TexasTruBlu's Blog

So if anyone who claims conservative political views or doesn't want to vote for Obama is a "neocon" does that mean that people who espouse the extremely liberal views of Senator Obama could be called "neomarxists?" Discuss.

[shil] . –noun 1.a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
You may wonder why I am posting this. Are you watching the speeches before Obama comes on stage? First of all, it seems like this is the first time some of these people are seeing these words on the page. Secondly, while some of the stories are sad and unfortunate, in almost every case rather than pulling themselves up and moving on with life, these people simply sat down and waited for rescue. I guess that our safer world has allowed a breed of morality to bloom that thinks playing helpless is preferable to trying to succeed. In prior generations, those types never made it to adulthood. If you couldn't watch out for snakes on your own, then you died. If you couldn't be bothered to go to school, you failed and ended up in the lower income jobs you were suited for by your education. All I heard on those "lectures" (my name for them because being speeches requires that they be delivered with finesse and create some level of interest and entertainment) was whining, complaining and the ever present drumbeat of "Uncle Sam is gonna pay." Well folks, I have some bad news. There's no such thing as "free" anything. Whether it's healthcare or college, home loans or FEMA, everything COSTS MONEY. And that money has to come from somewhere. Contrary to some people's views, there's no money tree. And that means that all these "nice" things like amnesty, healthcare, early childhood programs, faith based support programs, hospitalizations, college tuition and more will have to be paid by higher taxes. And since the "rich" already pay nearly 70% of the total taxes, that means the money will have to come from the middle income people. The government cannot dare to raise corporate tax rates higher or they risk running jobs off shore. They really can't try to nationalize energy, or the big corporations will simply sell off to foreign owners leaving us even more at the mercy of outside forces. In short, this is a feelgood candidate with a horrible agenda. Pay attention, think critically and stay aware because much of what you are being fed as fact is simply media spin.

[shil] . –noun 1.a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
You may wonder why I am posting this. Are you watching the speeches before Obama comes on stage? First of all, it seems like this is the first time some of these people are seeing these words on the page. Secondly, while some of the stories are sad and unfortunate, in almost every case rather than pulling themselves up and moving on with life, these people simply sat down and waited for rescue. I guess that our safer world has allowed a breed of morality to bloom that thinks playing helpless is preferable to trying to succeed. In prior generations, those types never made it to adulthood. If you couldn't watch out for snakes on your own, then you died. If you couldn't be bothered to go to school, you failed and ended up in the lower income jobs you were suited for by your education. All I heard on those "lectures" (my name for them because being speeches requires that they be delivered with finesse and create some level of interest and entertainment) was whining, complaining and the ever present drumbeat of "Uncle Sam is gonna pay." Well folks, I have some bad news. There's no such thing as "free" anything. Whether it's healthcare or college, home loans or FEMA, everything COSTS MONEY. And that money has to come from somewhere. Contrary to some people's views, there's no money tree. And that means that all these "nice" things like amnesty, healthcare, early childhood programs, faith based support programs, hospitalizations, college tuition and more will have to be paid by higher taxes. And since the "rich" already pay nearly 70% of the total taxes, that means the money will have to come from the middle income people. The government cannot dare to raise corporate tax rates higher or they risk running jobs off shore. They really can't try to nationalize energy, or the big corporations will simply sell off to foreign owners leaving us even more at the mercy of outside forces. In short, this is a feelgood candidate with a horrible agenda. Pay attention, think critically and stay aware because much of what you are being fed as fact is simply media spin.

Here's an issue. It seems that Michelle Obama is saying that Barak Obama will give AMNESTY to illegal aliens. So I am guess our social welfare system, hospitals and schools must be running at a surplus right now. *sarcasm* People, please please please learn what the candidates stand for. Don't vote for someone because he wears nice suits, hangs out with movie stars or any of the other bogus reasons put forth.
Story here
KNOW THE ISSUES!
VOTE THE ISSUES!!

