After Midnight

"After midnight, we're gonna let it all hang down.
After midnight, we're gonna chug-a-lug and shout.
We're gonna stimulate some action;
We're gonna get some satisfaction.
We're gonna find out what it is all about.
After midnight, we're gonna let it all hang down."



(After Midnight - Eric Clapton)

After midnight the waiting will be over.

"We're gonna cause talk and suspicion;"

"We're gonna give an exhibition."

"We're gonna find out what it is all about!"

After midnight baby!

Out of commission

I am feeling lousy tonight. Both the Logical Husband AND the Junior Logician came down with a viral bug (as did the boss!) and now it feels like I am coming down with it. I think it is time to call it a night.

However, one thing to remember....

We are less than 48 hours away! All of your questions will be answered on Saturday. Listen to the Northern Alliance Radio Program Saturday with Mitch and Ed between 2 and 3 and again between 3 and 4 with Michael and King! AM 1280 the Patriot is the place to be to find out all about True North!

What we need is pool control

Earlier this summer a tragic accident occured in the Minneapolis metropolitan area. A young girl, in a privately run swimming pool, sat on a drain and had part of her intestines sucked out. It was a preventable accident - starting with the parents who were supposed to be watching the child. That did not stop our Junior Senator and our Senior RINO from springing into action - demanding that legislation be drawn up to regulate swimming pools. Thus nanny government would "save us" from harm. The same "logic" is used in the gun control debate. Guns must be controlled by the government in order to protect the children!

A simple fact of life is that a child is more likely to be injured or killed in a swimming pool or bathtub than the are by a handgun. However, in our topsy turvey world, most parents have more problems sending their child to the home of a conceal carry permit holder (174 deaths per year) than they do one that has a swimming pool (1236 deaths per year) or a trampoline (approximately 100,000 injuries a year).

The number one cause of death in children in the US is automobile accidents, drowning is number 2. Accidental shootings....no where close!

Using the old saw about saving the kids from accidental shootings in the home is one of the ultimate red herrings in the gun control debate. When you look at the cold hard facts (of the leading causes of childhood death and injury) you realize that our kids face far greater dangers every day....dangers that are not (and should not be) as tightly regulated as guns are in this state.

Three more days

The punch list is getting longer and the time we have to get the work done is getting shorter. I might have a few minutes for personal posting later today.

Mixed up priorities

THIS is what I was talking about in my post “Priorities”. With the St. Anthony Bridge collapse still fresh in our minds and another bridge closed because a support pier settled, we have Charles Gibson on ABC News talking about taking federal highway dollars to “fight the obesity epidemic”!

"With bridges falling down, it makes sense to spend federal funds on infrastructure projects, but what doesn’t make sense is suggesting the government spend highway money on the obesity “epidemic.”

But that’s what ABC “World News with Charles Gibson” did on August 27 by promoting a report from "health advocates" at Trust for America’s Health.

“The report calls for a national strategy to reverse this epidemic” including the use of federal highway money said ABC correspondent John McKenzie.

“Require that localities build bike paths and sidewalks so it’s possible for people in communities to exercise more,” said Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) executive director Jeff Levi."

Safe bridges and roads??? Nah – we don’t need’em. What we NEED is bike paths to keep the kiddies from getting fatter!

"McKenzie explained that TFAH wants the government to require 60 minutes of physical activity for kids, “impose higher school nutrition standards” and modify Medicaid and other health programs to include “critical obesity and nutrition counseling.”

Let’s also not get into the fact that this group now wants government to mandate how much exercise our children get.

"World News” failed to estimate the costs to taxpayers cost of these mandates and changes to federal and state programs—not to mention the cost of taking highway money away from bridges and roads. No opposition to the plan was mentioned in the segment."

No opposition mentioned? I wonder why?

Is there no part of our private lives that they DON’T want the government to take over? No…don’t answer that….I already know the answer…

It's almost here!

Posting may be a little sporadic this week as the I will be busy helping put the finishing touches on this new and very exciting project.

When up is down

Senator John Warner came back from Iraq this week and gave a press conference. What he said depends on who is reporting the story.


"Sen. John W. Warner, one of the most influential Republican voices in Congress on national security, called on President Bush yesterday to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in time for Christmas as a new intelligence report concluded that political leaders in Baghdad are "unable to govern effectively."


National Reveiw's Byron York (speaking on Laura Ingraham's show on Thursday) said that the Senator actually called for a "token" withdrawal but also said that he would not vote for the Levin Measure (which calls for a withdrawl date to be set) or in anyway against President Bush's conduct of the war.

"Let the president establish the timetable for withdrawal, not the Congress."

While Senator Warner did send a very mixed message in his press conference, the media's slanted reporting again showed the world that they are no longer the "unbiased watchdogs" that they used to be.

The most ethical Congress

strikes again! (HT Gary at LFR)


"U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last year that she would be happy to ``do away with'' the practice of funding members' pet projects, though she knew it wasn't ``realistic.'' This year proves how right she was.
Thousands of so-called earmarks still adorn spending bills, including 15 from Pelosi in a defense measure. Their continued popularity shows how difficult it is to change a system that allows members to bring federal money home for their constituents. Polls show Democrats aren't getting credit for what they say is a major overhaul of the earmark system. "


To be fair to the Speaker, I knew (as Bloomberg did) that the promised reforms were not going to happen. They are too entrenched on both sides to ever completely do away with earmarks. Anyone who thought that the Dems could actually get rid of earmarks was deluding themselves. However, the "reform" bill that the Dems finally did get passed was actually a step in the WRONG direction.


