Mac Johnson talks straight...

Since you're reading this blog, you're probably a political junkie like me and are well-aware of the recent snubbing that McCain received from the NY Times. As usual, Mac Johnson gets straight to the point in his latest effort:

To: Senator John McCain
Evil Republican Standard Bearer
Washington, D.C.

From: Pinch Ahmadinejad Sulzberger
Editor-in-Chief-for-Life, New York Times
New York, NY

Re: Submission (yours)

Dear Senator McCain,

Thank you for your recent unsolicited editorial submission to the New York Times. While we appreciate your desire to have your piece published in America’s newspaper of record, we regret that we cannot use it at this time.

We understand that you have had many thoughts published in the New York Times in the past, and that you have enjoyed fawning coverage by both our editors and reporters for years. However, it has recently come to our attention that you are, in fact, a Republican. We therefore cannot publish any more of your work until after you have lost the upcoming Presidential election. We encourage you to submit bitter critiques of conservative figures after that time.

We hope that you do not take this rejection personally, as you have been very useful to us in the past, and -- like all good manipulable politicians -- you care deeply about how you are described in our venerable and uppity pages. But you must understand that our past praise of you was conducted only with the hope of damaging other leading Republican figures with whom you disagreed. Now that you are the leading Republican figure, our only hope is to damage you, the Anti-Barack. May you cease to threaten the coming 1000-year peace of the Dalai Obama’s reign. (Hock, Patooie!)

Oo, that reminds me, please (for old Time’s sake) post the following classified employment advertisement in the Senate break room. We suddenly have a position available.

Wanted: Republican or near-Republican Senator to serve as “iconoclastic maverick” in the eyes of the World’s Most Important Newspaper. Must be willing to criticize own leaders, comrades, underlings and especially the Party’s base. Must love pets and illegal aliens. Veteran status a plus. Only non-smokers, please.

Again, thank you for all your many past services, sucker.

Peace out,

Pinch

P.S. We would, of course, be willing to reconsider your article if you are willing to submit a revised “second draft” of the work. Please change “victory” to “American withdrawal and apology” wherever it appears, and offer to serve (if asked) in the upcoming Obama administration. Also, please try to work in a reference to speculators contributing to Global Warming. Thanks.

P.P.S. The newsroom says “Hi.”

Perfect. The straight-talk express just got hoisted by it's own petard.

Save the planet... don't have kids? (updated)

Please God, save us from ourselves... literally:

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

It's an extreme stance which one might imagine is born from an unhappy childhood or an upbringing among parents who share similar, strong beliefs.

Good grief! Where have we heard this before... the environuts taking their twisted logic to the point where the answer is human extinction? Start here.

From LifeSite.net:

Global populations have been falling dramatically and few countries of the developed world have a fertility rate higher than bare replacement level. Recent statistics have shown that nearly 40 per cent of the world’s countries have fertility rates from 0 to 2.4 children born per woman, whereas the bare minimum replacement level is 2.1.

A United Nations report showed in August this year that 28 per cent of the world’s countries allow abortion on demand. 84 per cent of the wealthier countries allow abortion on eugenic grounds for “foetal impairment”; 78 per cent allow it on “economic or social” grounds and 84 per cent of wealthy countries allow abortion in cases of rape or incest.

But not everyone is as sanguine about humanity’s impending self-induced extinction. Mark Steyn wrote last year that the falling fertility levels in Europe and the formerly Christian west will spell the end of western civilization. “We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world,” Steyn wrote.

“Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries....Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone.”

Mark Steyn on the "logical reduction of environmentalism:


Hat tip to HotAir with Save the planet: Have an abortion.

Oh, and how can we save the planet? It's so obvious!

Update: Right on queue, Mac Johnson chimes in with some outstanding commentary:

... But don’t think I am critical of the eco-sterility cause. For once, I have found a leftist movement that I totally agree with. Leftist should not breed under any circumstances. If we can get 100% compliance on this point, we’re just one generation away from a better world. I think it’s fair to say that Vernelli and her kind are absolutely correct: the fewer children they have, the better.

It amuses me greatly that the greatest political proponents of evolutionary theory today, western leftists, are about to be its most recent victims. I can assure you that no species, no group, no community has ever successfully evolved childlessness as one of its defining characteristics. The dinosaurs and the Shakers tried, but for some reason they’re not around today to share their wisdom on the subject.

By contrast, social conservatives the world over, many of whom reject or question evolution as a theory, are all set to be the theory’s great winners, since they maintain the traditional love of family. But then it doesn’t matter who believes Mr. Darwin. It just matters who has kids. The future belongs to those who send descendants there.

The future will not belong to those that commit evolutionary suicide because they are fretting overly about their carbon footprint. It is safe to say, therefore, that the future will not belong to sterile vegan animal rights activist environmental patients.

Whew! One less thing to worry about.

Wouldn't that be nice!

Kathleen Parker also chimes in with Survival of the Stupidest.

Hillary Clinton: I'm So Glad You Asked!

Mac Johnson is, again, awesome:

America’s trust in the Clintons suffered a horrible blow last week, when it was discovered that Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff had planted the “spontaneous” questions being asked by audience members at an Iowa campaign event.

"They were canned,” Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff (a Grinnell College student attending the performance) said of the questions that Clinton took. In a remarkable coincidence, Clinton’s answers seemed quite polished -- almost prepared, really.

This was truly only a coincidence, though, according to Clinton’s widely trusted campaign staff, which at first denied planting any questions. Then, under a gathering mountain of evidence, her staff admitted planting one question, but claimed that no one told Clinton there was a planted question in the crowd or with whom the fraudulent question had been planted. In other words, Clinton called on the correct person, who asked the correct question, to which Clinton gave a very specific answer, but Clinton did not inhale before giving that answer.

The staff also claimed that the only time they have ever planted a question in the audience was the one time they got caught doing so. And if people were dumb enough to believe that line, the divorce rate would be a lot lower.

In yet another remarkable coincidence, shortly after claiming they have never planted any other question, the Rev. Geoffrey Mitchell, a Democrat minister came forward to report that a Clinton staffer had tried to convince him to ask a planted question at a different dog and phony show in Iowa.