So Michelle Obama is proud of the United States for the first time. And the DNC likes to trot out patriotism as a prop to this dog and pony show. But riddle me this-where are the flags? If this is a celebration of the American spectacle of the peaceful transfer of politics, then why has one party deliberately avoided the Red, White and Blue? What message does this send to you? And, BTW, be sure to look at BOTH links.
Link One
Link Two
And while we are at it, how about THIS lovely excerpt where the Obama HQ tried to shut down one of the biggest radio stations in the nation-WGN out of Chicago-because they "didn't like the conservative guest....." Excuse me, isn't this how Nazi Germany managed to corner the message? And why aren't more people discussing this? There's no way a Republican or any other candidate would get away with trying to stifle the media like this. What gives and why are they getting a Free Pass?
"...Members of Barack Obama’s campaign HQ in Chicago tried to shut down a local radio show on the City's most powerful radio signal, WGN 720, because they didn't like a conservative guest that was on going on the air to discuss Senator Barack Obama's ties to local terrorist William Ayers. This is a shocking attempt at stifling political free speech and a bald attempt to quash debate by the office of the Democratic Party's nominee. The funny thing is, WGN is the most liberal station in the City with every host but one slavishly supporting the junior Senator from Illinois...."
Link Three
So, what I take away from this that is if we have views that opposed the Almighty Barak Obama, we can expect to have our phones monitored, our doors broken down and our taxes overly scrutinized. If that is bad for a conservative party to do, then it's doubly so for a party that claims to be the Big Umbrella under which all are accepted.

In Ancient Rome, at the point where it was no longer a Republic, but an Empire, the Emperor was thought to be divine. As such, upon earthly death, the Emperor would undergo apotheosis-and become a god. We have seen similar worshipful stances before-Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Elvis, Princess Di-but I have not seen a living candidate elevated to such levels until now.

If there was not a question before over Obama's judgment, then the spectacle which will occur in the stadium in Denver is eerily similar to playacting, except that this has grave political importance. I have posted before that you must consider more than the image of the candidates, but what they say and what their personal history reveals about how they have navigated through the waters of life. What I find disturbing is that from what I can see, Mr. Obama is eating up the accolades and rhetoric and refusing to put his foot down and rein in some of the wildly exotic presentations that are ongoing. You have to wonder, even if you support the man politically, if his judgment is sound when he allows himself to be bullied by his own handlers. Seriously-Greek temple? Really? Will he wear a toga and laurels as well and strike the classic orators pose as his pontificates on the meaning of life? Should Republicans then counter with the backdrop of the Millineum Falcon and McCain dressed as Darth Vader? At what point has this gone beyond politics and become reality TV? I expect Ashton Kutcher to leap out any moment.

In Ancient Rome, at the point where it was no longer a Republic, but an Empire, the Emperor was thought to be divine. As such, upon earthly death, the Emperor would undergo apotheosis-and become a god. We have seen similar worshipful stances before-Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Elvis, Princess Di-but I have not seen a living candidate elevated to such levels until now.

If there was not a question before over Obama's judgment, then the spectacle which will occur in the stadium in Denver is eerily similar to playacting, except that this has grave political importance. I have posted before that you must consider more than the image of the candidates, but what they say and what their personal history reveals about how they have navigated through the waters of life. What I find disturbing is that from what I can see, Mr. Obama is eating up the accolades and rhetoric and refusing to put his foot down and rein in some of the wildly exotic presentations that are ongoing. You have to wonder, even if you support the man politically, if his judgment is sound when he allows himself to be bullied by his own handlers. Seriously-Greek temple? Really? Will he wear a toga and laurels as well and strike the classic orators pose as his pontificates on the meaning of life? Should Republicans then counter with the backdrop of the Millineum Falcon and McCain dressed as Darth Vader? At what point has this gone beyond politics and become reality TV? I expect Ashton Kutcher to leap out any moment.

I admit, that I have seen this before, but honestly, I stumbled across it again on the FoxLA blog, and it made me laugh. Who couldn't use a laugh, now and then?

DEMOCRATIC
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.  

REPUBLICAN  
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.

So?

SOCIALIST  
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow. 

 COMMUNIST  
 You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour. 

 CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE  
 You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows. 

 BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE  
 You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain. 

 AMERICAN CORPORATION  
 You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up. 

 FRENCH CORPORATION  
 You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good. 

 JAPANESE CORPORATION  
 You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school. 

 GERMAN CORPORATION  
 You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year. 

 ITALIAN CORPORATION  
 You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good. 