"Instead of exposing and eradicating secretive pork-barrel spending the bill has created new ways to hide that spending. The bill, (Sen. Tom) Coburn said, makes earmark disclosure voluntary, not mandatory. Also, the requirement of 67 Senate votes to suspend the earmark disclosure rule was changed to 40 votes - less than a majority.
The language prohibiting a Member or staff from promoting earmarks from which that individual personally would benefit was eviscerated completely. So was the provision prohibiting a Member from trading votes for earmarks. Coburn was also angry that the provision requiring a Member to disclose earmarks on the Internet 48 hours before a vote was changed to "as soon as practical." Other provisions of the bill were weakened as well, limiting the quantity of disclosure and transparency required of politicians and defeating the original purpose of the bill.
The Washington Examiner editorialized that the bill failed to address the core issue of corruption caused by earmarks. Coburn said that earmarks have been at the heart of recent scandals which have sent Members of Congress to prison and brought others under investigation." (emphasis mine)


In case you are wondering, the entire Minnesota delegation voted for this bill.

What Progress?

Captain Ed gives us the latest installment in a story that has become quite old to those of us on the center right.

"Let's say we're at war, and we're waiting for some specific action to take place to show us that our efforts are succeeding. Add in that the war itself would be rather controversial and that our political class is split as to whether we will ever see that specific action take place. Imagine that Congress and the White House have scheduled a showdown in the next couple of weeks to determine how much longer we will wait for that development.
Now imagine that the specific action for which we've waited actually occurs. Where would you think that story appear in Washington's biggest newspaper? The front page, one might assume. Would you believe ... page 9?"

All I can add is this, is anyone even surprised to know that the Star Tribune didn't cover the story?

Crisis of faith

"On Dec. 11, 1979, Mother Teresa, the "Saint of the Gutters," went to Oslo. Dressed in her signature blue-bordered sari and shod in sandals despite below-zero temperatures, the former Agnes Bojaxhiu received that ultimate worldly accolade, the Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance lecture, Teresa, whose Missionaries of Charity had grown from a one-woman folly in Calcutta in 1948 into a global beacon of self-abnegating care, delivered the kind of message the world had come to expect from her. "It is not enough for us to say, 'I love God, but I do not love my neighbor,'" she said, since in dying on the Cross, God had "[made] himself the hungry one — the naked one — the homeless one." Jesus' hunger, she said, is what "you and I must find" and alleviate. She condemned abortion and bemoaned youthful drug addiction in the West. Finally, she suggested that the upcoming Christmas holiday should remind the world "that radiating joy is real" because Christ is everywhere — "Christ in our hearts, Christ in the poor we meet, Christ in the smile we give and in the smile that we receive."
Yet less than three months earlier, in a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, that is only now being made public, she wrote with weary familiarity of a different Christ, an absent one. "Jesus has a very special love for you," she assured Van der Peet. "[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me — that I let Him have [a] free hand."

Thus begins one of many stories that has come out this week in the secular media crowing about Mother Theresa's "Crisis of Faith". The undertone of all of these stories went something along the lines of "If a Saint like Mother Theresa couldn't 'feel' God then obviously he doesn't exist" or "Obviously Mother Theresa was a sham....professing her faith in public while in private saying God doesn't exist". The whole thing was either designed to be a slam on Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular or to highlight the media's complete ignorance of the kind of Christian faith that Mother Theresa had.

This is called the "Darkness of the Soul" in the Roman Catholic Church. I personally call it an example of real life! The Book of Job (in the Old Testament) tells the story of the trials that befell Job - a man who loved God dearly. In the midst of his trials (he lost his wife, his family, his home, his wealth, his health...everything that mankind considers to be important) Job never cursed God, but he kept his faith in God and his steadfast love. Every Christian that I know has gone through trials. My maternal grandmother (another devout Catholic in my life and the one who brought me to faith) was a real life example of this principle. As I watched her dying of emphysema she met it head on with a grace and courage that bespoke her faith that she was moving on to "something better". I knew then that I wanted what she had...the peace and grace to tackle anything head on because she had someone "stronger" walking her through it.

The Book of Job is one of those that is hard for a human to comprehend, why bad things happen to "godly" people. Psalms 107, on the other hand, reminds us of what Mother Theresa knew....even in the depths of hell (and heaven knows the gutters of Calcutta certainly had their "hellish" qualities about them) all God's people need to do is to call on Him and He will come to them. Mother Theresa knew that there was something greater to strive for and that she could and would endure. Yes it seemed overwhelming at times....I know I would have been had I been in her shoes, but she trusted in something greater.

People who don't "believe" in a higher authority love to take pot shots at those of us who do. We take stands on issues that may not be "popular" at the time while those without convictions are tossed to and fro in the turbulent seas of life. They see our steadfastness and the mock us for being "old fashioned". However, eventually the pendulum swings back and then....

I am just saddened beyond belief that someone would take the works of a truly Godly woman like Mother Theresa and trash them in this manner, but it does not surprise me at all. It is a slam that is all too common and all too expected from the "tolerant" elites in academia and the press. However, the whole world is a poorer place because of it. This great and gentle soul deserves much, much better than this from an ungrateful world. Then again, so does the "man" that she followed and loved her whole life.