Clinton’s staff immediately denied this, then provided a parsed explanation of the denial. Sure a staffer talked to the man, they said, and they discussed the general concept of questions as a grammatical concept, but nobody was asked to ask any questions – and, besides, the staffer and the Reverend Mitchell were old buddies just talking about politics and the whole thing is therefore just a misunderstanding. Rev. Mitchell denies knowing the staffer at all, except by name. Apparently, the first question the staffer should have asked the Reverend was “You aren’t an Obama supporter, are you?”

See -- it’s a misunderstanding.

But let’s get back to the original incident and marvel at how well the answer fit the question, which was planted, but totally unknown to Sen. Mrs. Bill Clinton:

Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff: “As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?

Clinton: "Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it's usually young people that ask me about global warming." Clinton then went on to describe her plan for saving the world

Well, of course it’s usually young people that ask that question, the staff tells the old folks to ask about social security and prescription drugs.

Everything would have gone just fine with the planted question, except that Gallo-Chasanoff, apparently new to the Democrat Party’s style of politics, decided to reveal the dishonesty. "[T}hey wanted a question from a college student,” Ms. Gallo-Chasanoff later told reporters. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask].”

In light of these damaging revelations of Clinton’s claimed ignorance of the malfeasance of a senior staff member, and maybe some other guy who was probably just misunderstood by the long-time friend he had just met, Sen. Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been anxious to talk to members of the press to explain things, and I’m proud and quite shocked to say that I was granted an interview with her this weekend, shortly after I received a new 12-cylinder Audi A8L from an unknown benefactor (a remarkable coincidence). A transcript is below: ...

Read the rest.

Check out The Hillary Project too!

The United Nations... working its way towards irrelevance

Dr. Nile Gardiner leads off with a great piece titled Happy UNday?:

As overpaid and under worked United Nations bureaucrats quaff champagne and feast on canapés and shrimp in Turtle Bay to celebrate U.N. Day, it is important for the world to remember those who have been failed by the organization, or have suffered at its hands.

They include: the one million Tutsis slaughtered by Hutus in the Rwanda genocide of 1994 while U.N. peacekeepers looked on; the 10,000 Bosnian Muslims massacred at Srebrenica by the Serbs while under the protection of Dutch troops in a U.N. “safe haven”; the more than 200,000 villagers in Darfur killed by Sudanese-backed Janjaweed militias while the United Nations debated whether or not it was an act of genocide, and the regime in Khartoum sat on the U.N.’s Commission on Human Rights; the millions of Iraqis who suffered under the brutal boot of the Baathist regime while Saddam Hussein plundered the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food Program; the millions of inhabitants of Zimbabwe and Burma who continue to suffer at the hands of brutal tyrannical regimes while the U.N. turns a blind eye; the hundreds of refugees raped by U.N. peacekeepers in both the Congo and southern Sudan.

The U.N.'s failures, from its inability (and unwillingness) to stop ethnic cleansing in Africa and the Balkans to wide-spread abuses by U.N. peacekeepers across the world are legion. Inaction, incompetence, and even abject inhumanity have all too often been the hallmarks of U.N. operations, which have frequently demonstrated a callous indifference to human suffering.

...

Founded in 1945 with lofty ambitions to advance peace, prosperity, and security in the world, the United Nations can point to few significant achievements. Its two supposed finest hours - the defense of South Korea in the Korean War and the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq - were both American-led operations that frankly would have taken place even if the United Nations did not exist.

Without the presence of the world's greatest power, the U.N. would be an impotent body, lacking in legitimacy, and financially crippled.

The United States has been the United Nations' biggest contributor since its founding, giving over $5.3 billion annually to the world body. The U.S. provides 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular annual operating budget - more than the combined contributions of France, Germany, China, Canada, and Russia.

The U.S. contributes 41.5 percent ($1.12 billion) of the World Food Program budget, 24 percent of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees budget, and 9.4 percent of the UNICEF budget. The United States is the world's biggest contributor to U.N. peacekeeping operations, funding 27 percent of the total worldwide U.N. peacekeeping budget ($870 million a year). Between 2001 and 2005, the United States gave $3.59 billion toward U.N. international peacekeeping operations.

The United States will have to bypass the U.N. where it is seen to be obstructing U.S. interests or incapable of action. The US will have towork more aggressively through organizations such as NATO, and lead coalitions of the willing in order to deal with specific threats to international security, as well as humanitarian crises. At the same time, America, together with close allies, should build more bodies outside of the U.N. system to handle global issues. The United States should for example seek the creation of a new human rights body outside of the U.N. that would be composed solely of democratic states that adhere to the basic principles of individual liberty and freedom.

The United Nations should have to compete in a global marketplace of international institutions. The U.N.’s privileged position as the dominant world body in areas such as human rights, humanitarian relief, and international development must be increasingly challenged, both by other multilateral organizations or by ad hoc coalitions.

Whether the U.N. goes the way of its predecessor, the League of Nations, and sinks into the abyss of history as a huge failure depends upon its willingness to be reformed as well as its ability to confront the challenges of today, whether it be the threat of global terrorism, the aggressive actions of a dictatorial regime, or the mass slaughter of one ethnic group by another. Terrorism, tyranny, and genocide remain the three great evils of our time, and the U.N. will be judged by how it responds to them. If the United Nations is not up to the task, then it will soon be time to take a bow and give way to a successor.

Now, let's hear from The Honorable John Bolton who asks the question Does the United Nations Advance the Cause of Freedom?:

The answer is, in my view, minimally or occasionally or—perhaps, more precisely—accidentally, at times. You could come at this question in a lot of different ways. Let's come at it empirically, because there is a lot of ground to cover, and necessarily there will be a lot of things I won't be able to get to. But the sheer magnitude of the substantive areas that the U.N. tries to deal with in a way is a revealing insight into its inadequacies, because there are so many things that it does poorly. One could say that if it were structured effectively, it would just try to do a few things and at least try to do them well. But it doesn't, and that is part of its basic problem.

Finally, let's go to our old buddy Mac Johnson who, while on the case of President Bush giving $500M to Mexican police, also takes him to task on the U.N.:

President Bush this week asked Congress to approve a supplemental spending bill for $42.3 billion. The bill is intended to fund U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, in a remarkable expansion of the meaning of the words “U.S. military”, “Afghanistan” and “Iraq” the bill also includes $724 million to fund U.N. Peacekeeping operations in Darfur and $500 million for Mexican police to fight Mexican drug dealers.

...

