the century we live in but the previous one, when there was a measurable rise of temperature of approximately one degree. That's the "war": one degree.

If the tree-raising is Iwo Jima, a one-degree increase isn't exactly Pearl Harbor. But General Stengel wants us to engage in preemptive war. The editors of Time would be the first to deplore such saber-rattling applied to, say, Iran's nuclear program, but it has become the habit of progressive opinion to appropriate the language of war for everything but actual war.

So let's cut to the tree. In my corner of New Hampshire, we have more trees than we did a hundred or two hundred years ago. My town is over 90 percent forested. Any more trees and I'd have to hack my way through the undergrowth to get to my copy of Time magazine on the coffee table. Likewise Vermont, where not so long ago in St Albans I found myself stuck behind a Hillary supporter driving a Granolamobile bearing the bumper sticker "TO SAVE A TREE REMOVE A BUSH." Very funny. And even funnier when you consider that on that stretch of Route Seven there's nothing to see north, south, east, or west but maple, hemlock, birch, pine, you name it. It's on every measure other than tree cover that Vermont's kaput.

So where exactly do Time magazine's generals want to plant their tree? Presumably, as in Iwo Jima, on foreign soil. It's all these third-world types monkeying around with their rain forests who decline to share the sophisticated Euro-American reverence for the tree. In the Time iconography, the tree is Old Glory and it's a flag of eco-colonialism.   Unlike "global warming," food rioting is a planet-wide phenomenon, from Indonesia to Pakistan to Ivory Coast to the tortilla rampages in Mexico and even pasta protests in Italy.

Steyn goes on to talk about food shortages in third world countries, where people are literally eating dirt because they can't afford food.  Haiti's Prime Minister has already been ousted for the problems there.  He goes on:

So what happened?

Well, Western governments listened to the eco-warriors, and introduced some of the "wartime measures" they've been urging. The EU decreed that 5.75 percent of petrol and diesel must come from "biofuels" by 2010, rising to 10 percent by 2020. The U.S. added to its 51 cents-per-gallon ethanol subsidy by mandating a five-fold increase in "biofuels" production by 2022.

The result is that big government accomplished at a stroke what the free market could never have done: They turned the food supply into a subsidiary of the energy industry. When you divert 28 percent of U.S. grain into fuel production, and when you artificially make its value as fuel higher than its value as food, why be surprised that you've suddenly got less to eat? Or, to be more precise, it's not "you" who's got less to eat but those starving peasants in distant lands you claim to care so much about.

Researchers at Princeton calculate that to date the "carbon debt" created by the biofuels arboricide will take 167 years to reverse.

The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell: The first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be developing countries. In order for you to put biofuel in your Prius and feel good about yourself for no reason, real actual people in faraway places have to starve to death. On April 15, the Independent, the impeccably progressive British newspaper, editorialized: "The production of biofuel is devastating huge swathes of the world's environment. So why on earth is the Government forcing us to use more of it?"

You want the short answer? Because the government made the mistake of listening to fellows like you. Here's the self-same Independent in November 2005:

At last, some refreshing signs of intelligent thinking on climate change are coming out of Whitehall. The Environment minister, Elliot Morley, reveals today in an interview with this newspaper that the Government is drawing up plans to impose a 'biofuel obligation' on oil companies... This has the potential to be the biggest green innovation in the British petrol market since the introduction of unleaded petrol…

Mark Steyn has such a way with words, don't you think?  I love his conclusion:

All three presidential candidates have drunk the environmental kool-ethanol and are committed to Big Government solutions. But, as the Independent's whiplash-inducing U-turn confirms, the eco-scolds are under no such obligation to consistency. Finger-in-the-wind politicians shouldn't be surprised to find that gentle breeze is from the media wind turbine and it's just sliced your finger off.

Whether or not there's very slight global cooling or very slight global warming, there's no need for a "war" on either, no rationale for loosing a plague of eco-locusts on the food supply. So why be surprised that totalitarian solutions to mythical problems wind up causing real devastation? As for Time's tree, by all means put it up: It helps block out the view of starving peasants on the far horizon.

This is an outstanding analysis of the issue!  Steyn is right on the money with not only the hypocrisy of the environmental Lefties, but also with the unintended consequences of overreacting to this climate change nuttiness.  The 'war' on climate change is nothing more than a scam, and one that is punctured so easily that anyone willing to actually stop and think for a moment can figure it out.  Unfortunately, our leaders and politicians are so far removed from the normal life of Americans that they haven't clued in yet.  We need to get the message to them in the form of consistent phone calls and e-mails demanding that they stop ruining our economy -- not to mention indirectly destroying other countries around the world! -- for the sake of a hoax.