NOTE - many thanks to Mary, Garth and all of my other Catholic friends for the insights into the Roman Catholic tradition - a tradition that I did not have any direct experience with growing up Presbyterian.

Afraid??? I think not!

I'm sitting here, on a glorious afternoon, listening to Michael and King on the NARN volume 3 broadcast when Michael threw down the gauntlet. Michael accused the center right bloggers who are dead set against the special session of being "afraid" of the session. Now I am one of those center right bloggers that is dead set against the special session, but it is most certainly NOT out of fear as Michael might assume.

First off, we are echoing the sentiments of our friends and neighbors who just watched this Legislature fritter away a $2.2 BILLION DOLLAR budget surplus on"optional" expendatures - none of which was scheduled to go toward bridges and roads. Money went to just about everything else. As I said in my post about Priorities, our legislators have shown us CLEARLY that their priorities are not roads and bridges so why should we trust them with a special session to now make roads and bridges a priority....

Second - the money is already there for use not only for the bridge but for the flood zones. Drew Emmer at Wright County Republican has the breakdown of the emergency funding access that the Governor has. Between the funding that the Federal Government is bringing and the "rainy day fund" that the Governor has access to, there is plenty of money available to get everyone through to January 13 when the 2008 regular session starts.

Lastly, as Representative Seifert stated after the bridge collapse, the latest budget forecast shows an even bigger surplus than we had previously expected. The final numbers are due in November. If, as Rep. Seifert says, there is a larger surplus there will again be no need for "additional funding".

Michael - I agree that it would be fun ("like Christmas" were his words) to watch the DFL leadership go back on any promise that they would make to the Governor on the agenda of the special session, it is simply not in the best interests of the citizens of Minnesota to call a special session. That is not fear - that is simple logic and common sense!

Global warming IS a fraud

Where oh where is AAA? He will love this story...

"Climate scientists and environmental activists like former Vice President Al Gore are alarmists. They use flawed statistical models to predict a catastrophic future of thawed glaciers, super-charged hurricanes, swamped coastlines and scorched crops.
That was the conclusion of three of the four panelists at a state House hearing on Tuesday titled "Climate Change: Fact or Fiction?"

Oh sure, the Minnesota Legislature ran their "hearings" on the subject, but unlike the Minnesota Legislature, the Georgia Legislature actually had the bravery to hear from BOTH sides of the global warming story.

"Georgia's hearing, held on a 98-degree day during a record-setting heat wave, showcased three of the nation's leading skeptics on climate-change science. They don't even all agree that the Earth is significantly warming, a question long considered a scientific slam-dunk. And together they ridiculed the worst-case scenarios presented this year by an international panel of more than 2,000 climate scientists."

But then again, what do you expect from an agenda that is driven, not on fact, but on emotion? There is no amount of fact that can justify an emotional agenda item. Emotional agenda items are one thing when a constituent brings it up, but we expect our legislators to listen to both sides of an issue and make a learned decision based on fact. Minnesotans deserve much better than the emotion driven agenda that the DFL leadership is providing. It is time to put grown-ups back in charge of the Legislature!

Iraq vets respond to the NY Times

Last Sunday, the New York Times ran an op-ed that was written by 7 soldiers serving in Iraq. Lest you suffer from heart failure over the prospect, let me be swift to reassure you that the op-ed said just what the Times has been saying about the war all along. A couple of days later, 7 more soldiers who served in Iraq (including Minnesota's own Peter Hegseth and David Thul) submitted a rebuttal to the New York Times.


"ON SUNDAY, seven soldiers from the 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division stationed in Iraq penned a passionate opinion piece in the New York Times that further illustrates the complexity of what is "really" happening in Iraq. Of the almost 3,000 soldiers from the Army's storied 82nd Airborne Division currently serving in the hottest of Iraqi neighborhoods, seven felt confident enough in their misgivings to sign an opinion piece. They should not be surprised that many of their comrades--including the seven undersigned here--find their work to be misguided.


The 2nd Brigade is responsible for two dangerous areas of Baghdad: Adihamiyah and Sadr City. Airborne troopers there have seen the worst al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army can throw at them and the Iraqi people. But the whole story is that the Iraqis and soldiers in their sector have not yet been fully affected by the surge of troops and operations, which have barely been in place two months.


Currently, American and Iraqi Forces are clearing sections of southern Baghdad before turning north to the 82nd Airborne's neighborhoods. As such, the portrait these soldiers painted, while surely accurate and honest, is more representative of pre-surge Baghdad: sectarian strife, lawlessness, and indiscriminate slaughter.


This is not, however, the picture elsewhere in Iraq, or even most of Baghdad. Additional American combat brigades first surged to the outlying areas around the capital, disrupting the flow of suicide bombers and car bombs and denying haven to al Qaeda.


The result? Attacks against civilians are at a six-month low and large al Qaeda-style truck and suicide bombings have dropped 50 percent in Baghdad. With additional troops and a sound strategy, the same results can occur in even the worst areas of Baghdad, including the 82nd Airborne's sector.


Take Anbar Province. In 2006, al Qaeda controlled the capital of Ramadi and Marine intelligence officers declared the province effectively lost. A leaked Marine Corps report concluded, "the prospects for securing western Anbar province are dim and there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there."