Sending the U.N. $724 million for a peacekeeping force that has not kept the peace is just silly. Actually, sending the U.N. anything is just silly. So if our goal is to stop Islamists from slaughtering Christian and Pagan civilians in Darfur, let’s use that money to buy three million decent rifles and pass them out to every Christian and Pagan in Darfur. Then the U.N. Nothingdoing force can go home and do nothing and the next time the Janjaweed Islamist militia cavalry comes by for some peaceful slaughter of infidels, the poor little Darfuris can bust a cap in somebody’s ass and/or camel - or even their horse. (The Janjaweed are a diverse group when it comes to transport.)

For a fantastic site covering the UN, check out Anne Bayefsky's Eye on the UN. You may also want to stop by Fred's Reject the UN blog.

You'll find all of my previous posts on the UN at the link below.

Dem’d if you do and Dem’d if you don’t...

Mac Johnson: The Anti-War Game Plan: I Win or You Cheated:

Anyone who’s ever played a game with a small child should recognize the Democrat Party’s strategy on politicizing the War on Terror. When things go poorly for their opponent, they yell “You Lose!” Whereas when things go well for their opponent, they yell “No Fair! You Cheated!”

Unfortunately for America, the Dems consider their real “opponent” to be any American who wants to win the War, rather than, say, Al Qaeda and other Islamist murder cults.

Regardless of who it is used against though, the “if you’re not losing you must be cheating” strategy is foolproof and works for any occasion. ...

Read it all.

What Amererica is not... (updated)

... according to the always-fiesty Mac Johnson in Americans Right to Set Limits:

1) A Universal Civil Right. No one has a right to immigrate to America. There is a substantial segment of the open borders cult (primarily its left wing) that seems to think that America, and the right to come here at will, is some sort of basic human right possessed by all people. Let me assure you that this is not the case. I do not have the right to barge into Mexico without the permission of the Mexicans, nor does any non-citizen have the right to barge into America without the permission of we Americans. There is not a liberal in the world that would feel sorry for me if I were arrested for sneaking into France or Canada in violation of their laws. Likewise, they should not feel sorry for anyone arrested for sneaking into America -- unless they wish to argue that Americans should have fewer rights than other people.

2) An Economic Opportunity Zone For The World. There is another segment of the open borders crowd (assorted nuts, drawn from both wings) that believes that the real purpose of America is to provide economic opportunity for all the world’s poor. The world’s poor are measured in BILLIONS. There is not enough opportunity even in a land as free and productive as America to fill that need. Secondly, America is productive and free because that is ingrained in our culture. If we accept more immigrants than we can realistically transmit that culture of freedom and productivity to, then we will have killed the goose that laid the dollar denominated golden eggs. There will then be neither wealth nor freedom for any of us. There is a reason that much of the world is squalid and oppressed -- it is ingrained in certain cultures. Why would we want to import such cultures faster than we can change them through assimilation?

3) A Human Petting Zoo. Some people seem to think that America needs to acquire new people the same way Angelina Jolie acquires new kids -- based on a need to have one of every kind to complete the whole set! Diversity is great and all, but it is hardly a sound primary basis for a united national character. I assure you that the American people are a fine people, not in need of wholesale replacement. It’s OK to be just the way we are. I’m OK. You’re OK.

4) A Lawless Free-for-All. I am for free markets. I am for free people. I am not for a lawless free-for-all in which ambitious (or merely selfish) citizens get to pick and choose which laws they will obey (or insist that I obey) and which laws they will simply ignore because they want more money. If Tyson Foods thinks it should be able to hire illegal workers so as to keep more of its money, then I think I should be able to just walk out of the store with illegal chickens so as to keep more of my money. What do you bet that Tyson would suddenly be in favor of limits on money-saving behavior if a few million of us committed that little crime -- a crime much smaller than hiring illegal labor by the thousands?

Read it all!

And Michelle Malkin vents on Gorilla warfare against the open borders WSJ:

Newt: Refuse to bow...

And Michelle hosts The First Annual Open Borders Oscars:

The First Annual Open Borders Oscars

Posted Today

Hot Air's Michelle Malkin takes the stage to hand out the Open Borders Oscars awards.

Mac Johnson on Obama's 'audacity of hype'... (Updated)

(Click the image to the right and check out WHYGRR's "Oprack Winframa")

Mac Johnson discusses Barack Obama... The Human Rorschach Blot:

... He's a moderate. He's a third way. He's demographic fusion cuisine. He's a floor wax. He's a desert topping. He’s everything you'd hoped for and whatever you need. That's the beauty of being unknown. ...

... If any of the fawning were asked to name his greatest accomplishment, could they name an accomplishment? Other than being elected to the Senate just two and a half years ago, and being simultaneously black and yet likeable to white folks, I mean.

For emphasis, let's examine a list of Obama’s major accomplishments (so far):

Simultaneously black and yet likeable to white folks

Made the initials "B.O." cool again

Good oral hygiene

That's it. He's the Wayne Brady of politics - everything white folks had been hoping for in at least one black person, the big payoff for all that tolerance and diversity babble. That may not be the politically correct thing to say, but it is an honest assessment of exactly what pent-up desire is fueling Obamamania among his white, liberal fan base. ...

For a related read, try John Hawkins on Racist Democrats vs. Colorblind Republicans:

Here's the reality: there are racists in both parties. But, there are a lot more of them in the Democratic Party and there always have been. But ironically, Democrats have managed to use the GOP's belief in a colorblind America against us. Because so many Democrats have no problem with using racial discrimination for political purposes, they'll support policies like reparations, Affirmative Action, and racial quotas that Republicans simply won't. Then they deftly distort and exploit incidents like the Katrina rescue efforts and Bill Bennett's condemnation of the idea that black babies could be aborted to reduce the crime rate to convince black Americans that the GOP hates black Americans.

This is all despite the fact that for a large number of black Americans, the GOP is a much better fit than the Democratic Party. The GOP is the party that's friendly to religion, anti-abortion, against gay marriage, tough on crime, and for low taxes and school vouchers. Yet, so many black Americans have been deceived into sticking with the Democrats even though the Dems do so many things that are harmful to our country as a whole and to black Americans in particular.