There's my two cents.

Some Short Comments

Here are a number of stories that need just a little bit of comment.

Why bother with the 'A'?
The San Diego chapter of the ACLU has signed an agreement with the Mexican government to 'protect human rights' of 'migrants' crossing the U.S./Mexico border. Um, excuse me? What about this has anything to do with human rights? If someone wants to go running through the desert, that's their choice. It has nothing to do with human rights! Aside from that idiocy, the fact that the ACLU is now partnering with Mexico to further illegal immigration prompts Michelle Malkin to question why the ACLU even bothers with the "A". Good point.

Blacks only count if they're liberal.
This is another case of two different treatments depending on the political leanings of prominent black men. First, we have Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a clear racist and hate-monger who is potentially taking down a presidential candidate. The NAACP invited him to speak at its annual dinner, and was applauded wildly. On the other hand, a long-standing invitation for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to speak at a University of Georgia commencement is being fought hard by some of the faculty. Why? Because of the long-disproven charges of sexual misconduct with Anita Hill (an issue that was put to rest decades ago). Riiiiight. You see how the liberal mindset works? It doesn't matter what you say or do, if you're a liberal, you get a pass. However, if you're a conservative, you get slandered for the most ridiculous non-issues that can be invented. It applies to blacks, too.

What hope?
Rich Lowry poses the all-important question: if Obama can't even unite his own party against one of the most loathed political figures today (Hillary Clinton), how can he possibly unite the entire country like he promises? He goes into lots of demographic details which are interesting, but the main question is one that all Democrats need to consider when they vote.

Journalism shouldn't be objective?!
In defense of running a cover that compared Iwo Jima with global warming, Time managing editor Richard Stengel said that journalism shouldn't be objective because objectivity is a 'fantasy'. Well, this explains a whole lot! If journalism is no longer supposed to be objective, that would explain why very little of is actually focuses on factual reporting rather than activism and blatant liberal bias. While this is something that anyone with half a brain has already figured out, it's refreshing to hear someone from the MSM be honest about it.

Dem registrations way up
This is undeniable, especially in the states with recent primaries. The key question is: why? While some would say that many Republicans have been taken with Obama, or that there is just more interest in the Dem race, or other things like that, many conservatives have another take on it. Rush Limbaugh has been running what he calls Operation Chaos, where he is encouraging Republican voters to cross the line and vote in the Democrat party to keep the battle between Clinton and Obama going as long as possible. It's a bit hard to quantify, but it looks likely that Rush's efforts have caused hundreds of thousands of Dem registrations by Rep voters. What will be very interesting to see is how many registrations go back to Republican after these primaries, and to see if the final votes in November follow the primary votes. I agree completely with Limbaugh's theory that the Dems (greatly aided by the liberal MSM) essentially forced McCain down our throats, so it's completely precedented for Reps to help the Dem primary along. How's it feel?

Free trade? Nah...
Investor's Business Daily writes about how a Colombian free trade deal is sorely needed for New Orleans. It would open up new markets for the city, which is ideally situated on a direct trade route from South America. Sadly, Pelosi is killing the Colombia deal for purely political reasons. Once again, liberalism comes into conflict with itself: New Orleans, the poster child for liberal assistance needed, versus anti-Bush sentiment. Too bad Americans lose in the end.

The Pelosi Premium Pain
Speaking of Americans losing due to Nancy Pelosi's stupid political games, how about the price of gas now? Despite Pelosi's pledge of a plan two years ago to keep gas prices low, she has yet to unveil that plan, despite the fact that gas prices have shot up since she's been in charge. David Freddoso:

High gas prices are bad for the economy, but the point here is not to make moral judgments about the trade-off between high gasoline prices and reduced carbon emissions. The point is that Democrats have taken a dishonest public stance with false promises of lower gasoline prices that they never intended to honor. Democrats are shedding crocodile tears for the end consumer of petroleum. If they say they hate to see you eaten alive by Big Oil, it is only because they would prefer to devour you themselves.

Nancy is very, very hungry.

There's my two cents.

Mis-remembrances And Trouble For Obama

Two more damaging lies...I mean, mis-remembrances from Barack Obama.  First, Thomas Lifson on finances:

Barack Obama is trying to have it both ways again.  On the campaign trail he decries  "predatory" subprime lending, and declares,

"Part of the reason we got a current mortgage crisis has to do with the fact that people got suckered in to loans that they could not pay,"

Yet his campaign's finance chief, Penny Pritzker, who was chairman of the board of subprime lender Superior Bank of Chicago, which subsequently failed, leaving 1400 of its customers without part of their savings.