 RUSSIAN CORPORATION  
 You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

  TALIBAN CORPORATION 

You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons. 

IRAQI CORPORATION  

You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing. 

POLISH CORPORATION  

You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

BELGIAN CORPORATION  

You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy. 

FLORIDA CORPORATION  

You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.

 
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION  
You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegals.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.  

Part of the Chief Executive's job is to make hard decisions-often with little time to deliberate. (for liberals, make gratuitous joke about President Bush here....) Many of the decisions made will never see the light of day and go on behind the screens of national security. This is why whoever we pick for office has to be someone we trust. One way to do that is to witness the choices made by Senator Obama. The most recent one is to choose Joe Biden for VP. I have nothing against Biden, but he clearly doesn't bring much to the ticket in terms of electoral votes, regional allegiance or political diversity. And while the DNC has been quick to address Senator McCain's age, Biden isn't that much younger. So will they still lob those ageist jokes and rumors through the outlets of NPR, Moveon.org and MSM? But don't just listen to me, indeed nobody should listen to just one self-proclaimed authority on ANY topic. Here's a column that I found interesting in that it outlined a pattern of behavior. People are creatures of habit. And I found the habits revealed to be disturbing.
Story here.

Excerpt:"...William Ayers, unrepentant terrorist and education professor, is once again being tied to Barack Obama in the public mind. Controversy builds over the withholding of the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an expensive failed school reform effort headed by Obama and effectively run by Ayers, held by the library of the University of Illinois Chicago. Researchers who have gained access to a few documents recording the history of the project have found strong evidence of a very important working relationship between the two men on the project, Obama's sole claim to executive experience.
Oddly enough, even though the project produced no measurable improvement in student performance according to its own final report, educators and administrators -- participants and grantees of the CAC -- were reported by outside monitors to be often "ebullient" about the activities.  For insiders, it was an excellent adventure. For the pupils stuck in the failing public schools of Chicago, an ongoing, unrelieved disaster..."

Part of the Chief Executive's job is to make hard decisions-often with little time to deliberate. (for liberals, make gratuitous joke about President Bush here....) Many of the decisions made will never see the light of day and go on behind the screens of national security. This is why whoever we pick for office has to be someone we trust. One way to do that is to witness the choices made by Senator Obama. The most recent one is to choose Joe Biden for VP. I have nothing against Biden, but he clearly doesn't bring much to the ticket in terms of electoral votes, regional allegiance or political diversity. And while the DNC has been quick to address Senator McCain's age, Biden isn't that much younger. So will they still lob those ageist jokes and rumors through the outlets of NPR, Moveon.org and MSM? But don't just listen to me, indeed nobody should listen to just one self-proclaimed authority on ANY topic. Here's a column that I found interesting in that it outlined a pattern of behavior. People are creatures of habit. And I found the habits revealed to be disturbing.
Story here.

Excerpt:"...William Ayers, unrepentant terrorist and education professor, is once again being tied to Barack Obama in the public mind. Controversy builds over the withholding of the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an expensive failed school reform effort headed by Obama and effectively run by Ayers, held by the library of the University of Illinois Chicago. Researchers who have gained access to a few documents recording the history of the project have found strong evidence of a very important working relationship between the two men on the project, Obama's sole claim to executive experience.
Oddly enough, even though the project produced no measurable improvement in student performance according to its own final report, educators and administrators -- participants and grantees of the CAC -- were reported by outside monitors to be often "ebullient" about the activities.  For insiders, it was an excellent adventure. For the pupils stuck in the failing public schools of Chicago, an ongoing, unrelieved disaster..."

I read this and frankly, it says everything I have been saying for awhile now. It's one thing to point to the big guy and say that it's fine to take his profits and think you are safe. But you have to consider that when the government has bled dry the coffers of corporations, they will have to turn to private citizens to fund their nanny state programs. How far are you willing to go? What or who should be taxed next? Those with big cars? Those with a boat? Those with more than one income? Those who save money in banks? If the Obama platform is based on an ideal of ceasing income-whether corporate or individual-you should be very concerned at what they have planned around the corner. Just another reason not to support him.