Today Ramadi is peaceful and Anbar no longer a haven for al Qaeda. The tribal awakening that brought about political reconciliation and stability in Ramadi and Anbar primarily resulted from an improved security environment provided by American forces. Americans not only cleared Ramadi, they also held it by occupying over 65 outposts.


This security environment allowed local tribal leaders to stand up to their former al Qaeda occupiers, and now American and Iraqi forces are improving security beyond Anbar in places like Diyala and Babil Provinces.


The 82nd Airborne soldiers quoted an Iraqi saying, "We need security, not free food." We could not agree more, and what American and Iraqi forces are doing now--for the first time in this war--is providing lasting security at the neighborhood level after driving insurgents out."


David Bellavia, Pete Hegseth, Michael Baumann, Carl Hartmann, David Thul, Knox Nunnally and Joe Dan Worley all served with either the Army or Marine Corps in Iraq and are all members of Vets for Freedom. Surprising, their op-ed was originally submitted to the New York Times, which declined to publish it.



Please go read the whole thing to see what the dinosaur media refuses to tell you.

Is it just me???

Is it just me or does it seem like every time a Democrat wants to impose something on the rest of us that we don't want, they tell us "there is no debate". Today's "no debate" declaration comes from Senator Taryl Clark (DFL- 15).

"A recent St. Cloud Times Our View argued against the need for a special session to address the Interstate Highway 35W bridge collapse and the overall decay and safety of our bridges and roads. Since that time Minnesotans have suffered through another huge setback. People drowned in flooding in southern Minnesota. Raging waters destroyed homes, businesses, roads and bridges.
There is no longer a debate about whether we need a special session; rather the question is what critical issues we should take care of during that session."

Just as Al Gore does with ManMade Global Warming, Senator Clark has decided that it is time to silence the dissent..... She is done - she can no longer defend her position so she unilaterlly declares the discussion to be DONE!

Well here are a few undebatable facts for Senator Clark to mull over.

FACT 1 - We do NOT know what caused the bridge to collapse. If (as some in the NTSB are positing) the collapse was caused by the de-icing system that was built into the bridge deck - replacing the bridge with a similar de-icing system will be a recipe for another disaster! IF (as another theory indiciates) pidgeon guano could be the cause re-building the bridge without a system to keep the flying rats off of the support beams is another recipe for disaster!

FACT 2 - The state of Minnesota has a 2.2 BILLION dollar budget surplus and more is coming (according to the budget forecasts). Couple that with $250 million that the federal government has promised AND the states rainy day fund - the state has more than enough money at hand to rebuild the bridge and then some!

FACT 3 - We have lots of federal and state transportation money that is going to everything BUT bridge repair. Take that money away from those projects and put it back where it needs to be...that can be done without a special session or raising one penny in taxes.

FACT 4 - With the President declaring parts of southeastern Minnesota and southwestern Wisconsin federal disaster areas, the money to rebuild those areas have been released.

The bottom line is this....if there is no need to rush to rebuild the bridge then there is no need to rush into a special legislative session. If we do need to rush into rebuilding and a special session, then the DFL leadership needs to do what is right by the people of Minnesota and AGREE to the Governor's request that the special session ONLY deal with the bridge and the flooding and that all other legislative agendas are off of the table. If Senator Clark, as a member of said leadership can not agree to that, then we know exactly who is holding up progress!

VietNam?

President Bush gave a speech the other day about the war in Iraq. Perhaps you saw the headlines...

"Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam" declared the Washington Post, ABC News and others. However a more truthful, nuanced headline on the speech can be found at the New York Times (yes I said the NYTimes had a more truthful take on the speech). Even our own Star Tribune was a little closer to the mark.

Military historian Max Boot, writing for the Wall Street Journal, comments that the President's remarks were "incomplete" and fills in the missing gaps.

"The problem with Mr. Bush's Vietnam analogy is not that it is inaccurate, but that it is incomplete. As he noted, "The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech." If he chooses to return to the subject in future speeches, there are some other parallels he could invoke:
• The danger of prematurely dumping allied leaders. A chorus of voices in Washington, led by Sens. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton, is calling on Iraqis to replace Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. Even Mr. Bush and his ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, have expressed disappointment with Mr. Maliki. They have been careful, however, to refrain from any calls for his ouster. That's wise, because we know from our experience in Vietnam the dangers of switching allied leaders in wartime...The danger of winning militarily and losing politically. In 1968, after Gen. Creighton Abrams took over as the senior U.S. military commander in South Vietnam, he began to change the emphasis from the kind of big-unit search-and-destroy tactics that Gen. William Westmoreland had favored, to the sort of population-protection strategy more appropriate for a counterinsurgency. Over the next four years, even as the total number of American combat troops declined, the communists lost ground... The danger of allowing enemy sanctuaries across the border. This a parallel that Mr. Bush might not be so eager to cite, because in many ways he is repeating the mistakes of Lyndon Johnson, who allowed communist forces to use safe rear areas in Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam to stage attacks into South Vietnam. No matter how much success American and South Vietnamese forces had, there were always fresh troops and supplies being smuggled over the Ho Chi Minh Trail... The danger of not making plans for refugees. One of the great stains on American honor in Indochina was the horrible fate suffered by so many Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians who put their trust in us. When the end came we left far too many of them in the lurch, consigning them to prison, death or desperate attempts to escape. "

The legacy and lessons of VietNam are too big to contain in one speech or even a dozen speeches. President Bush should have started this series of speeches during the 2004 campaign when the ghosts of VietNam were first raised. Then maybe the American people would have a fuller appreciation of where we were in VietNam and the dangers that lie before us today.