That's why if you're a black American who thinks the GOP better represents your views than the Democratic Party, then it's time to join the Republican Party. Don't let the Democrats lie to you and tell you that the GOP is full of racists, especially when there are so many distinguished black Americans out there who can tell you otherwise. Look to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swann -- and you'll see that the GOP judges people not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Finally, take the latest (8th) GOP Straw Poll from GOP Bloggers.

Update: SNL - Reverend Al and Jessie J. rate Obama on the blackness scale...



Update: Ann Coulter...

If Obama's biggest asset is his inexperience, then if by the slightest chance he were elected and were to run for a second term, he will have to claim he didn't learn anything the first four years.

Beautiful.

A gloomy prognosis for the GOP from Frank Luntz... (updated)

I didn't know much about him before, but I watched Luntz in an interview recently on Book TV. Watch it here if you have some time.

Bob Novak chimes in with his latest titled "The GOP's Cassandra":

... Like Cassandra of ancient Troy, Luntz's prophecies of impending disaster have been both accurate and disregarded. Republicans never have been that comfortable hearing critics in closed conferences. He is not invited to such meetings today. "They do not want to hear the truth," Luntz told me. While truth-telling is celebrated by Republican reformers who include presidential front-runner John McCain, it is a decidedly minority view in the GOP.

Luntz's truth is summarized in a 10-page "addendum," inspired by the 2006 election fiasco, to his new book, "Words that Work" (about political use of language). He delayed publication and lost Christmas sales in order to deliver a wakeup call to his party.

"The Republican Party that lost those historic elections was a tired, cranky shell of the articulate reformist, forward-thinking movement that was swept into office in 1994 on a wave of positive change," Luntz wrote. He went on to say that the Republicans of 2006 "were an ethical morass, more interested in protecting their jobs than protecting the people they served. The 1994 Republicans came to 'revolutionize' Washington. Washington won." ...

If the Republicans continue to flounder, the Libertarian Party may have an opportunity.

Mac Johnson's latest called "Libertarians on Drugs" points to a serious problem though:

... This debate would be just an intellectual exercise except for the fact that many of the intellectual lights of the libertarian movement waste considerable breath and ink decrying the prohibition of drugs, and that one of the nonstarters of the libertarian party growing into a real movement is people’s correct perception that libertarian control of drug laws will result in drive-thru drug-marts popping up at the state line. As much as many small government fans would like to see a viable third party arise, it cannot be one that thinks that free will and reason can govern the use of mind-altering addictive drugs.

On some issues, libertarians make perfect sense. But libertarians on drugs are simply irrational. Biochemistry trumps free will every time.

Constitution Party anyone?

Update: From Mark Alexander - Wanted: Another Reagan...

Like Ronald Reagan's foes on both sides of the Berlin Wall, these Republican leaders seem all too willing, all too often, to expand the state at the expense of liberty. With candidates aplenty and the 2008 election just around the corner, let's hope and pray that a true conservative -- a Reagan conservative -- will soon emerge.

Update: Ann Coulter fires a different kind of warning shot in her latest...

If you won't defend your own champions, conservatives, then don't sit back and wonder why so few people want to be your champions.

Tony Snow doesn't... damn.

Onward Christian Mothers...

Another great column from Mac Johnson:

... Men and women may be morally equal, but they are not functionally equivalent. They need to nurture their separate identities, and must be treated differently in law and culture to ensure that little things like law and culture have future generations to be passed down to. It is not just major issues of ideology preventing action either, sheer incompetence and lack of vision comes into play as well. The U.S. Congress cannot even eliminate the marriage penalty and seems to think that it costs about $3400 per year to raise a child -- and this crack force is supposed to reverse the deepest demographic decline since the Black Death? Government is a lost cause on this issue.

The churches are perhaps the only forces that can reverse our demographic decline and re-center a large part of society onto the idea of family and sacrifice, rather than career and wealth. The churches of America and Europe must begin to preach the gospel of family and to teach again that part of the mission to which the faithful are called is parenthood. And no, I’m not talking about encouraging a program of breeding by fanatics.

---

The whole difference between
a Christian civilization in decline
and one in growth is simply
having three kids per family

---

The whole difference between a Christian civilization in decline and one in growth is simply having three kids per family become the standard for your average imperfect Christians (like the kind that go to church every few weeks), rather than the two per family that has been sold to society by the mental duds that sought to defuse the “Population Bomb.” One need not have so many children that the TLC channel starts making documentaries about your laundry needs and grocery shopping. The path to a better world, filled with sufficient people of shared philosophy to maintain, defend and expand our civilization is simple:

1. Have kids before one’s ovaries require pharmacological starter fluid, and

2. Have three or four instead of one or two.

Churches can encourage this small, but potent change in our mores, by not only teaching that a kid is a better use of funds than a bass boat or a BMW (and more fun some days), but by focusing on the centrality of family in their ministry. The leaders of the church need to live the example of the ministry of parenthood as well. What sort of shepherd has no time for his own lambs? ...

Read it all.

'These two families [Clinton & Bush] are beginning to look like the political equivalent of herpes'...

Mac Johnson continues:

... smile-killing outbreaks occur every four years punctuated only by long periods of latency during which the infection spreads to unwary contacts and runs up health care costs. And all the while America is in denial claiming, “It’s just a cold sore and our republic is perfectly healthy.”

Well, NO, it is not just a historical cold sore. It is more than a little strange. Does anyone believe that in a true political meritocracy of 300 million people (at least 100 million of which are not illegal aliens and over 35, thus being eligible to be president), that we could have a period of decades in which our choices for President consisted mostly of members of just two families? Clearly the influence of the political machine and the inside connection has gotten a wee bit out of hand.

Mac then proposes a 28th constitutional amendment: "No one shall hold the office of President who has previously been held by the President in his office", and concludes:

... While you weren’t paying attention, the 2008 New Hampshire primary began last month. Get off your butt and get involved or you’ll end up with whatever insiders most successfully gain control of each party’s mindless apparatus in the next year. If you wait until the general election to evaluate your choices, donate and volunteer, you’ll end up having to choose between the connected and the connected.

Wouldn’t you rather see something interesting—like a Tancredo vs. Kucinich debate? Theoretically, it’s still your country.

Jeb Bush does look like an attractive candidate, but his older brother has likely wrecked any hope he might have had for the Presidency. George Bush has proven to be - by enlarge - a complete disaster. Sorry Jeb.

'Assets, debts may factor into poor vs. rich divide!'

