Here's House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi's summation of the performance of the Democrat led Congress in 2007, according to The Washington Post:

"the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."

In addition, Pelosi claims:

"the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures — with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."

As David Broder notes in his WaPo article, Pelosi counts as "bipartisan" any vote that had 50 or more Republicans vote for it. There are 202 Republicans currently in the House. If 152 vote against Democratic legislation and 50 vote for it, that's bipartisan support to San Fran Nan. No wonder she's a politician. Such dishonesty doesn't work in most other professions. For instance, I doubt Exxon would launch a huge ad campaign touting $3.00 per gallon gasoline as costing only $1.00 per gallon. People would see through that rather easily.

They see through Pelosi as well. RealClearPolitics has a poll that averages the results of all recent polling. The current Congress gets an approval rating of 25%, and a disapproval rating of 63.5%. By contrast, President Bush gets a 35.4% approval rating.

This Hot Air video, called Pelosi's Promises, could explain some of the gap between Pelosi's rosy assessment and the people's perception of reality. Did the new Democratic Congress accomplish Pelosi's election night 2006 promises ? Did they 1) Restore civility and bipartisanship ? Were they 2) The most ethical Congress in history ? Did they 3) Work with the president on Iraq ? Have you stopped laughing yet ? I don't think I'm being partisan when I say they didn't even come close (not that they ever intended to).

To me, it feels like the Dems spent the whole year investigating Republicans for anything and everything, while ignoring or promoting obvious corruption within their own ranks (Jefferson, Hastings, Murtha, etc). I do have to take issue with the Hot Air video on one thing though. Creating a new cafeteria menu was not the biggest accomplishment of Congress. That's probably only in fourth or fifth place in the annus horribilis of Democratic accomplishment. This Congress also raised the minimum wage by a buck (good news for teenagers who need a couple extra bucks on saturday night), mandated increased car mileage standards (this one I like), and put through a one-year fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax (violating their own PAYGO promise in the process). Looking at the accomplishments of this Congress, I think the people would have been better served if our illustrious representatives had all taken 11-month vacations and just went along with the Bush budget (with no pay, of course. That would have been a case of Congress actually saving us some dough). Then, at least we wouldn't have had a situation like the one with the last minute december Omnibus bill, where the minority party had less than 24 hours to read massive spending legislation that contained 12,000 pork items that passed with no oversight and no discussion. The alternative was to defund the troops in the field. Yeah, great. What was that you said about bipartisanship and ethics, Mrs. Pelosi ? Now we know what Pelosi meant when she said the Dems were going to "… make America safer, restore the American dream, and restore accountability". That translates to lose the war, raise taxes and spending, and be more corrupt than ever. Pretty much what I thought from the beginning.

And then there was Nan's trip to Syria.

Great. Just great. Anybody got any Advil ?

Benazir Bhutto knew she was risking her life by returning to Pakistan. By directly confronting the extremist Islamic elements there, such as Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the madrassas, the radical imams, and radical elements within the Pakistani government, Bhutto knew she was venturing into the very heart of darkness of Islamic terrorism. She made no secret that it was the tyrranical terrorist element she was coming to fight against, by instituting democratic reforms, by removing military rule, by appealing to the vast majority of moderate Pakistanis. Bhutto had even condoned the use of NATO forces to eradicate Al Qaeda and other terrorist factions from the tribal regions in Waziristan, a move the Musharraf government had rejected. The Musharraf government turned against the terrorist element mainly because it's other option was to incur the post 9/11 wrath of the United States, most indelicately stated as being 'bombed back to the stone age'. Yet, even in turning against the radical Islamists, even though Musharraf did apprehend more terrorists than any country other than the USA, he seemed to be playing both sides of the fence, as he tried to juggle the opposing interests of the jihadists and the free world. Democratic reform was not coming under Musharraf, and the Pakistani people increasingly lost confidence in his government. The january elections in Pakistan, if fairly held, would have seen Benazir Bhutto return as prime minister, and led to a probable sharing of power between herself and Musharraf.

The biggest losers in a Bhutto return to power would have been the Islamofascists, no question about that. They knew it. They tried to kill Bhutto last october, and they have wanted to kill her since the 90's. I'm sure there was joy among Al Qaeda and the other like-minded subhuman scum when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated yesterday. In typical fashion, after the assassin shot Bhutto, he detonated a bomb, killing himself and a number of other innocent people. We've seen this scene play out way too many times. When will the world stop tolerating this ?