The Public Policy
Flower Power
By Peter Ferrara
Published 8/14/2008 12:08:05 AM

Barack Obama proposes that we seize the profits of the oil companies and use them for $1,000 "energy rebate" checks to every working family in America. That is what he said in his speech in Lansing, Michigan on August 4, 2008, entitled "New Energy for America." Economist Donald Boudreaux pointed out that seizing all oil profits would still not be enough to fund these $1,000 giveaway checks.

If the government is going to target an industry it has vilified in the public mind, loot all its profits, and then use the money for giveaway checks to buy votes, then what has our nation become?

If the government can do that to the oil industry, then why can't it do the same to any other industry, or group of people, that it successfully paints as unpopular? What then has happened to the whole notion of private property?

Why couldn't President Obama then decree that every owner of a four bedroom home take in two homeless people? Surely there would be room for them somewhere. Why couldn't he just seize every gas guzzling SUV, sell them for scrap metal, and use that money for $1,000 rebate checks to every Democrat voter as well?

This is why people say Obama is a socialist...."

I am outraged. I want all people in Congress to be held accountable to the laws of the land. Yet a man who delivers babies for free is investigated while more egregious crimes are ignored-based only on political allegiance. Barbara Boxer is a political CLOWN. And folks in California, she's your responsibility to remove.
Story here

August 14, 2008 Boxer Bullies Senate's Birth Doc By Debra Saunders

In July, federal authorities indicted Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, on corruption charges on the grounds that Alaska's Prince of Earmarks concealed hundreds of thousands of dollars of gifts and improvements to his Alaska home provided by a powerful oil services company. Also this summer, amid the mortgage meltdown, newspapers reported that a number of senators -- including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; and Barack Obama, D.-Ill. -- were the beneficiaries of sweetheart home loans.

In June, the Senate Ethics Committee began an initial look into Dodd's and Conrad's discounted Countrywide Financial VIP loans, as is fitting. Meanwhile, with all of the ethics stink bombs lurking in Washington, the committee, chaired by California Democrat Barbara Boxer, is aiming its guns at Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., for "a serious violation of Senate rules."

Coburn's bad? An obstetrician by profession, Coburn won't heed the committee's threat to reprimand him for delivering babies back home in Oklahoma -- for free.

"On my own time, I'm taking care of women who have a need, and I'm going to continue to deliver babies," Coburn told Politico.com.

And, bully for him: "I'm not going to stop." When a member of the House, Coburn delivered 400 babies under an agreement with ethics meisters that allowed him to do so -- if he charged only enough to cover his expenses.

When elected to the Senate, which was first run by Republicans and now Democrats, Ethics Committee members told Coburn that if he wants to treat patients -- largely poor and "at risk" mothers -- he could not charge them, and thus would have to eat the costs of his practice.

The Senate Ethics Committee allows big-buck book deals for U.S. senators, but in a May memorandum, it told Coburn, "you are allowed to practice medicine if you provide such services for free." So he started working for nothing.

Even free wasn't good enough. After the Muskogee Regional Medical Center, where he practices, was taken over by a for-profit operation, the committee told Coburn to cease "providing any and all medical services" by June 22, pursuant to Senate Rule 37 on conflicts of interest. Coburn could practice medicine only as a solo practitioner, for a private entity that provides services for free, or for a government or tribal health facility.

Here's the reason she's doing it:

What's really going on here? The senator -- who prefers to be called Dr. Coburn -- has been a thorn in the side of both big-spending Republicans and Democrats. He calls earmarks "the gateway drug" to Washington's spending addiction. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote back in 2006 when the GOP ran the Senate, "Tom Coburn is like an imam at a pig roast: He sees pork everywhere, and he doesn't like it."

Coburn bucked party leaders as he tried to block Stevens' $229 million earmark, largely for a bridge between Anchorage and an island with 50 residents, infamously dubbed the "Bridge to Nowhere."

When Democrats took over the Senate, Coburn challenged their pork-barrel projects as well. In July, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bundled 35 spending bills into a $10 billion omnibus package, Coburn successfully led the charge to block the measure -- citing next year's projected $482 billion deficit. As Coburn likes to say, the American people elect senators to "make hard choices and live within our means."

After I called Sen. Boxer's office, a committee spokesperson sent me a note that said, "The work of the Ethics Committee is confidential and we cannot comment on matters that may be before it." In July, Boxer told the Washington Post, "He knows what he's supposed to be doing."