Mack Johnson with a shocker.

... If only inequality could be more evenly shared, I have no idea what the New York Times, CNN, the formerly Big Three and the BBC would whine about then. I suppose that they’d still have global warming and the rights of terror suspects to worry about. Still, even with racism and sexism thrown in, I wonder how they would manage to fill their daily negative content needs.

One of this week’s obligate inequality nuggets was a report released by the UN detailing the fact that the world’s wealthiest own a lot of the world’s wealth. Well, in fairness, the report’s big claim to fame was that it made an earnest attempt to quantify exactly how unequal was the distribution of wealth in the world. Dutifully reported in morose terms were the facts that the wealthiest 2% of the world’s population own half the world’s wealth. By contrast, the poorest 50% of the world owns only 1% of the world’s wealth. ...

Read Mac.

'I’m going to jump!' said the desperate Palestinian out on the ledge. 'Try to land on a Jew!' said the suicide hotline counselor.

Do yourself a favor and make it your new year's resolution to read everyone's favorite medical researcher - Mac Johnson - every week.

This week: The Radical Islam Suicide Hotline and Dispatch Center

... In the cases of women and children recruited to be suicide bombers, the media often delve deeper into the story to see why they would want to die. Male suicide bombers are so common that their deaths are usually accepted at face value as the macho acts of sacrifice professed in their “martyrdom” videos. But I suspect that many of these men do not fear death simply because they just don’t have that much of a life. They are the insecure, the insignificant, the unloved, and the ambitious but unsuccessful. Were they born in Poland or China or Illinois, they would be reassured and told to keep trying if they were despondent. They would dream of being a rock star if they craved fame. They would dream of riches if they craved success. They would dream of finding acceptance and even love if they were lonely and isolated.

But they were born in Fatima-land. So they are told to land on a Jew … or an American, or a Hindu, or a Shiite, or a Russian, or a whomever.

Previous Mac-attacks.

'There is a difference: the Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous'... (updated)

(pinned 'til election time unpinned due to election fatigue)

Update #19: Ok... this is getting unwieldy. Last update: Short... Sweet... HamNation and CoulterMania.

The Republicans have been punished. Conservatives have been - and are being - heard. We don't want higher taxes... we don't want liberal judges... we don't want to fold up and go home in the Middle East... we don't want impeachment hearings... federally-funded research on - or cloning of - human embryos... we don't want Socialism. Punish Republicans further in the next primaries... elect them now against the dangerous Democrats.

Update #18: Trying to keep the updates down to a minimum, but if you're following the Michael J. Fox stem cell ad (here's a response worth watching too) debate you must check out this from Scrappleface.

Rush is all over this too, and he's absolutely right and on the money. Listen here noon to 3:00pm EST. Read on Rush today: The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox. Fox News coverage here.

Rush's e-mail to Katie Couric.

Glenn Beck discusses here.

Update #17: Greg Tinti - VIDEO: Pelosi Pledges No Impeachment If Dems Take Control.

Pelosi is a bullshit salesperson handing out free samples... don't buy it. Turn it off.

Despite what the MSM says, your vote (still) counts.

Update #16: Negative Attacks Divide Conservatives...

For the cause of conservatism to prevail, in the near-term and the long-term, we must renew our commitment to the whole of the conservative agenda. And we must renew our commitment to the civility and mutual respect that the American people have come to expect from our leaders.

Mike Pence in '08.

Update #15: John O'Neill...

Dispirited conservatives and Republicans rightfully appalled at the Cunningham, Abramoff, and Foley scandals should remember history as they contemplate not voting in the 2006 elections because of disillusionment.

Don't Repeat Mistake of 1974

Update #14: Barrons isn't buying the MSM negativity...(h/t staclu)

JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers. The Democrats, as widely reported, are expecting GOP-weary voters to flock to the polls in two weeks and hand them control of the House for the first time in 12 years — and perhaps the Senate, as well. Even some Republicans privately confess that they are anticipating the election-day equivalent of Little Big Horn. Pardon our hubris, but we just don’t see it.

Our analysis — based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data — suggests that the GOP will hang on to both chambers, at least nominally. We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats, to 224 of the chamber’s 435. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party’s loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-seat majority. But that is still a far cry from the 20-seat loss some are predicting. In the Senate, with 100 seats, we see the GOP winding up with 52, down three.

The Republican Party isn't perfect by a loooooong shot, but putting the Dems in power will be devastating... higher taxes and impeachment hearings guaranteed. Punish Republicans? - punish yourself and your kids. We need another conservative on the Supreme Court too!!

Repugnicrats and Dumbicans...there is a difference.

Update #13: How's this for a thought... you go to war with the army party you have, not the army party you wish you had. Where did you come down when Rummy got skewered for those words? If he was right, then my changing the one word applies nicely, no?

Update #12: Victor Davis Hanson on Liberals Gone Wild!:

... The Democrats have not elected congressional majorities in 12 years, and they've occupied the White House in only eight of the last 26 years. The left's current unruliness seems a way of scapegoating others for a more elemental frustration - that they can't gain a national majority based on their core beliefs. More entitlements, higher taxes to pay for them, gay marriage, de facto quotas in affirmative action, open borders, abortion on demand, and radical secularism - these liberal issues don't tend to resonate with most Americans. ...

Update #11: Courtesy of Rush... are you a cut and run conservative?

Update #10: In MD... you're either voting for Cardin against Bush (no, George isn't running), or you're going for Steele because Cardin's a liar and Steele is not an establishment guy. Steele is the man.

Update #9: Vote Republican... they suck less, and have at least a chance of not sucking in the foreseeable future.

Update #8: Glenn Beck - What media bias?

Update #7: Why vote Republican? Apparently Larry Elder helped put this together: (hat tip HotAir)



... as a follow-up to this classic:



Update #6: Charlie Rangel - “Future Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.” Please... just say no!

Update #5: Justice Scalia was awesome over the weekend at the ACLU. It was on C-span again last night. I've been looking for video, but C-span links don't seem to work. I found this snippet though:



Frustrated conservatives who are considering a protest non-vote or even a Dem vote should remember the the battle for the Supreme Court is still very much underway, and we won't get more like Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts with the Dems in power. Vote against an "evolving constitution", and maintain/strengthen Republican control. These are consequential times.