Manipulating the masses

I have not said much on the Elvira Arellano story, in large part because it is an all too familiar story for someone who grew up in a large Hispanic community. However, the Chicago Tribune (one of the last real newspapers in America) brings something to the story that I had not seen before. Cold hard reality...

"Elvira Arellano was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in Los Angeles Sunday afternoon, but before being led away, she took a moment to comfort her tearful 8-year-old son.
According to immigration activist Emma Lozano, she told the boy: "Calm down. Don't have any fear. They can't hurt me."
Then the single mother was taken away from her son and promptly deported to her native Mexico.
The poignant image on the front page of the Tribune was of young Saul holding his head and looking inconsolable after the arrest. This is not the first, of course, that Americans knew of him. He often has been pushed under the klieg lights to recite lines about the injustice of his mother's treatment and his fear of losing her to deportation.
While his mother holed up at Chicago's Adalberto United Methodist Church for the last year defying authorities, Saul has been trotted out to march at the head of the Puerto Rican People's Parade, speak at rallies, visit lawmakers in the Mexican parliament and go on TV. Instead of trying to make his childhood as normal as possible under the circumstances, Arellano has assigned him the role of public advocate -- a heavy burden for a child." (emphasis mine)

It angers me when I see adults using children as political pawns. It is especially loathesome to see someone who supposedly "loves" the child doing so.

The Trib then cuts through the hyperbole of Ms. Arellano's claims of having to stay here.

"It's truly sad to see Arellano and her son separated. But if you want to place blame for that painful spectacle, it belongs on her, not ICE. Saul is an American citizen because he was born in this country -- a couple of years after his mother was first deported after entering the country illegally. And if mother and child are separated again, it's not because the U.S. government insists on keeping them apart.
In fact, the boy is free to go to Mexico to be with her -- and to come back to the United States if and when he chooses. But that simple reality is not as powerful as the images that have been manipulated on her behalf." (emphasis mine)

The Trib is right - after all, who can resist a child who is being "terrorized" by the big bad government. The only problem is, the government is not the one "terrorizing the child....it is the adults who supposedly care about him that are doing it.

Simple reality does not fit the meme that the proponents of illegal immigration want us to see, so they use emotion and the best way to wring that emotion out of people is to manipulate a little 8 year old boy. Because after all, who can resist a little child...

An Inconvenient Challenge

Matt Hadro reports:

"The climate chaos and environmental doom-and-gloom of the film An Inconvenient Truth conclude with a dark screen and a single line of glowing text. The Al Gore documentary, proclaiming man-made global warming and a subsequent environmental apocalypse, asks “Are you ready to change the way you live?” The gauntlet has been cast down.

In the wake of the blockbuster documentary, Senator James Inhofe, R-Okla., of the Senate Environmental Public Works Committee issued a written challenge to Gore and other Hollywood global-warming advocates, to lead by example and alter their lifestyles toward an environmentally-friendly approach. The challenge was officially issued on March 21, 2007.

Inhofe explained his political bravado, confirming that the notice specifically pertained to the “activists in Hollywood who assert that mankind has only ten years left to act in order to avoid a climate catastrophe.” Such celebrities have long championed the movement in America to alter everyday lifestyle and government policy, so as to prevent a supposed man-made climate catastrophe. The list of advocates includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Madonna, John Travolta, and Laurie David." (emphasis in the original)

That has been my biggest complaint about the faces of the global warming crowd. They all fly around the world in their private jets telling the rest of us that "we" need to change our lifestyles dramatically and that "we" need to do it now and meanwhile the celebrity faces do nothing dramatic to change their lifestyles.

The challenge issued was:

"The text of the challenge is as follows, the “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge”:
As a believer:
• that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;
• that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
• that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions;
• and that leaders on moral issues should lead by example:
I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008."

Mr. Gore, however, has a long way to go...

"A study by the Senate EPW Committee reveals that as Gore, as the leader of the nationwide crusade against man-made global warming, consumes 191,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year in his Tennessee mansion. The average American household consumes a total of 11,256 kilowatt-hours per year. That’s 12 times less electricity." (emphasis mine)

The Logical Household probably runs well below the national average. Not because we are Global Warming zealots, but because we are frugal. We would rather spend the dollars on other things.

"Also, today, August 8, 2007, marks the 140th day that Gore has failed to embrace the challenge and sign Senator Inhofe’s pledge. "

It is our household's choice to be "energy frugal". It is former Vice President Gore's choice to be an "energy hog". However, if the former Vice President is going to run around the world preaching drastic lifestyle changes, he is going to have to start walking the walk. Not everyone in the world is a sheep waiting to be led around by the global warming "messiah". Eventually they are going to take a hard look at their "messiah" and realize that he is nothing more than a Pied Piper leading them to their doom.....

Redemption?

Here is an interesting little dilemma for all of you "big government" and "small government" folks. This is a real world situation that came up in the Savage lands this past week.