We know all of this thanks to the excellent work of Chicago Sun-Times writer Abdon M. Pallasch: 

Obama's campaign notes that Pritzker stepped down as chairwoman of the bank's board in 1994, seven years before it failed. She then went on the board of the bank's holding company.

But a letter obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times shows that until the end, Pritzker appeared to be taking a leadership role in trying to revive the bank with an expanded push into subprime loans.

Pritzker wrote in May 2001 that her family was recapitalizing the bank, and she pledged to "once again restore Superior's leadership position in subprime lending." The bank shut down in July 2001.

Pritzker's attorney Kevin Poorman and Obama's campaign spokesman emphasized that not all "subprime lending" is the "predatory" kind that Obama and White House rival Hillary Clinton rail against. The kind of subprime lending Superior was doing in 2001 was not predatory, Poorman said.

But at least some of the 1,400 victims who are still owed money seven years after the bank failed say Pritzker is the wrong person for Obama to put in charge of the campaign's finances when part of his campaign is about reforming the banking industry.

I would be very interested in hearing an explanation from Barack Obama of the precise difference between predaory and non-predatory subprime lending. Especially keeping in mind the widespread liberal outrage (and subseqent government penalties) over so-called "redlining" (the denial of credit to poor people, especially blacks).

Prizker is, incidentally, heiress to the Hyatt Hotels fortune, and a Chicago buddy of Barack Obama. She has her many millions of dollars, while Superior Bank customer have lost their savings. I guess this is the sort of hope and change Obama plans to bring to America, with financial help from Prizker.

Then there's also this about his association with Tony Rezko:

Barack Obama's connection to Tony Rezko may rival his Rev. Wright ties as a damaging electoral issue. Wright is a racist, and Rezko is an alleged crook currently on trial. As with Wright, Obama's handling of the matter is only making things worse. Obama does not seem to be able to handle controversy well, apparently believing that his misstatements will escape close examination.

Rick Pearson and John McCormick  of the Chicago Tribune report:

Late last week, Sen. Barack Obama said he didn't recall meeting a controversial Iraqi-born billionaire at a party held at the home of his former friend and fundraiser, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, on April 3, 2004, because it was in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois.

Obama didn't deny the assertion of Stuart Levine, a key witness in Rezko's federal fraud trial, that the now-Democratic presidential contender attended the party held on behalf of Nadhmi Auchi, a British citizen appealing a fraud conviction in France. Rezko was allegedly trying to partner up with Auchi and may have been using an Obama appearance to demonstrate clout.

"I just don't have a recollection of the event," Obama said Friday. "As I said, I was in the middle of running a U.S. Senate race. So, you know, I was speaking all the time, probably six, seven, eight times a day."

Obama may not recall Rezko's party for Auchi, but he was not in the "middle" of a U.S. Senate race or speaking all the time. The Saturday party was held less than three weeks after Obama had won the March 16 Democratic primary nomination and, as is tradition, the candidates slow their immediate post-primary campaign schedules considerably before reheating the fall general election contest in late summer.

Indeed, an archived copy of an Obama "upcoming events" schedule on his old Senate campaign web site shows that on a Saturday two weeks later, he had no personal campaign activities. On Friday, April 13, the web site shows Obama touring Illinois coal-country at four morning events with the state's senior senator, Dick Durbin.

I've said it about Hillary before, and now it applies to Obama, too: a mistake is one thing, a pattern of behavior is totally another!  But the day gets worse for Barack Obama.  Not only are these things coming out, but he also took the opportunity to finally throw away his relationship with Rev. Wright.

Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he was outraged and appalled by the latest comments from his former pastor, who asserted that criticism of his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church and the U.S. government was responsible for the creation of the AIDS virus.

The presidential candidate is seeking to tamp down the growing fury over Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his incendiary remarks that threaten to undermine his campaign.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference.

After weeks of staying out of the public eye while critics lambasted his sermons, Wright made three public appearances in four days to defend himself. The former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has been combative, providing colorful commentary and feeding the story Obama had hoped was dying down.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," Wright told the Washington media Monday. "It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. It is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African-American religious tradition."

Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church.

"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," Obama said of the man who married him.

More analysis here.

This is a strange turn of events.  First, he said he could no longer disown Wright than the entire black community, now he disowns Wright.  Is this a sign of finally figuring out that he was getting killed in the public eye by this association?  Is he going to take more heat for throwing over a life-long mentor just because it's politically expedient?  How can he navigate out of this hole with the least amount of damage?

Obama's in a pickle that he could have avoided months ago (by denouncing Wright at the beginning of his campaign) or even years ago (if he had actually left the church).  You make your bed, you lie in it.  The wheels are coming off Obama's machine right now...and Hillary's loving it.