A related find from FrontPage:

Former Supreme Court Justice Curtis warned in 1857 that the Constitution would be controlling only if judges interpret it as Scalia advocates. Curtis wrote:

“[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.”

Update #4: Doug Patton says...

... if you are a disgruntled conservative Republican who knows the issues and understands what is at stake in this election, I have one message for you in this crucial mid-term election: don’t you dare fail to vote next month!

We can still turn this around!!!

Update #3: Matt Lewis...

there is an effort to drive a wedge between conservatives and the GOP. Don't fall for it.

Update #2: I'm with Elizabeth Kantor: Staying the Course

(WARNING: This post will be an impatient rant against conservative impatience.)

Okay, guys. We need to stay the course - and I'm not talking about Iraq.

The conventional wisdom is that Republicans are going to lose the 2008 midterm election because of the Foley scandal. Social conservatives in particular, it's being said, will stay home on election day rather than go to the polls to support the Republicans who have allowed the House of Representatives to be tainted by a sordid sexual scandal - or even vote Democrat.

For any social conservative who's feeling this way, I have one question: Have you completely lost your marbles?

Look, it would be hard to get more socially conservative than I am. I'd be perfectly happy with laws against emailing sexual content to anyone you're not actually married to, let alone to teenaged boys who assist you in your job as a U.S. legislator. I'm in a practically perpetual snit about the mainstreaming of porn and the declining standards of morality in America.

But the voting booth is not the place to indulge your temper, or to idly and carelessly "send a message" that you're frustrated about everything in general, or one irrelevant thing in particular. Your vote is your chance to change the government, not to express yourself.

I myself am a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. For Senator, I get to vote for George Allen, a man who irritates me in many ways. In particular, and in this very Senate race, he's annoyed me no end by attempting to scare voters off his Democratic opponent, Jim Webb, by painting Webb as insufficiently enthusiastic about women in the military.

Now, you can't be sufficiently insufficiently enthusiastic about female soldiers for me. If I were in charge, I'd immediately purge all the military services of women--except maybe for a Florence Nightingale Navy Nurse's Corps, or some such. I think it's a warning sign of the death of Western civilization that we're sending the mothers of toddlers to fight in our wars.

But am I going to hesitate for one second to vote for George Allen? No, I am not.

Why? Because I know that while the Republican Party is infected with the rot that's destroying our society, the Democratic Party is the Societal Rot Fan Club.

Do we - to take just one very important example - really want a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe vs. Wade? After more than three decades of disappointments, we've finally got a President who will appoint that kind of Court, and a Senate that will confirm the justices he appoints. Let's not quit when we're in sight of the finish line.

Are we serious? Are we going to change the government, and the culture, and the country? Are we - this is the real question - going to act like citizens capable of self-government, or like disappointed children?

Update: Thinking protest vote or want to sit it out? Get ready to pay:

The GOP is swimming in a sewer: Foley, a floundering war, a spate of hit-books published to effect the election, a base that no longer trusts it on border security, spending and a few other things make this a nasty-looking mid-term election. But the Democrats have ridden to the rescue, putting tax increases back on the agenda.

Vote against Democrats... vote Republican, then let's work on the leadership.

I'm a frustrated conservative. Bush has been disappointing on the border, on amnesty, on spending, on tax reform, on government size, and overall for a complete and utter lack of productive communication. I'm frustrated, and as much as I want to teach a lesson to the existing Republican leadership, I'm even more afraid of the damage that a Democrat leadership will do to this country.

I listen and watch Glenn Beck. I listen to Rush, Savage and Sean. I read Thomas Sowell, Mac Johnson, Michelle Malkin, Brent Bozell, John Hawkins, Dennis Prager and Kevin McCollough religiously. I watch Brit Hume and Chris Wallace. I get news from blogs and online magazines. I manage this blog, and contribute to three others. I pay attention and am on top of what's going on in the world... pretty much anyway.

No one that I have seen, heard or read recently has had a better summary of why Conservatives should NOT stay home when it comes time to vote than Thomas Sowell in his recent four-parter "Frivolous Politics"

Part I:

... Even when serious issues are addressed, they can be addressed either seriously or frivolously. If you are content to see life and death issues of war and peace addressed with catch phrases like "chicken hawk" or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as "unilateral" U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity.

You may deserve whatever you get if you vote frivolously in this year's election. But surely the next generation, which has no vote, deserves better.

Part II:

... On foreign policy, Democrats continue to argue as if talking with our enemies is the magic formula. We should keep talking with Iran while they keep building a nuclear bomb, just as the western democracies kept negotiating with Hitler while he kept building up his war machine in preparation for starting World War II.

Today, people ignorant of history - which includes graduates of our most prestigious universities - have no idea how close the western democracies came to losing that war and what an unending nightmare it would have been for the world if Hitler and his Japanese allies had won.

Nor do most of the liberal Democrats, which is to say, almost all Congressional Democrats, seem to have any sense of what an unending nightmare it will be for western nations if Iran and the international terrorists it sponsors have nuclear weapons.

Against that background, those disappointed Republican voters who plan to stay home on election day to protest their elected officials' failings are seeing politics as a way to vent their personal emotions. That is a frivolous self-indulgence in a deadly serious time for this nation.

Part III:

... When the American Civil Liberties Union and liberal judges are able to get criminals freed on flimsy grounds, or prevent hoodlums from being expelled from the public schools, the community most likely to be harmed is the black community.

How then can the Democrats consistently get the lion's share of black votes? And why can't the Republicans make any serious inroads?

Part IV:

... There was a time when we all understood that, whatever we might think of a President, we still had only one President at a time and that wholesale obstruction and undermining of him was obstruction and undermining of the United States in the face of its enemies.

Shrill obstructionist House minority leader Nancy Pelosi obviously does not share that view - and if Congressional Democrats win this election, she will become Speaker of the House.

If Democrats win the Senate as well, then they will have the power to not only impeach the President and Vice President, but also the power to remove them from office. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would then become President Nancy Pelosi.

Please read all four parts of this article if you are considering a protest vote or not voting at all. We can't keep kicking the can down the road with the evil that's developing around us and within us. A Democratic leadership is too dangerous to risk in today's world... for any amount of time.

The Harry Reid Do-Nothing Miracle Investment System!

Reid it!