Now, we must endure our own media and the partisans, with their typical 'who do we blame ?' attitude. Blaming the actual killers evidently never occurs to them. Last night, I already heard elements blaming Bush for pushing democracy in Pakistan (as if he's supposed to push for something else ?). I heard elements blaming Condoleeza Rice for encouraging Benazir Bhutto (as if the decision to return to Pakistan was made by anyone other than Bhutto herself). I heard elements playing that old tune that Pakistan isn't ready for democracy (bs, and racist bs as well. 99% of Pakistan IS ready for and desires democratic reforms). I even heard some american presidential candidates say that Bhutto's death proves that we should vote for them, because they have foreign policy experience (one more great argument for limited government).

Benazir Bhutto's death is a tragedy. She died for her country, and if anything positive is to come from it, it will be when her reforms are CARRIED OUT. It will be because the Pakistani people realize what Bhutto represented was the correct path, which is the path against tyrrany. You don't abandon that path because it is difficult. The path of least resistance isn't usually the correct one, and it certainly isn't in Pakistan. My hope is that after the initial shock of this crime is absorbed, the good people in Pakistan and the rest of the world realize that, and act accordingly. When heinous acts like this are carried out, it is the terrorists who should end up paying a hundredfold, not the innocent. It's my hope that's what happens here.

For Bhutto's speech following the october 2007 attempt on her life, click here.

"The only people who are safe are militants because they will not be attacked by the peaceful people. And we will not be intimidated by this minority. This is a battle for democracy. We want to avoid bloodshed. We want to avoid loss of life. But, if it means sacrificing our lives to save Pakistan and to save democracy because we believe democracy alone can save Pakistan from disintegration and a militant takeover then we are prepared to risk our lives and we are prepared to risk our liberty."

Benazir Bhutto
Former Pakistani Prime Minister & PPP chairperson
October 20, 2007

Amen, and rest in peace, Benazir Bhutto. The tyrants can silence one voice, but they can't silence them all, unless we allow it.

Hillary Clinton loves us, and she is going to take care of us. All us ignorant wretches out here in the sticks just have to be smart enough to make her the president. Thank goodness. Our problems are nearly over.

In a holiday television campaign ad, found here on YouTube, Hillary is seen wrapping her Christmas presents for America (but, of course, the word "Christmas" is never used and no Christian symbols are seen. We must be politically correct. Wouldn't want to offend an atheist or a Wiccan). These holiday "gifts" are marked "Universal Health Care", "Universal Pre-K", "Middle Class Tax Cuts", "Alternative Energy", and "Bring Troops Home". These are the things that the Great And Powerful Clinton is going to "give" to America. Isn't that just wonderful ? Elect Hillary and all this will be yours, America. I'm getting a little misty just thinking about the beneficence of our Once And Future Queen, aren't you ?

The great thing about gifts is that you don't have to pay for them. They are free. Somebody else pays, but you don't have to worry about that, right ? Hillary certainly doesn't want you to worry about that, because not only is she going to "give" you things like Universal Health Care and Universal Pre-School, she's also going to "give" you a tax cut at the same time ! Wow. This is one smart fem-bot, this Clinton 2.0. Evidently, Hillary's enormous new government programs won't cost anything at all. Very impressive. Dare I say miraculous ? She must be some kind of sorceress or something.

Now, in compliance with the Truth In Pandering Act (that should exist, but unfortunately doesn't), it must be pointed out that Hillary isn't a sorceress or a witch (insert own joke here). It must be pointed out that Hillary's enormous new government programs would cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, and somebody does have to pay for them. In the world of liberal Democrats, the payers are always the same: the evil rich and the evil corporations. These two entities, who are actually viewed as one and the same by the Hillary Clintons of the world, are the bottomless well that is always tapped to pay for anything and everything that liberals can dream up to "help" us. What is never supposed to be mentioned is who REALLY pays when business and the wealthy are hit with regressive levels of taxation: ALL OF US. Whether it's through higher prices, lower wages, or fewer jobs, we all pay for those so-called painless "gifts" from the government. In the liberal system of class warfare justice, you are supposed to work hard to achieve the american dream, and once you do become successful, the government takes everything away from you, so everyone will be "equal". How liberals think that will motivate people to achieve anything is unexplained. How liberals do not see that as theft is also unexplained. If equality of outcome can be achieved by sitting at home on your couch, a whole lot more people are going to choose the path of least resistance, the path that requires no effort. An inevitable decaying of society is the result of such socialist thinking. I don't know how many times socialism must fail before liberals realize how flawed the concept is, but I know they haven't realized it yet. They still think that socialism just hasn't been done right yet, even though socialism has a 150 year record of failure and repression. Liberals must call themselves "progressives" because they have to move forward to try to escape the past.