There's my two cents.

Environmental Details

Just a couple small details to pass along in the crusade against Lefty environmentalism.

First, NASA has spent about $30 million a year on a system of robot buoys that are supposed to measure ocean temperatures.  Guess what they are finding?  Oceans have cooled.  Check it out:

Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection.

Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete. Today's tally of floats is shown in the figure above.While the Argo array is currently complete at 3000 floats, to be maintained at that level, national commitments need to provide about 800 floats per year (which has occurred for the past three years).

Ocean temperature is the key to global temperature (which would make sense, given that the vast majority of the face of the planet is covered by ocean):

Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans. "There has been a very slight cooling..."

Danny Huddleston says "[i]t might just be worth 20 million if it helps to calm down global warming hysteria."  I agree - some things are just worth paying for.

Second, the world's foremost hurricane forecaster is being black-balled because of his open skepticism of man-made climate change.  Excerpts:

By pioneering the science of seasonal hurricane forecasting and teaching 70 graduate students who now populate the National Hurricane Center and other research outposts, William Gray turned a city far from the stormy seas into a hurricane research mecca.

But now the institution in Fort Collins, Colo., where he has worked for nearly half a century, has told Gray it may end its support of his seasonal forecasting.

As he enters his 25th year of predicting hurricane season activity, Colorado State University officials say handling media inquiries related to Gray's forecasting requires too much time and detracts from efforts to promote other professors' work.

But Gray, a highly visible and sometimes acerbic skeptic of climate change, says that's a "flimsy excuse" for the real motivation — a desire to push him aside because of his global warming criticism.

Among other comments, Gray has said global warming scientists are "brainwashing our children."

Bill Gray is a prime example of Ben Stein's recently released movie, "Expelled".  The movie talks about how our educational system tries to squash any dissent from the typical left-wing agenda-driven curriculum, like evolution.  The point here is that academia has made a monolithic decision to run out anyone who doesn't toe the line, whether it's about evolution, man-made climate change, or any other hot button topic.  For CSU to run out a titan of the field like Gray is the best example there is of neglecting actual educational results in favor of politically-oriented brainwashing.

This is what happens when the liberalism infection spreads so far that it takes over.  These things will continue until the American people stand up and refuse to allow this idiocy.  It's up to you and me...what are you going to do about it?

There's my two cents.

Quotes On Character

If you are wondering why there is so much uproar about Barack Obama's associations with terrorists and racist hate-mongers, it's because his willingness to associate with people like that speak directly to his character.  How important is character?  Take a look at what a couple of the giants of American history thought about it:


"It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution."
-- Thomas Jefferson --


"Your love of liberty - your respect for the laws - your habits of industry - and your practice of the moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness."
-- George Washington --

New Feed

For all of you who are savvy consumers of blogs and news, I'd like to ask for your help. I'm experimenting with a new feed (on the right side of my blog), but I've never worked with feeds before. If you would be so kind, would some of you check it out and make sure I've done things correctly so you can get updates whenever I put up a new post?

I'd really appreciate any help you all could provide. Thanks!

Link Roundup

Since I missed last night's link roundup, this one is super-sized. Dive in!

Here at home:

• The lust in Carter's heart.
  
• Newt's sell-out and why he's wrong (whew, it's not just me!).
  
• Aside from the moral issues, homosexuality is far more dangerous.
  
• Fight a North American Union!
  
• Newspapers continue to decline (most of them, anyway).
  
• An inconvenient movie poster.
  
• The Left's moment of truth.
  
• Gas at $10/gallon?!
  

Election news:

• Whitewashing Obama's fundraising (Islamic fundraiser quietly goes away).
  
• Hillary's a 'prayer warrior' (riiiiiiight...).
  
• Obama staffer says racists will vote for McCain.
  
• A gut-level reaction to Obama.
• Wooing white men.
  
• Clinton donor indicted for money laundering (is this a pattern, or what?).
  
• Paul supporters give McCain a proverbial black eye in Nevada.
• McCain flip-flops on Wright - he's fair game, after all.
  
• Karl Rove's advice to Barack Obama.
• Obama wants to be Organizer-in-Chief.
  
• More connections between Obama and Ayers...the plot thickens...
• Wright pledges to 'come after' Obama if he wins White House.
  
• Obama's weird idea of bipartisanship.
  
• The candidates' positions on the gas tax holiday.
  
• RNC demands TV networks yank misleading attack ad against McCain.
  

Around the world:

• Pakistan nearing a deal with militants.
  
• Sunni bloc rejoins Iraqi parliament (how's that for some political progress?).
  
• Rebecca St. James takes on malaria.
  