The savvy observer has to conclude that because Coburn has challenged Senate pork, the Ethics Committee essentially is willing to stick it to poor pregnant women, who might benefit from a free delivery.

It's a tactical blunder. If the committee continues to push for a public reprimand, Coburn has the right to ask for a full Senate vote. While Boxer may not mind coming across as petty and vindictive, other senators might hesitate before publicly bullying a man for delivering babies for free.

As Coburn spokesman John Hart noted, there have been many stories about lawmakers, their friends and families profiting from earmarks, but "no one has ever chosen to have Dr. Coburn deliver her baby in order to sway his vote."

With Democrats in charge, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics is no more ethical than it was under the GOP. In going after Coburn, its mandate is clear: Forget Ethics, It's Payback Time

I am outraged. I want all people in Congress to be held accountable to the laws of the land. Yet a man who delivers babies for free is investigated while more egregious crimes are ignored-based only on political allegiance. Barbara Boxer is a political CLOWN.
Story here

August 14, 2008 Boxer Bullies Senate's Birth Doc By Debra Saunders

In July, federal authorities indicted Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, on corruption charges on the grounds that Alaska's Prince of Earmarks concealed hundreds of thousands of dollars of gifts and improvements to his Alaska home provided by a powerful oil services company. Also this summer, amid the mortgage meltdown, newspapers reported that a number of senators -- including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; and Barack Obama, D.-Ill. -- were the beneficiaries of sweetheart home loans.

In June, the Senate Ethics Committee began an initial look into Dodd's and Conrad's discounted Countrywide Financial VIP loans, as is fitting. Meanwhile, with all of the ethics stink bombs lurking in Washington, the committee, chaired by California Democrat Barbara Boxer, is aiming its guns at Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., for "a serious violation of Senate rules."

Coburn's bad? An obstetrician by profession, Coburn won't heed the committee's threat to reprimand him for delivering babies back home in Oklahoma -- for free.

"On my own time, I'm taking care of women who have a need, and I'm going to continue to deliver babies," Coburn told Politico.com.

And, bully for him: "I'm not going to stop." When a member of the House, Coburn delivered 400 babies under an agreement with ethics meisters that allowed him to do so -- if he charged only enough to cover his expenses.

When elected to the Senate, which was first run by Republicans and now Democrats, Ethics Committee members told Coburn that if he wants to treat patients -- largely poor and "at risk" mothers -- he could not charge them, and thus would have to eat the costs of his practice.

The Senate Ethics Committee allows big-buck book deals for U.S. senators, but in a May memorandum, it told Coburn, "you are allowed to practice medicine if you provide such services for free." So he started working for nothing.

Even free wasn't good enough. After the Muskogee Regional Medical Center, where he practices, was taken over by a for-profit operation, the committee told Coburn to cease "providing any and all medical services" by June 22, pursuant to Senate Rule 37 on conflicts of interest. Coburn could practice medicine only as a solo practitioner, for a private entity that provides services for free, or for a government or tribal health facility.

Here's the reason she's doing it:

What's really going on here? The senator -- who prefers to be called Dr. Coburn -- has been a thorn in the side of both big-spending Republicans and Democrats. He calls earmarks "the gateway drug" to Washington's spending addiction. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote back in 2006 when the GOP ran the Senate, "Tom Coburn is like an imam at a pig roast: He sees pork everywhere, and he doesn't like it."

Coburn bucked party leaders as he tried to block Stevens' $229 million earmark, largely for a bridge between Anchorage and an island with 50 residents, infamously dubbed the "Bridge to Nowhere."

When Democrats took over the Senate, Coburn challenged their pork-barrel projects as well. In July, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bundled 35 spending bills into a $10 billion omnibus package, Coburn successfully led the charge to block the measure -- citing next year's projected $482 billion deficit. As Coburn likes to say, the American people elect senators to "make hard choices and live within our means."

After I called Sen. Boxer's office, a committee spokesperson sent me a note that said, "The work of the Ethics Committee is confidential and we cannot comment on matters that may be before it." In July, Boxer told the Washington Post, "He knows what he's supposed to be doing."