The other aspect of these "universal" government programs is that they remove your freedom of choice. In the private sector, there is a choice of health insurance programs. There is a choice of day-care centers. Well, there WOULD be a real choice of health insurance programs, except the government has already taken control of half the health care industry and has mandated so much to the insurance companies and employers that real choice is already a fantasy. You can't really pick the health insurance coverage you want, because the government has made the decisions for you already. That's one of the reasons why the cost of health insurance is astronomical, all the mandated coverage. Naturally, the liberal solution to government fouling up the health care industry is for government to take over the whole health care industry (and thereby foul it up the rest of the way).

And in Hillary's current half step toward socialized medicine, when she says she's going to "give" you "Universal Health Care", she means she's going to force you to buy health care insurance, even if you don't want to. Some present. That's like your best friend buying you a new Lexus for Christmas. The only catch is that YOU have to make the car payments. Thanks for nothing, buddy.

So Hillary, thanks for all your good intentions, but please don't give me anything for Christmas this year, or any year.

I can't afford it.

I woke up this morning determined to write something good about the Democrats, since it has been pointed out to me that I'm pretty critical of the Jackas..er, Donkey party. I even had a couple things in mind for which to compliment the Dems.

But then I read about the Senate passing the $555 billion Omnibus bill, with it's 9,000 pork projects and $28 billion in new spending above and beyond Bush's requested budget, and that instantly killed my desire to compliment the Blue state team. See, the Democrat game plan all along has been to push through a bunch of new spending as a kind of quid pro quo blackmail in return for the Dems agreeing to fund the troops in Iraq. That makes me want to puke. I wrote about it last week. Sadly, the blackmail worked, as many Senate Republicans happily agreed to betray conservative principles in order to secure the 11th hour troop funding. What kind of politicians use troop funding during wartime as a bargaining chip ? That's about as low and unpatriotic as it gets, and the Democrats do it on an ongoing basis. That's why the previous 11 appropriations bills stalled and this last minute Omnibus bill is being pushed through at year end.

To make matters worse, some of the Republicans are apparently so relieved to get the troop funding passed that they have lost their minds. Listen to this:

"Even those of us who have disagreed on this war have always agreed on one thing: Troops in the field will not be left without the resources they need," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

SAY WHAT ?!?!?!? Is Mitch McConnell drunk ? That sounds like something Ted Kennedy would be saying, it's so patently false. Many Democrats have been trying to stop troop funding all year long. They just couldn't succeed, because Republicans and the Blue Dogs effectively blocked them.

Other conservatives speak the truth:

"Congress refuses to rein in its wasteful spending or curb its corruption," said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz

That's the central problem with Congress in a nutshell, Mr. Shadegg. This should be engraved in giant letters on the outside of the Capitol building. I'd like to multiply Shadegg by a hundred in the Senate, and Mike Pence by 400 in the House, to replace the pandering blowhard seat-fillers we have taking up space there now. (Oh, and to that person to whom I said I'd try to cut down on the name-calling, 'pandering blowhard seat-fillers' is the toned down version of what I really wanted to say about our distinguished ladies and gentlemen in Congress.

So, we have an extra $28 billion in new spending for the Democrats to brag about (we helped people !) and blame Bush for (Bush raised the deficit !) all at the same time, the taxpayers get screwed, the Dems abandon more of their 2006 campaign promises, and business proceeds as corruptly as usual in Washington D.C. Zippity-frickin'-do-dah. Has anybody noticed that the Democrats try to increase taxes and spending at every single turn ? They did it with the energy bill, this Omnibus bill, S-CHIP, AMT, etc. Every single time without fail. That's why they are the enemy of all that's fair and good.

Oh, I almost forgot, I said I was going to compliment the Dems, didn't I ? It's a difficult task, alright, but I'll do it anyway. Two things:

First, during a fundraiser back in october, ex-prez Bill Clinton told some 9/11 Truther conspiracy nuts to "shut up", and said "how dare you" in response to their moronic claims that 9/11 was an inside job by our government. Kudos to Bill. It's nice to know that Kos-manian fever hasn't taken over all the Democrats (yet).

Second, fuel efficiency standard mandates were increased 40% in the latest energy bill. I generally don't favor government intervention in business, but this one is actually a matter of national security. That's when I DO favor government intervention (as in wiretapping, tracking, interrogating, and imprisoning Al Qaeda members, for which the Dems call Bush a criminal. Duh). National security is why we have a federal government (not national redistribution of funds). Golf clap for the Democrats on this one element of the energy bill, though I'll have more to say on the entire energy bill in a later column. I'm worried about the effects of the massive ethanol increase, and the bill fell way short on new domestic oil exploration and other alternative energy sources.