• China to meet with Dalai Lama emissary.
• Mugabe cracks down on Zimbabwe opposition.
  
• Israel captures a local Hamas leader.
• The long, sordid history of the U.N. failing to take action against terrorism.
  

Have a great week!

You Can't Insult Me...!

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright has started to speak out against those who have questioned both his relationship to Barack Obama and his remarks from the pulpit.  One particular exchange is mentioned by Rick Moran in an article titled, "Wright equates 'God Damn America' with criticism of black church":

That's right. If you dare criticize Pastor Wright for saying "Not God bless America but God Damn America" you are a racist bigot because what you're really doing is criticizing "the black church:"

Attacks on him are really attacks on the black church, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. said in a speech to the National Press Club in Washington on Monday, in which he mounted a spirited defense of views and sermons that have become an issue in the presidential campaign because Senator Barack Obama attended his church for many years.

Mr. Wright told the press club audience that the black church in America grew out of the oppression of black people, and that his sermons reflected that struggle.

Snippets from his sermons have been used in Republican commercials seeking to depict Senator Obama as unpatriotic, and the Democratic presidential candidate has given a carefully calibrated speech seeking to distance himself from Mr. Wright's more inflammatory statements.

Speaking Monday, Mr. Wright said that political opponents of Senator Obama were exploiting the fact that the style of prayer and preaching in black churches was different from European church traditions - "Different, but not deficient," he said.

Perhaps Barack Obama should whisper in his pastor's ear that white Americans are not Europeans - we're Americans.

Beyond that, someone should teach the good Reverend about political spin. He's obviously not very good at it and he only makes himself look foolish when he tries it.

A couple of notes from his NPC speech. Evidently, journalists vigorously applauded at certain points in the speech - this according to Michelle Malkin who live-blogged it. 

Wright also noted that "the widely circulated clips of his remarks were only short snippets lifted out of the context of much longer, closely reasoned arguments." What kind of "closely reasoned argument did he give when discussing how AIDS was created by the government to kill black people?

"I believe our government is capable of doing anything."

Perhaps. Except performing the miracle of creating a virus that targets one specific race - especially when American blacks have so many mixed race elements in their genes - would seem to be in the realm of fantasy rather than reality.

It is likely that Wright will remain a fixture throughout the campaign season which is very bad news for Barack Obama.

This will be very good news for the rest of us, though, since Wright seems to be ignoring the first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging.

This is a standard card often played by the liberal Left - deliver their message through someone who cannot be attacked because of their race/religion/history/etc.  There are more examples than you can shake a stick at: Cindy Sheehan, who could not be criticized over her anti-war stance because her son was killed in action; Graham Frost, who couldn't be criticized over the SCHIP program because he was a kid; John Murtha, who couldn't be criticized over his accusation that Marines were cold-blooded killers because he was once in the military; Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who can't be criticized for constant race-baiting because they are black.  The list is endless.  Sadly, this tactic is often effective, and shuts up gutless Republicans who can't take a little heat from the MSM.  But, the tactic itself is easy to identify, and Wright is applying it liberally -- no pun intended -- with his statements above.

Don't be a sucker.  The reality is that this criticism is entirely based upon the fact that Wright's statements are blatantly anti-American and filled with racist hatred!  They are not an attack on the black community or black church at all.  If you have doubts, go listen yourself.  He's not doing Barack Obama any favors by continuing to dig his own hole.

There's my two cents.

Ethanol Math

My hometown paper, the Kansas City Star, had a surprisingly clear and intelligent article about ethanol over the weekend.  Excerpts [emphasis mine]:

Conventional gas delivers more energy than a gallon that contains ethanol.

If it's a gallon of E-10, which is a blend of 10 percent ethanol and conventional gas now widely available in the Kansas City area, there's an energy difference of about 3.4 percent.

Now that may not seem like much when you're topping off the tank this week. But over the course of a year of normal driving, it would take an additional 40 gallons of E-10 to go the same distance as conventional gas. If they were both priced the same, it would mean an extra $120.

If it's E-85, a blend containing 85 percent ethanol that can be used in specially equipped vehicles, the energy loss soars and more than offsets its lower cost, even though E-85 is about 60 cents per gallon less at retail than conventional gas.

But it's not just the higher cost at the pump.  It's also less efficient energy:

Mileage can suffer by about 25 percent with E-85, according to AAA. Over the course of a year, that amounts to an extra 300 gallons of E-85 to go the same distance as when using conventional gas. That means an average household, when the total cost of conventional gas and E-85 are compared, would spend nearly $100 more per year for E-85.