...the system is so successful that Harry Reid, that beacon of morality from Searchlight, Nev., can now stop worrying about money altogether, and concentrate on his true calling: fighting the “culture of corruption” in Republican Washington.

(brought to you by the always-remarkable, Mac Johnson)

Apparently, "Dirty Harry" Reid feels lucky for a reason!

Paging Mark Foley...

As usual, I'm with Mac:(listen here)

Personally, I would find it refreshing if the scandal could be treated properly — as one man’s sick indiscretion deserving of his individual shunning and prosecution. But that might be too much to ask of the party of courageous Gerry Studds.

The Dems are counting their chickens... stocks say they won't hatch, but there are a lot of pessimistic conservatives out there.

Yahoo News:

... the immediate take by Democrats and much of the mainstream media was that this was a classic example of Republican hypocrisy - talking "morals" and "values" while all the time shielding a child predator. But it was nothing of the kind.

If anything, the episode reveals the Democrats' hypocrisy about their own behavior. The fact that Foley resigned virtually within minutes of being told that ABC News had copies of his salacious e-mails and text messages indicates he at least felt shame for his actions. Can the same be said for Democrats? ...

Again, Mark Foley is a scumbag who should have been out of office the second his "problem" was known... whenever that was. The timing of this is more than a little suspicious though.

More from Yahoo News:

... Democrats not only seem OK with the kind of behavior for which Foley is charged, but also they protect and excuse it. Only when it's a Republican do they proclaim themselves shocked -- shocked! -- when it comes to light.

We have a lot more questions about this whole affair. The timing of the revelations, as we noted, couldn't be more propitious for the Democrats. Turns out both the Democrats and several newspapers seem to have known about Foley's problem as far back as November, according to research by several enterprising blogs.

Why didn't they come forward then? Who dredged up these e-mails - and why did they hold them until now? This reeks of political trickery.

We're glad Foley's gone. He betrayed Congress, his party and the trust of the 33 pages who serve in Congress, and their parents. He behaved immorally, and we won't be surprised at new revelations.

That said, if this scandal is the Democrats' answer to their problems at the polls, it's pretty pathetic. It shows a base contempt for the voters.

We'll see how the voters feel soon enough.

I'm with Cranky too:

Conservatives have already begun the necessary housecleaning. We will take our lumps, correct the situation and get back on our feet. As bad as this is, it shouldn’t cost the Republicans the election.

Meanwhile, we need to emphasize that politically speaking, Foley’s greatest sin was not being a Democrat. Were he on the other side of the aisle, this would be a minor setback if not the opportunity for a book deal.

Glenn Beck speaks for me...


Update: A previous update containing a link to a site that had ID'd one of Foley's IM'ers has been deleted. The link was only up for a few minutes. Having read the post more carefully, I now regret sending the trackback. We need to know who knew what and when, but it doesn't appear that this former page had anything to do with the seemingly political timing of this story. Again, the quickly-deleted link and quick-trigger trackback was an error in judgement on my part. I made a mistake.

Everything you need to know about Chavez's Citgo...

Courtesy of the always-fantastic Mac Johnson - Chavez's Citgo Is No Friend of America:
(Click here to listen)

What was once a respected “American” corporation, which happened to be owned by and partnered with the National Oil Co. of Venezuela, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), is now the American directorate of Chavez’s anti-American revolution.

Formerly, following the takeover of Citgo by PDVSA in 1990, the top positions at Citgo were all unofficially reserved for American executives, so that Citgo could function in the American business landscape as a competent and independent enterprise, removed from the politics of Venezuela. ...

... Today, the American leadership is gone, replaced by Chavez agents who have moved the company, at a cost of $69 million, from Tulsa to an extravagant new headquarters in Houston—a headquarters perhaps unique in the industry, since it includes a bulletproof citadel near the offices of the top executives. Rivero described it merely as “a crisis room to protect top management.” Perhaps Rivero’s personal past has given him a too literal interpretation of what American corporate leaders mean when they refer to a “hostile takeover.”

Given Chavez’s declared aim of destroying America’s power in the world, it seems relevant to assess just how total is Chavez’s takeover of Citgo. To address this, and developments since the 2005 Times article, I contacted Gustavo Coronel, a founding member of the board of directors of PDVSA, a former temporary member of the Harvard faculty, and once an elected representative in the House of Deputies of the Venezuelan state of Carabobo. He now resides in the United States, where he writes prolifically about the Chavista captivity of his nation. ...

... Chavez has also used the program in an attempt to tap into racial politics in America as a source of support. Jesse Jackson and Danny Glover are leading trumpeters of the program, which is targeted especially at African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods and Indian reservations. Chavez draws heavy support in Venezuela from Indian and other minority groups, which he has declared historical victims under his benevolent protection. To further his dream of an anti-American world revolution, he seemingly hopes to exploit America’s race issues so as to philosophically co-opt a portion of the divided population.

Lastly, Chavez hopes (in my opinion) to directly influence congressional policy and interfere in American elections with the program, which was engineered in concert with Rep. Bill Delahunt (D.-Mass.) and is administered (in part) through Citizens Energy, a non-profit co-operative founded and run by former Massachusetts Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II.

By doling out Chavez’s stolen oil at a 40% discount in liberal congressional districts and allowing the incumbent representatives to take credit for it, I believe Chavez seeks to alter the makeup of Congress and indebt Delahunt and other compromised congressmen to him. He has, essentially, turned pork-barrel politics into oil barrel politics and is buying votes for his sympathizers with a new brand of imported pork. SUV drivers are not the only ones with a costly addiction to foreign oil. Certain congressmen, having gotten the first hit for free, are now paying a price for the “free” oil with which they have bribed their constituencies. ...

---

Today, Citgo is — quite simply —
an unregistered agent
of a foreign government

---

...Today, Citgo is — quite simply — an unregistered agent of a foreign government, propagandizing for and subsidizing the Chavez regime in its neo-Marxist crusade against America’s alleged empire. Yet it is still treated as any other American business. The Citgo sign towers proudly over Kenmore Square in Boston and millions of Americans who were concerned to learn that Chavez seeks an alliance with Iran and North Korea, or who were incensed when Chavez called our President “the devil” at the United Nations last week, continue to mindlessly fill up at Citgo, giving Chavez not only profits from Venezuela’s oil (which is unavoidable) but profits from the retail sales of gasoline and diesel fuel (which is easily avoidable).