There, you see. I can say good things about the Democrats. It's just that the Dems don't do very many good things for me to write about. Usually, they are aiding the enemy, throwing around taxpayer money, trying to lose the war, and things like that. Nothing to like there.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed - Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not" - sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson

From Holder at AOL, July 31, 2007 (this was too good for me not to reprint): link

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun ! control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

I have to admit to you all up front that I am not a big fan of guns. Never have been.

But I own one. It's a 9mm, just like in the photo. I'm even less a fan of being a victim. And I am a big fan of the Constitution, so I understand the importance of all that I just reprinted above. As a Libertarian, I am suspicious when agents of the government want to take things away from me, whether it be my money, my guns, or my other rights. Needless to say, that puts me at odds with Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, etc. They want to take those things away. They are the ones who want me to be a "subject" rather than a "citizen". Then they add insult to injury by pretending it's all for my own good, as if I'm an infant. Man, how I hate that.

It's true that guns kill, but that is not a valid argument to ban them. I just listed 25 reasons why that would be a bad idea. Here's another one. A 'gun free zone' is also a defenseless zone. When Matthew Murphy walked into Colorado's New Life Church a week ago armed with 1,000 rounds of ammunition and a couple AK-47's, the only thing that kept him from killing maybe hundreds of people was security guard Jeanne Assam, armed and able to shoot back. If that church was a 'gun free zone', it would quickly have turned into a 'dead zone'.

But I also read the part of the Second Amendment about 'a well regulated Militia'. Yesterday on Meet The Press, host Tim Russert spent an hour attempting to paint Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney as a flip-flopping cult member, while skimming over all Romney's myriad accomplishments in about the first 30 seconds of that hour (not that there's a liberal media or anything. Gosh no). During the course of that program, Romney came down in favor of background checks prior to gun purchases, and also said he would have signed the assault weapons ban. I think background checks falls within the 'well-regulated' sphere of the Second Amendment. I don't want escaped mental patients walking into the nearest gun store and walking out with semi-automatic weapons. I like freedom, but I'm not crazy (no pun intended). I also don't have a big problem with an assault weapons ban. If it ever comes down to the citizenry needing Thompson sub-machine guns for protection, we are already in pretty much of an all-out war. Perspective matters. We don't want people driving around in Abrams tanks either.

Criminals will always get guns. We have no way to stop them. Making guns illegal definitely won't stop them. Drugs are illegal. Is it hard to get them ? Nope. Same with guns. Making guns illegal will only stop law-abiding citizens from having them, which will put them at the mercy of criminals. Not very smart. Nothing wrong with trying to make it harder for criminals to get guns, but law-abiding citizens have a right to own them, which must not be infringed.

Newsweek magazine has turned over some space within it's covers to that renowned international diplomat, the voice of reason, Columbia university's favorite Jew-hating, armageddon seeking, executor of homosexuals and oppressor of women (but evidently a cool guy because he hates Bush too, same as Newsweek and Columbia do), Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Let's give Newsweek and the little america hating fellow a nice hand (or at least one finger of a hand, that's all I could muster). Newsweek shows a nice picture of a smiling Ahmadinejad for a 'special guest commentary' (isn't that special ?) titled 'An Arrogant Approach, The Dangers of Unilateralism - For The United States And The World'. Naturally, it's a condemnation of american foreign policy. If I didn't know it was Ahmadinejad talking, I would have guessed that it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) who wrote the article. Those two sound so much alike, it's uncanny. Harry must have Mahmoud on speed dial or something, so he can get the latest Iranian talking points heard in the halls of Congress as quickly as possible.

Tell me Ahmadinejad doesn't sound just like the liberal Democrats in Congress or the far left in general:

"After the end of the cold war and the regional confrontations emanating from bipolar competition, many hoped there would be a beautiful spring in international relations, as a multilateral system emerged that offered equal opportunities to all members of the international community. It was hoped that the new world would enable all nations, in light of universally accepted humane norms and mutual respect, to advance together, eradicate poverty and injustice, and set aside bitter memories of the past that were nothing but war, bloodshed, violence and tension.

Those hopes were dashed by the United States and its leaders, who adopted a new and aggressive approach. Their assertion of unchallenged global leadership—and the inability of the international community and the United Nations to challenge it—frustrated hopes for a stable and peaceful world. Instead, once again we witness the re-emergence of a system that produced nothing but tension and insecurity.