British thermal units measure energy content. A gallon of ethanol has 76,000 Btu. Conventional gasoline, in contrast, has 115,000 Btu. If you purchase a blended gallon of gas that contains 10 percent ethanol, you get 111,100 Btu.

That amounts to a 3.4 percent reduction in energy. So if you have a car that gets 20 miles per gallon, you'll likely end up losing seven-tenths of a mile per gallon because of the energy content loss.

AAA now calculates a price for E-85 to adjust for its energy content. The national average pump price for the fuel on Thursday was $2.91 per gallon; regular gasoline was $3.56. But adjusted for its energy content, the price for E-85 jumps to $3.83, or 27 cents more than regular.

So, now we have a situation in which ethanol is not only causing food shortages around the world in the name of protecting the environment, but it also ends up costing us more at the pump, too!  Does anyone else see a lose-lose situation here?

Get off the ethanol, already!

There's my two cents.

Indiana Voter ID Law Upheld

Wow, this is great news for Americans who value the integrity of their votes (and bad news for Democrat leaders)!  The Supreme Court has upheld the Indiana law that requires voters to show a photo ID to prove their identity.  Excerpts:

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.

The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements.

"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.

Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.

But in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."

Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'"

Stevens is most certainly NOT one of the originalist justices on the court, so his swing toward that side is a big, big statement.  While it sounds like there's a small loophole (which I'm sure will be exploited at some point), the fact remains that this is a very, very positive ruling for the integrity of our elections.  I think it is very telling that it is always Democrats who favor loosening restrictions on one of our most precious rights, despite the most flimsy evidence that disenfranchisement is actually occurring.  The only logical conclusion is that Democrat leaders know they are getting the lion's share of illegal voters, whether those votes are from illegal aliens, felons, animals, or dead people.  Aside from that, there is simply no good reason NOT to require a photo ID to prove identity before voting.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court agrees in a clear decision.

There's my two cents.

McCain And The North Carolina GOP

You may have heard about this flap over the past few days.  The North Carolina GOP announced a TV ad last week showing one of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's more inflammatory statements ("God damn America!  God damn America!"), then connecting him with Barack Obama in an attempt to strike at the two Democratic gubernatorial candidates in the state, both of whom support Obama.  But that's not the problem - the ad is very brief and to the point, and makes no suggestions of anything unusual.

The problem is that John McCain, the Republican nominee, is telling the NCGOP that they need to pull the ad.

Once again, the question must be asked: what is McCain thinking?  It's a perfectly fair ad, it says nothing untrue (nor anything that could remotely be called misleading), and it is very effective.  Nevertheless, McCain called it offensive and demanded it not be run.  For good measure, the RNC piled on and called it "[n]ot appropriate and unhelpful."  Of course, he couldn't be bothered to actually watch the ad before he trashed a state that he needs in November.

To their great credit, the NCGOP ignored them and ran it anyway.

Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC, took a potshot at McCain over the issue and said that if he couldn't get the ad pulled, it showed a lack of leadership on his part.  Just another unintended consequence of McCain's actions, I suppose, but one that could come back in November to haunt him.  Then again, no one has ever asserted that McCain actually has a lot of support throughout the entire Republican party, so maybe not.

NCGOP chairwoman Linda Daves addressed the issue with NPR's Melissa Block:

Responding to Block's question about whether the ad is "offensive," Daves says plainly: "I don't know why they're calling it offensive. I call it truthful."

There's nothing that McCain could tell you to change your mind about the ad?

Daves: "That is correct. I'm going to run the ad."

YES!!!  This is how the GOP should be acting!  Not the kid-gloves, leap-across-the-aisle-to-bow-down treatment that McCain and the RNC are portraying.  It's one thing to play dirty; it's totally another to play fair and still try to win.  That's what this is.  Incidentally, the American public apparently agrees - money is apparently pouring into the NCGOP, while it's common knowledge that the RNC has been struggling mightily for years, and McCain throughout the entire campaign.  When are the national elites in the Republican party going to figure this out?  Linda Daves has, and that's why she is getting such huge support, even from people outside her state.

But McCain wasn't done.  After being snubbed, he accused the NCGOP of being out of touch with reality.  Boy, that'll go a long way toward securing the base, won't it?

Lots more comment and analysis here at Right Truth.

Here's why this is a big deal.  The NCGOP ran this ad (which is entirely true) as an effective tool against two Democrat opponents.  In the first place, McCain isn't officially the nominee yet, so he doesn't run the party.  Second, Linda Daves is exactly right about focusing on the best interests of her state -- that's her job, after all -- rather than pander to the sensitivities of a national candidate.  Third, this is yet another example of John McCain's ridiculous failure to attack his opponents, even if the attack is directed at something entirely legitimate.