"Following news this week that a registered Level III sex offender was moving to Prior Lake, residents and city officials alike expressed concern about the state’s community-notification law.
“I was very disappointed that we received formal notification Monday when the person was moving into the city on Wednesday,” Mayor Jack Haugen said this week.
Police said they learned from the state Department of Corrections (DOC) on Monday that James Nicholas Dahlager, 26, had registered a new address in the 14000 block of Grayling Circle in Prior Lake and was moving in on Wednesday. That gave the city little time to notify neighbors before Dahlager’s actual move-in date. "



I was talking to our local state Representative (Mike Beard 35A) about the situation earlier this week. He said that the DOC didn't know about the move until late on the Friday before the city got notified. It does seem to me to be a colossal break down in communication. Whether it was the ex-convict who did not promptly notify the DOC or what - we just don't know.



Needless to say, there were many residents of this city who were not happy that a Level III sex offender was moving into their community and they did not appreciate the short notification that they got. You certainly can not blame them for that. Some wondered, in light of Dru Sjodin's murder, why a Level III sex offender (the kind most likely to re-offend) was even being allowed out of jail at all.



"But (Mayor Jack) Haugen acknowledged that state law does not allow police or government to dictate where a sex offender can and cannot live.
“We cannot pass an ordinance that would be in violation of state law,” he said.
Beard agreed.
“We really can’t have cities doing that,” he said. “We’re dealing with human beings who have sinned grievously and have paid their society-imposed sentence. They’ve got to be able to come back into society and get a job and put their lives back together.”
Still, Beard said he understand that crimes against children “touch a raw nerve.... Beard said society can’t live like the characters in the Tom Cruise movie “Minority Report,” in which potential criminals are caught for crimes before they commit them.
“That’s sci-fi, but we deal in reality here,” Beard said. “We can’t arrest or hold people in jail because we think they might break the law. That’s an Orwellian society we don’t want to live in.”



And therein lies the rub...how do you balance the rights of the innocent with the rights of the ex-convict? Rep. Beard hits on the fact that we are dealing with people who have committed crimes and served their time. Our society is (in part) based on the principle of redemption and giving people a "second chance". However, in extending that second chance, we are putting our most vulnerable at risk.



A balance must be reached, but at what cost that balance? It is a question that we need to answer fairly soon.

Why did they have to die?

I was first "introduced" to Mark Steyn via the Hugh Hewitt program. I am a sucker for a British accent and their dry sense of humor, I admit, but I have become quite fond of the simple reason of his writings.

This week Mr. Steyn takes aim at press and their limp wristed coverage of the tragedy that happend in Newark NJ last week.

"At the funeral of Iofemi Hightower, her classmate Mecca Ali wore a T-shirt with the slogan: "Tell Me Why They Had To Die."
"They" are Miss Hightower, Dashon Harvey and Terrance Aeriel, three young citizens of Newark, New Jersey, lined up against a schoolyard wall, forced to kneel and then shot in the head.
Miss Ali poses an interesting question. No one can say why they "had" to die, but it ought to be possible to advance theories as to what factors make violent death in Newark a more-likely proposition than it should be. That's usually what happens when lurid cases make national headlines: When Matthew Shepard was beaten and hung on a fence in Wyoming, Frank Rich wrote in the New York Times that it was merely the latest stage in a "war" against homosexuals loosed by the forces of intolerance. Mr. Shepard's murder was dramatized in plays and movies and innumerable songs by Melissa Etheridge, Elton John, Peter, Paul and Mary, etc. The fact that this vile crucifixion was a grisly one-off and that American gays have never been less at risk from getting bashed did not deter pundits and politicians and lobby groups galore from arguing that this freak case demonstrated the need for special legislation.
By contrast, there's been a succession of prominent stories with one common feature that the very same pundits, politicians and lobby groups have a curious reluctance to go anywhere near. In a New York Times report headlined "Sorrow And Anger As Newark Buries Slain Youth," the limpidly tasteful Times prose prioritized "sorrow" over "anger," and offered only the following reference to the perpetrators: "The authorities have said robbery appeared to be the motive. Three suspects – two 15-year-olds and a 28-year-old construction worker from Peru – have been arrested."
So, this Peruvian guy was here on a green card? Or did he apply for a temporary construction-work visa from the U.S. Embassy in Lima?
Not exactly. Jose Carranza is an "undocumented" immigrant."

Now defenders of the immigration status quo will tell you that, as a percentage of the population, immigrants do not commit more crimes than the rest of the population. However what they steadfastly refuse to take into account that illegal immigrants do commit more crimes (as a percentage of society) because their very first act when they come into this country is to break the law! Nothing can change that simple fact!

Now I know (from my own personal experience) that there are many illegal immigrants who do not break any other laws once they come into the US. However, any time the (like the 9/11 hijackers did) have multiple drivers licenses with multiple social security numbers on then, they are breaking the law. Any time one has shown a willingness to break the law, the odds are pretty good that you will be willing to do so again and again.

State and local courts have got to start putting the safety of US citizens first and foremost. If that means inquiring about a defendants immigration status and turning them over to the federal government for deportation.

If you really are just here to better life for yourself, you can come over as my great-great-great grandparents did...legally. Yeah it's a little more work, but if you are a determined, hard-working individual that should not be a barrier....right?????

Let them eat cake

This story should tell you all you need to know about George Soros and his "philosophy". He has his and no one else is allowed to get to theirs!