It has become clear that Chavez’s Citgo is no friend of America, what is less clear is just why America is still so friendly toward Citgo.

Please consider boycotting Citgo.

Update: 7-11 drops Citgo... good move!

Update #2: Glenn Beck is on-subject:

'The rational man seeks God, and the Godly man loves reason'... (Updated)

(this is a serious topic, but I couldn't resist this photo... good to laugh too, eh?)

I haven't featured Mac Johnson in awhile, but his latest effort is strong:

... The point of the Pope’s speech, for those that bothered to read it, was that the Christian faith and the modern Western concept of reason are not in conflict with or threatened by one another. Indeed, Christianity, thoroughly Hellenized by its infancy in the Greek-speaking provinces of the Eastern Mediterranean, has been one of great foundations underlying the high accord given to reason, logic, and free will in the European world, the Pope argued.

---

[The Pope's point] was that the Christian faith
and the modern Western concept
of reason are not in conflict with
or threatened by one another

---

Those Western intellectuals who reject Christ and the Church in the name of reason thus undermine their own house. There would be no “Western” intellectuals had there been no Western church teaching that God was a rational force and capable of being known and understood through logical philosophy. In Europe, the church and reason have always been like brothers - often in conflict, but more often of the same mind and protective of one another. To separate them now would impoverish both and rob us of one of the world’s most successful collaborations.

Of course, the Pope, being both a priest and a former professor, took about 4,000 words to say that. He also decorated his points elaborately with historical examples and quotes, among which was an exchange between the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Persian Noble, circa 1391 AD. In this discussion, they debate the relative merits of their respective religions, Christianity and Islam, against the backdrop of the Muslim siege of Constantinople - once the seat of Orthodox Christianity before its conquest and conversion to Islam by the sword. ...



... From London to Lahore, howls and threats have been directed at the Pope, as well as Christendom in general. But one of the strangest protests arose from a member of the Turkish ruling party, Salih Kapusuz, who compared the Pope to Hitler for his remarks.

Apparently, he meant this as an insult, but one never knows for sure quite how to take such a reference in a part of the world where anti-Semitism is served up like potatoes at every meal. For example, a government-owned Saudi newspaper reported the arrest of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1960 under the headline “Arrest of Eichmann, who had the honor of killing six million Jews.”

---

one never knows for sure quite
how to take such a reference
in a part of the world where
anti-Semitism is served up
like potatoes at every meal

---

Kapusuz’s reference was made even more ridiculous by the claims in the Iranian state news agency that the Pope’s remarks show that he is not really a Christian, but is actually a ZIONIST! Yes, Pope Hitler II, Zionist. ...

The Religion of Violence and Outrage.

More of today's reactions:
Murchison: The Pope and the Nut Cases
Buchanan: Benedict XVI - On God and the Prophet
Caruba: What the Pope Actually Said
Prager: The Pope Didn't Apologize (audio)
Medved: The Pope's Big Mistake: Invoking Past Conflict

News links from Drudge:
Muslims Want Further Apology From Pope...
Pope denounces violence after nun's murder...
Angry Turk workers urge Pope's arrest during visit...
The unholy past of Muslim cleric demanding Pope's execution...

Update: Melanie Phillips - The jihad against the Pope...

... If we are ever to defeat the global jihad against free societies, it is vital to tell that truth — that it is the West that is under attack. It is in that context that the Pope’s remarks must be seen — defending Christianity and western civilisation from an onslaught that has not just snuffed out many innocent lives, but seeks to snuff out freedom and truth itself.

Worldistan?

Update #2: Michelle Malkin on "Cataclysmic times".

'The right wants cheap labor, the left wants cheap votes'...

The movie: Border War:



I'm with Mac Johnson: "Clearly, if you want a law enforced by our government, you should make it a tax law."

Control the border. Enforce the law.

The Bush Administration Continues to Spend, Spend, Spend...

Steve Verdon from OTB discusses:

How to Blow Through $2.8 Trillion:

The bottom line is that since 2000 there has been little to no restraint on spending. Holding spending down at the average during the 1990s for nondefense spending listed in the linked Cato report would cut the current deficit by another $140 billion dollars. The federal government is bloated on pork and if anything it has gotten worse in the last several years. Perhaps the best thing that could happen in regards to controlling spending if is the Republicans indeed lose one or both houses of Congress. I know some will then point out that the Democrats might force the President to withdraw troops from Iraq and that this could be disasterous. While there maybe some truth to this, my response would be, “Perhaps the Republicans should have thought of that before throwing out the ‘fiscal responsibility’ plank of their platform.”

I'm with you Steve.

Previous:

What's wrong with the Republican Party: A Case Study

The GOP leadership just doesn't get it...

Mac Johnson - Two parties...no choice

To President Bush: You're not a conservative if you spend beyond your means...

The "right" side of congress is wrong on spending...

Gore and some inconvenient truths...

From Peter Schweizer in USA Today:

"Maybe our very existence isn't threatened".

... Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Mac Johnson's latest: (click here to listen)

... The considerable supply of oil currently sitting unused in the desolate North Slope of Alaska represents a market-shifting change in the ratio of supply and demand. Although it is emotionally appealing to some, America need not “wean” itself from all foreign oil to obtain lower prices (a moot impossibility when dealing with a global market for a fungible commodity, by the way). We simply have to ensure that supply slightly exceeds demand.

For those of you that are still lost in the ether regarding energy markets, that means we need to actually drill for oil when we find it. In ANWR and the offshore areas of the United States, America has enough oil and gas to take control of her energy destiny for the near-term future. And if nuclear power is again committed to in a serious way, we will have that ability for the long-term as well.

If the amount of oil in Prudhoe Bay is significant, as it surely is, then the amount of oil in ANWR is very, very significant indeed -- but only if we choose to use it.

There aren't many things more frustrating in the world today than our governments lack of leadership and common sense when it comes to our energy crisis. The Unites States has to become more energy independent!

We cannot survive being beholden to countries - countries in which there are a significant number of people who want to kill us - for oil.

We should be drilling in ANWR, drilling off the coasts of Florida, California... wherever the oil companies need to go to get it. We should also be agressively building other sources of energy, like nuclear, wind, solar or ethanol.

Why we can't get past the so-called environmental issues boggles my mind. The caribou may end up just fine, but we'll be too busy trying to learn Sharia Law to care.