Rush Limbaugh has spent considerable time on this subject over the past few days.  He theorizes (with his 98.6% accuracy rating) that this is McCain simultaneously reaching out to the moderate Democrats and Independents, and distancing himself from conservative Republicans.  Now that he's essentially secured the Rep nomination, he doesn't need the conservatives any more, but he desperately needs the Dem/Indie vote if he wants a prayer of winning.  Since legitimately highlighting a non-flattering truth about an opponent is something that only mean and vicious conservatives do, McCain is appealing to the other side.  In a broader sense, Limbaugh suggests that John McCain is trying to have his cake and eat it, too: he reserves the right to dictate to all Republicans what they can and can't say or think, but he also reserves the right to break from his own party (he's a 'maverick', remember) whenever he feels like it.  This is one of the reasons his base has revolted against him - we generally don't appreciate egregious hypocrisy like that.

Of course, yesterday, McCain actually reversed himself, calling Obama's relationship with Wright 'beyond belief'.  What prompted that sudden change, you ask?

"I saw yesterday some additional comments that have been revealed by Pastor Wright, one of them comparing the United States Marine Corps with Roman Legionnaires who were responsible for the death of our savior. I mean being involved in that, it's beyond belief. And then of course saying that al-Qaida and the American flag were the same flags," McCain told reporters.

So, apparently, McCain only feels that the toxic relationship between Obama and Wright is fair game when it's one of his pet issues that gets attacked.  Boy, what a winner.

Anyway, there's your update.  This really makes me think back to my blog post titled, "Barf Bag Or Mop: The McCain Choice".  I seriously think I'm going to puke, but that's better than the alternative.

There's my two cents.

Which Terrorists Support Which Democrat?

From what has to be near the top 10 of sad-but-true stories, Michelle Malkin has put together a chart that makes it quick and easy to determine exactly which terrorists support exactly which Democrat candidate:


At least now Democrat supporters know which terrorist groups agree with them. Very handy, isn't it?

Seriously, though, does anyone else see a problem with both Democrats getting support from terrorists around the world...? I would also refer you to two previous blogs I've done about some other terrorists supporting Obama and Clinton, respectively.

More updates on the war in a day or two, but this warranted a post all to itself.

There's my two cents.

Fun & Frivolity: Beef And Psychics

Two fun stories to send you off into your weekend.

There's the beef!

More than a thousand barbecue fanatics in Uruguay grilled up 12 metric tonnes (26,400 lbs) of beef on Sunday, setting a new Guinness world record while promoting the country's succulent top export.

Army personnel set up a grill nearly 1 mile long and firefighters lit six tonnes of charcoal to kick off the gargantuan cookout.

Man, that's a lot of beef!  I wish I'd been there...!  :)


Psychics see big trouble in the future.

Fortune-tellers, mediums and spiritual healers marched on the home of the British prime minister at Downing Street on Friday to protest against new laws they fear will lead to them being "persecuted and prosecuted."

Organizers say that replacing the Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1951 with new consumer protection rules will remove key legal protection for "genuine" mediums.

They think skeptics might bring malicious prosecutions to force spiritualists to prove in court that they can heal people, see into the future or talk to the dead.

Psychics also fear they will have to give disclaimers describing their services as entertainment or as scientific experiments with unpredictable results.

"If I'm giving a healing to someone, I don't want to have to stand there and say I don't believe in what I'm doing," said Carole McEntee-Taylor, a healer who co-founded the Spiritual Workers Association.

I especially like this part, which echoed my own initial reaction to this story:
 

With the changes expected to come into force next month, spiritualists have faced a barrage of headlines gleefully suggesting that they should have seen it coming.

But many don't see the funny side. They say the new rules will shift the responsibility of proving they are not frauds from prosecutors and onto them.

Uh...so what?  Shouldn't they have to provide some kind of qualification to their customers anyway?

It's a fair question to ask: if these people say they can see the future, shouldn't they have seen this coming?  Furthermore, shouldn't they be able to see whether or not they'll have any future problems with the new laws?  Heck, shouldn't they also be able to see if the laws will even be enacted?  You'd think that any "genuine" fortune teller would be grateful for the new laws clearing out all their fraudulent competition.  Oh, wait...

Have a great weekend!

Election Update

Lots and lots of election updates for you, so I'll try to sum up as briefly as possible.  First, to Pennsylvania...

Hillary won the primary by about 10 points, as expected.  Unfortunately for the Democrats, this was the absolute worst scenario.  Not only is there still no clear nominee, there is still no way either candidate can win.  Those calling for Hillary to bow out are now silenced.  There were some immediate effects from the primary - Hillary's fundraising spiked, getting her out of debt and back on track; the dreaded Bradley Effect -- people unwilling to tell pollsters they would oppose a black man, while voting against him -- becoming reality, thus causing great uncertainty for how much support can be expected from blue states in November; the question of why he can't close the deal against Hillary becoming more pronounced.