"Tonight, PBS will air "Gold Futures," a film by Hungary's Tibor Kocsis. The film focuses on residents in Romania's Rosia Montana, a rural Transylvanian town, who are divided over the benefits of a proposed gold mine. It also features Gabriel Resources, the Canadian mining company trying to convince them to relocate so it can dig for a huge gold deposit estimated at 14.6 million ounces, worth almost $10 billion. PBS describes the film as a "David-and-Goliath story."...The other side to the controversy is told in a new film that will never be shown on PBS, but is nonetheless rattling the environmental community. "Mine Your Own Business" is a documentary by Irish filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney. They conclude that the biggest threat to the people of Rosia Montana "comes from upper-class Western environmentalism that seeks to keep them poor and unable to clean up the horrific pollution caused by Ceausescu's mining."
Mr. McAleer, a former Financial Times journalist who has followed the mine battle for seven years, says he "found that everything the environmentalists were saying about the project was misleading, exaggerated or quite simply false." He produced his film on a shoestring $230,000 budget largely provided by Gabriel Resources, but says he was given complete editorial control."

What, you ask, does all of this have to do with Mr. Soros? His Open Society Institute is a large funder of some of the groups opposing the Rosia Montana mine.

"In April, Mr. Soros, the chairman of the Open Society Institute and a large funder of groups opposing Rosia Montana, wrote to Wayne Murdy, then CEO of Newmont Mining, the Denver company that owns 19% of Gabriel Resources. He urged him not to invest in "a dubious project such as Rosia Montana," citing "the social costs involved in involuntarily resettling hundreds of people" and "the potential for disastrous environmental impact." Mr. Soros did not respond to an interview request. "

Mr. Soros did not respond to the interview request....big surprise...

Here you have a villiage that is impoverished and already polluted by heavy metals due to Communist era mining projects. The group that wants to mine the gold is offering MORE than fair market value for the homes in the area, they will clean up the existing pollution AND they are going to be employing a large number of the remaining residents. People in the Rosia Montana area need jobs...they need FOOD and George Soros is activly working to keep them hungry and poor.

There is a way to balance protecting the environment and the people. Technology has gotten us there. However, if George Soros has his way, the only ones who will have access to that technology are people that already have it. Those that don't will never see it....

Survey Says...

As many of you long time readers know, I don't put a lot of stock in polls and polling. I've seen how easy it is for less than honorable or honest pollsters to manipulate the data. That being said, the Gallup Organization is usually fairly straight up in their processes, which makes the results of their latest poll so striking (HT Captain Ed)



"A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll. "



It is Gallup's breakdown of the numbers that I find to be of the most interest.



"Frustration with Congress spans the political spectrum. There are only minor (but not statistically meaningful) differences in the approval ratings Democrats (21%), Republicans (18%), and independents (17%) give to Congress. Typically, partisans view Congress much more positively when their party is in control of the institution, so the fact that Democrats' ratings are not materially better than Republicans' is notable.
The nine-point drop in Congress' job approval rating from last month to this month has come exclusively from Democrats and independents, with Democrats' ratings dropping 11 points (from 32% to 21%) and independents' ratings dropping 13 points (from 30% to 17%). Republicans' 18% approval rating is unchanged from last month."



The Democrats are bleeding support from their own people. That could be as disasterous for them as 2006 was for Republicans.



"The decline in congressional job approval could merely reflect the cessation of any public good will it engendered when the new leadership arrived in January, since the current 18% rating is similar to what it was in December 2006 (21%).
But, it could also reflect disappointment with the new Congress' performance (especially among Democrats) and economic unease.
Americans elected the Democrats as the majority party in Congress in November 2006's midterm election in large part due to frustration with the Iraq war and an ineffective and scandal-plagued Republican-led Congress. But any hopes that the elections would lead to change have not been realized as Democrats' repeated attempts to force a change in Iraq war policy have been largely unsuccessful due to presidential vetoes, disagreements within their own party, and the inability to attract Republican support for their policy proposals. Also, many of the Democratic leadership's domestic agenda items have not become law even though some have passed one or both houses of Congress. "



This Congress has, without a doubt, lived up to the "Do Nothing" label. They have both Houses, they have relatively veto proof majorities, but the have not had the intestinal fortitude to do the one thing that their voters want most...to end the war in Iraq NOW! All Congress needs to do is to with-hold the funding for the war and the troops would have to come home IMMEDIATELY. It's that simple.



What the Congressional leaders know, what they refuse to stand up and tell the voters is that to do what they wish would certainly DOOM the Iraqi people to unspeakable violence and would destablize an already volitile region. That is also very simple. Will ANY Democrat in Congress stand up to the left-roots and say "NO"? I doubt it, but I pray that someday soon I can stand here in this forum and say "I was wrong"!

Unintended Consequences part deux

Here is another example of what happens when you try to make policy off of feelings rather than fact.



"The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says.
In addition, evidence suggests that the same projects, in developing countries, have deliberately raised their emissions of greenhouse gases only to destroy these and therefore claim more carbon credits, said Stanford University's Michael Wara."



Curbing emissions is not the flaw....the flaw is allowing "carbon credits"...



"At the heart of the clash is a carbon trading scheme under Kyoto, worth $5 billion last year, whereby rich countries pay poorer ones to cut greenhouse gas emissions on their behalf, called the clean development mechanism (CDM)." (emphasis mine)



Carbon offsets is nothing but a scheme....a scheme designed to line the pockets of people like Al Gore who are invested in carbon offset trading companies. It really does nothing for the environment.