The savvy observer has to conclude that because Coburn has challenged Senate pork, the Ethics Committee essentially is willing to stick it to poor pregnant women, who might benefit from a free delivery.

It's a tactical blunder. If the committee continues to push for a public reprimand, Coburn has the right to ask for a full Senate vote. While Boxer may not mind coming across as petty and vindictive, other senators might hesitate before publicly bullying a man for delivering babies for free.

As Coburn spokesman John Hart noted, there have been many stories about lawmakers, their friends and families profiting from earmarks, but "no one has ever chosen to have Dr. Coburn deliver her baby in order to sway his vote."

With Democrats in charge, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics is no more ethical than it was under the GOP. In going after Coburn, its mandate is clear: Forget Ethics, It's Payback Time

Back in the 1970's, the book "Silent Spring" heralded a new awareness of chemicals on the world ecosystems. Embracing the tidal surge of opinion, suddenly useful chemicals were evil and many nations, with the permission of the World Health Organization and the UN, banned these substances. There is no question some of the chemicals needed to be eliminated. But in their zeal to eradicate all chemicals from the ecosystem, these same bodies eliminated DDT. DDT has been the poster child for bad chemicals for years. And it is an undeserved dishonor. The banning of DDT was an action done more for airplay than for actual defined scientific reasons. The result of this banning was a precipitous rise in deaths from malaria and other mosquito and insect borne diseases. Countless hundreds of thousands have died as the result. Today the tables are turned somewhat as the new science overturns the old. DDT is again recommended for use in regions that suffer from the ravages of these diseases. But before you read the quotes below, please consider some of the quick fixes that current popular spokesmen insist are necessary to prevent Global Warming. There has already been a great deal of opposition to the conventional wisdom, but these scientific bullies would rather be right than admit their methods were contrived to create the situation that would foster belief in Global Warming, rather than proving it to be a real occurance. Think about who is supporting draconian, expensive fixes for a global system that may not even be broken. Think about how these same people exonerate third world nations-who are the world's worst polluters-from having the curtail their development, their emissions, their industries. And finally consider all of these things when you vote, because the next election could impact your children, your grandchildren and your great grandchildren. I personally don't want anyone creating an economic problem just to salve their own wounded egos.

"...DDT does things no other weapon, at any price, can do. Sprayed in tiny amounts just once or twice a year on the inside walls of homes, it keeps 90 percent of mosquitoes from even entering – and keeps those that do come in from biting. That’s why it has slashed malaria rates by 75 percent in South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and other countries where it has been used. Since DDT is no longer used in agriculture, mosquitoes are unlikely to become resistant to it. Studies show that even those that are immune to its killing properties are kept away by its repellant effects. The alleged dangers of DDT are ridiculously small or irrelevant compared to the dangers of diseases inflicted on Africa by tiny buzzing insects. Malaria alone infects over 400 million Africans annually, and kills the equivalent of ten jumbo jets full of passengers crashing every day. It enslaves the continent, kills babies and pregnant women, prevents people from working, perpetuates poverty, keeps tourists and investors from coming to Africa, and reduces the continent’s economic productivity by billions of dollars a year. In Kenya alone it costs 170 million lost working days annually..."
Full story here



It’s astonishing that elected officials would use their taxpayer-funded offices to bully a company’s president into changing his corporation’s philanthropic giving practices. And it’s deplorable that in trying to discredit critics of catastrophic global warming, Rockefeller and Snowe would stoop to using smear rhetoric that alludes to “Holocaust denial”—and is inaccurate to boot. No one seriously denies that the Earth is warming. The debate is over the extent and consequences of such warming. Remarkable, too, is the senators’ cryptic reference to a “scientific group” that would soon issue its “findings,” words that bestow authority on what, as we expected, would turn out to be no more than a political attack.
It didn’t take us long to figure out what this “scientific group” might be and who is behind it: For almost four decades, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has manipulated the high reputation of “science” to serve the low ends of politics. It has done a good job of cherry-picking scientific facts to stir up public fears to advance its agenda. This time it is promoting alarmist claims about global warming by leveraging the prestige of the “concerned scientist.”