With the PA results in, there are some strange scenarios being thrown around.  For example, Clinton could win the popular vote while Obama wins the pledged delegate count.  Hillary is certainly the one with the momentum now, and can rightly point out the fact that of the states that will be in play in November, she won almost all of them.  She won most of the states with large populations, including Texas, California, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (many by a comfortable margin), which will be key in November.  She can also show that Obama's inability to put her away shows that he isn't a lock to beat McCain, especially considering his recent flubs in live debates.  She can also rightly say that whereas Obama won the caucuses, she won the primaries, which include far more people and are a much more accurate forecast of the November general election.  These are not insignificant arguments.  Also at issue are Michigan and Florida.  Karl Rove suggested last week (sorry, I couldn't find a link) that Hillary is more than likely going to start pushing to 'count every vote', even though both states were justly punished for breaking DNC election rules.  If those two states are added in, Hillary suddenly becomes the leader in terms of both the popular vote and pledged delegate count.

Part of the problem is that the Democrat system tries to be eminently 'fair' to the candidates, allocating percentages of delegates according to percentages of votes.  While the Republican system (where most states are winner-take-all) has its faults, too, the Democrat system has two fundamental flaws that are both biting the Dems this year.  First, the fairness factor, which has allowed the Dem race to drag out in such a damaging fashion.  Second, the superdelegates.  The system was designed to allow the elites at the top of the party to make the ultimate decision in case the stupid rubes (i.e. voters) make the 'wrong' choice.  In this case, with two prime minorities pitted directly against each other in this race, the stupid rubes can't help but make a 'wrong' choice, so the superdelegates are going to supremely offend one or the other.  They're stuck, and they know it.  That's why they're paralyzed.  For those of us on the other side of the aisle, it is a heckuva lot of fun to watch.

All of these things are part of the reason that some consider this a Democrat party civil war.  As such, the top party leaders are debating about whether or not they need to get involved and dictate the nominee in some fashion.

So, there's the aftermath of the PA primary.  Now, on to other election stuff...

Larry Kudlow illuminates Barack Obama's absolute cluelessness when it comes to economic policy:

But here's the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.

Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.

In fact, in America's largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama's plan, together they'll also be slammed by Obama's cap-gains tax increase.

David Limbaugh warns against Obamautopia, outlining precisely how naive Obama is with his fluffy talk and lofty promises. 

McCain is content to let the Democrats keep slugging each other while he raises money, though he's causing some raging controversy of his own (more on that in a separate post).

Here's some new audio of Obama's terrorist friends.  If a man is known by the company he keeps, this is very, very bad for Obama.  Speaking of Obama and his terrorist friends, if you have any questions about just how connected they are, check it out here.  Even aside from the terrorism thing, Obama's friend Bill Ayers is actively corrupting the youth of America as a professor, which could ultimately be a bigger problem for the country than the bombs that he admitted planting.

Still, terrorists aren't the only unsavory folks Obama continues to be friendly with.  He also continues to appoint definite anti-Israel advisers to top positions.  The latest is Joseph Cirincione, Obama's senior aide for nuclear proliferation.  This guy believes Israel is the cause of much of the Middle East tension, and is pushing to disarm Israel.  Is anyone else seeing a problem with that?

Selwyn Duke opens the floodgates of Obama's hidden vileness in a column that needs to be read by everyone who values human life.  He  tells the true story about Obama's pro-abortion position that is so extreme that even pro-choicers recoil (brace yourself):

In 2002, President Bush signed into law a bill titled the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" (BAIPA).  This law was necessary because, believe it or not, infants were being born alive during attempted abortions and then, ancient Spartan style, left to die.  Jill Stanek wrote about this last year, saying:

"As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide."

The act was so vile that even staunch abortion advocates would not oppose BAIPA. Stanek tells us that it passed the Senate by unanimous vote, garnering the support of senators Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton.  She then pointed out:

"The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme."

But the state version of BAIPA failed for years in Illinois.  Any guesses as to why?  Stanek goes on to explain:

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

This one issue -- all the associations with racist hate-mongers and terrorists, and his incompetence on any number of policy issues aside -- should be reason enough for Obama to be soundly rejected.  Am I wrong in thinking this is the same thing as murder?  Regardless of what you believe about abortion, these are live, healthy, born babies being left alone to die!!!

This is Barack Obama, Democrat candidate for President of the United States of America.

Do you want him as your leader?

There's my two cents.