"CDM projects which destroy HFC 23 are especially lucrative because the gas is 12,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), although its overall contribution to climate change is far less because CO2 is much more common.
As a result, destroying HFC 23 spawns far more money-spinning carbon credits than any other way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions."



All of this is being done in the name of curbing something that may or may not be factual. Rather than do more harm to the environment, we really need to find out first if global warming is man made and the what (if anything) can be done to curb it.

Got to laugh!

You just have to love this man's sense of humor.

"Footnote : In an embarrassment to the industry, some staffers at a Seattle Times news meeting cheered when (Karl) Rove's resignation was announced. To his credit, Editor David Boardman made the incident public and warned that staff meetings should not "evolve into a liberal latte klatch." Rove responded by sending a basket of cookies to the newsroom, with a note saying "my wife shares in your enthusiasm."

Is it any wonder that this was the man the liberals loved to hate?

What is LESS green than gasoline?

Well, well, well....this IS an interesting turn of events. (HT AAA)



"It sounds counterintuitive, but burning oil and planting forests to compensate is more environmentally friendly than burning biofuel. So say scientists who have calculated the difference in net emissions between using land to produce biofuel and the alternative: fuelling cars with gasoline and replanting forests on the land instead.
They recommend governments steer away from biofuel and focus on reforestation and maximising the efficiency of fossil fuels instead.
The reason is that producing biofuel is not a "green process". It requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make "green" fuel. In the case of bioethanol produced from corn – an alternative to oil – "it's essentially a zero-sums game," says Ghislaine Kieffer, programme manager for Latin America at the International Energy Agency in Paris, France."



Gee - I think at least one or two of us have been saying that for some time now.



I wonder if this will make any difference to those that are addicted to the "green" vote?



Governor Pawlenty...Senator Coleman....science calling for you on line 1!

Bridge or Bike Trail? Which is a priority?

The Wall Sreet Journal laid a smack down (on Saturday) on the Democrats who are calling for an increase in the gas tax (HT Gary at LFR)



"Some things in politics seem to be inevitable--and one of them is that any road or bridge tragedy will be followed by an argument to raise the gasoline tax. That's what is now happening in the wake of the terrible Minnesota bridge collapse, but that state's transportation and tax record shows precisely why voters are skeptical.
The gas tax pleas are coming from the usual suspects, in both Washington and St. Paul. James Oberstar, the Minnesota Democrat who runs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, recently stood beside the wreckage and recommended an increase in the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax, as a way to prevent future bridge collapses. His wing man, Alaska Republican and former Transportation Chairman Don Young, agrees wholeheartedly.
As it happens, these are the same men who played the lead role in the $286 billion 2005 federal highway bill. That's the bill that diverted billions of dollars of gas tax money away from urgent road and bridge projects toward Member earmarks for bike paths, nature trails and inefficient urban transit systems. "



Read the whole thing and read Gary's remarks. Both are excellent responses to the call for more taxes.

Spendthrifts

Remember that whole "Culture of Corruption" meme and how the Democrats promised they were going to "drain the swamp" if voters would just give them the reins of power in DC???? Well, the swamp is actually getting BIGGER, not smaller as this logical lady points out.



"Last year, Rep. Nancy Pelosi promised to drain the GOP swamp and reform earmark spending. This year, the House speaker argued that the $22 billion extra that Democrats want to spend on top of the Bush administration's budget represents "a very small difference."...The swamp isn't likely to be drained with Pelosi throwing her support behind Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Prince of Earmarks who sponsored $163 million worth of earmarks in seven spending bills this year, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Worse, the so-called Democratic reform that was supposed to discourage pork spending by making earmarks more transparent now seems likely to fuel the Dems' spending spree. Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kansas, told The New York Times, "My guess is that next year I'm going to be putting in more earmarks."



With this kind of reform you know the taxpayers pocketbook is being well protected.



The good news for Republicans is that they can take advantage of this - especially in Republican leaning districts like Minnesota's First Congressional District. Freshman Congressman Tim Walz has to distance himself from all of this or he runs the risk of being a one and done. Wouldn't that be a shame?????

Say what?

You just have to wonder what this guy was thinking when he said this.



"A Dutch Catholic bishop who once said the hungry were entitled to steal bread and advocated condom use to prevent AIDS has made headlines again, this time by saying God should be called Allah."Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will call God Allah?" Bishop Tiny Muskens said in an interview broadcast this week. "God doesn't care what we call him." (emphasis mine)



Oh really.....perhaps the Bishop would care to go a step further....maybe God wouldn't mind being called Satan. You up for that Bishop?



Actually Hal Lindsey came up with a really good response to this nonsense!



"If one doesn't believe that God is real, then it really doesn't matter what name one chooses.
It's like naming your 6-foot tall invisible white rabbit. You can call him "Harvey." Or you can name him "Peter Cottontail." He won't object either way – since he isn't real.
But if you try to rename your friend Fred from down the street, he may not be so pleased about being called George. Because Fred is a real person, you wouldn't think about calling him George simply because somebody else likes that name better.

Because God is as real as you or I, it isn't up to us to rename Him like He was a stray basset hound...

According to the God of the Bible, God's Name is very important to Him. "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain" (Exodus 20:7).
God's unique identity as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is very important to Him, as well. "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. ... But My covenant will I establish with Isaac" (Genesis 17:21).
Have you ever noticed that it is Allah who is seeking to be identified with God, and not the other way around? "



I had indeed noticed that. It is something interesting to ponder.