The credulous media usually fall all over themselves to defer to UCS every time the group takes a political position. For instance, when it issued a report in 2004 criticizing President George W. Bush’s handling of science policy, the union was described as “a scientific advocacy group” (New York Times), “a group of scientists” (Reuters), “an independent Cambridge-based organization” (Boston Globe), and a “nonprofit ... advocacy group in Cambridge, Mass.” (Newsday). After all, who but concerned scientists would pass judgment on President Bush and conclude that he was a scientific ignoramus manipulating science in order to advance a partisan agenda?

That UCS is a highly partisan operation—well funded by left-leaning foundations and Hollywood celebrities and happy to ignore established scientific methodologies for its own purposes—is apparently not newsworthy. The group has a long history of being just plain wrong on many scientific issues, and its current agenda conforms to the extremes of environmentalist ideology. Moreover, UCS is neither representative of the scientific community at large nor is it a gathering of top scientists. Instead, a cadre of senior staff whose credentials are steeped more in Washington policy-making than in scientific research rides herd over a grassroots membership from all walks of life. .."

Americans wishing to spend August vacationing with their families or watching the Olympics may wonder why their newspapers and television screens are filled with images of war in the small country of Georgia. Concerns about what occurs there might seem distant and unrelated to the many other interests America has around the world. And yet Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America.
    Georgia is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion. After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises.
    Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms. I've met with President Saakashvili many times, including during several trips to Georgia. What the people of Georgia have accomplished - in terms of democratic governance, a Western orientation, and domestic reform - is nothing short of remarkable. That makes Russia's recent actions against the Georgians all the more alarming. In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia - and the survival of its democratically-elected government - are at stake.
    In recent days Moscow has sent its tanks and troops across the internationally recognized border into the Georgian region of South Ossetia. Statements by Moscow that it was merely aiding the Ossetians are belied by reports of Russian troops in the region of Abkhazia, repeated Russian bombing raids across Georgia, and reports of a de facto Russian naval blockade of the Georgian coast. Whatever tensions and hostilities might have existed between Georgians and Ossetians, they in no way justify Moscow's path of violent aggression. Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe.     The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors - such as Ukraine - for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values. As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcomed the end of a divided of Europe, and the independence of former Soviet republics. The international response to this crisis will determine how Russia manages its relationships with other neighbors.
    We have other important strategic interests at stake in Georgia, especially the continued flow of oil through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which Russia attempted to bomb in recent days; the operation of a critical communication and trade route from Georgia through Azerbaijan and Central Asia; and the integrity and influence of NATO, whose members reaffirmed last April the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia. Yesterday Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia and offered a ceasefire. The Russians responded by bombing the civilian airport in Georgia's capital, Tblisi, and by stepping up its offensive in Abkhazia. This pattern of attack appears aimed not at restoring any status quo ante in South Ossetia, but rather at toppling the democratically elected government of Georgia. This should be unacceptable to all the democratic countries of the world, and should draw us together in universal condemnation of Russian aggression. Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government's actions will have for Russia's relationship with the U.S. and Europe. It is time we moved forward with a number of steps. The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion. NATO's North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO's future relationship with Russia, a Partnership for Peace nation. NATO's decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision. The Secretary of State should begin high-level diplomacy, including visiting Europe, to establish a common Euro-Atlantic position aimed at ending the war and supporting the independence of Georgia. With the same aim, the U.S. should coordinate with our partners in Germany, France, and Britain, to seek an emergency meeting of the G-7 foreign ministers to discuss the current crisis. The visit of French President Sarkozy to Moscow this week is a welcome expression of transatlantic activism. Working with allied partners, the U.S. should immediately consult with the Ukrainian government and other concerned countries on steps to secure their continued independence. This is particularly important as a number of Russian Black Sea fleet vessels currently in Georgian territorial waters are stationed at Russia's base in the Ukrainian Crimea.
    The U.S. should work with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and other interested friends, to develop plans to strengthen the security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. The U.S. should send immediate economic and humanitarian assistance to help mitigate the impact the invasion has had on the people of Georgia. Our united purpose should be to persuade the Russian government to cease its attacks, withdraw its troops, and enter into negotiations with Georgia. We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world. World history is often made in remote, obscure countries. It is being made in Georgia today. It is the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to be a record of humanity's progress toward respecting the values and security of free people. Thank you.