"Absolute unilateralism" by the United States is the salient element of the new system adopted by the U.S. government toward world development. It has prevented the American people from playing their proper role in eliminating tyranny and violence and in helping bring peace, justice and security. Why should the prestige of the great American people be tarnished by the selfish and bullying ambitions of their government, whose negative role is clearly visible in many current conflicts, especially in the Middle East?

The worst example of this approach was the U.S. attack on Iraq and its catastrophic consequences. What was the crime of the 700,000 Iraqis, mostly women and children, who have died since, or of the many more that have been disabled, injured and displaced? On the basis of what international norms and rules can the U.S. government justify its actions over the past four and a half years there? Who should be held accountable for the destruction and oppression of the Iraqi people?"

Can't you just see the libs nodding their heads in agreement with Ahmadinejad ? They have to be, because they've been saying the same exact things for years about the Bush administration.

Forget about that little old 444-day Iranian hostage crisis thingy between the USA and Iran. That couldn't be the reason there was no "beautiful spring in international relations" between us, could it ? Naw. That probably didn't even happen, like the Holocaust, which Ahmadinejad also denies. Ahmadinejad condemns the US for removing Saddam, whom Iran also fought for 8 years, but he covers up for that by blaming, guess who, the USA, because we supported Saddam following the IRANIAN HOSTAGE CRISIS. You have to be a complete dunderhead to take this guy seriously (btw, 'complete dunderhead' and 'liberal' are synonyms). Iran also has been seeking war with Israel through it proxies in Syria, by supporting Hezbollah among others, they have openly advocated the destruction of Israel, and they have denied the IAEA access to their nuclear program, so I ask you:

What kind of morons do you have to be to keep giving this lying piece of crap a stage from which to spew his hatemongering propaganda ? That's you, Newsweek. Stop legitimizing Adolph Hitler's spiritual brother, you festering scabs on journalism's butt. This is precisely the man you should be de-legitimizing, as I have just done.

The Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe have both endorsed John McCain in the Republican primaries. Both newspapers also endorsed McCain in the 2004 Republican primaries. John McCain is Republicano numero uno - among Democrats, that is. Why do Democrats pretend to bring the love for Mr. McCain (and believe me, they ARE pretending. Neither of those newspapers would ever endorse McCain in a general election against another Democrat) ? Hear it for yourself:

McCain was praised by both newspapers as a straight talker who could help a polarized nation. The Globe's board said the Arizona senator could be an antidote to the "toxic political approach" of the last two presidential elections. The Globe also endorsed McCain before the New Hampshire primary in 2000.

"He doesn't parse words," The Register's board said Saturday of McCain. "And on tough calls, he usually lands on the side of goodness _ of compassion for illegal immigrants, of concern for the environment for future generations."

When the mainstream media calls McCain a "straight talker", what they mean is that he often sides with Democrats. When they say McCain "usually lands on the side of goodness", what they mean is, he often sides with Democrats. Sometimes, however, McCain doesn't land on the "side of goodness". Sometimes, he sides with Republicans, which the MSM is telling you is the side of evil. When the mainstream media speaks of "a polarized nation", that means those evil Republicans are not doing the bidding of Democrats. The newspapers all across our country have hundreds of these little sound bytes and phrases that are all telling the voting public the same exact thing over and over: VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT, because Democrats are the good guys. It's outright propaganda on a massive scale. They endorse McCain because he's the closest thing to a Democrat on the entire Republican ticket in their eyes. Plus, they know something else. When they say McCain could be the "antidote to the toxic political approach of the last two presidential elections", what they mean is, John McCain wouldn't have a snowball's chance of winning in the general election, because McCain has already alienated most of the conservative base. That's why his poll numbers are so low across the board. In the general election, McCain's faux Democratic friends would desert him faster than rats abandoning a sinking ship.

Democrats favorite adjective for McCain is to call him a "maverick". This is in contrast to how Democrats regard one of their own who defects from the party line, as in the case of "Traitor" Joe Lieberman, former Democratic vice-presidential candidate and current persona non-grata for his support for the war on Islamic terrorism. The MSM went ga-ga squishy over Lieberman's senate opponent in 2006, Ned Lamont. He was on-camera so much that I started to confuse him with Brian Williams.

Not that there's a liberal media or anything. Gosh no.

Oh yeah, on the Democratic side, the Des Moines Register endorsed Hillary for her illusion of experience and her last name, and the Boston Globe endorsed Obama due to his non-specific inspiring-sounding rhetoric that includes the word 'hope' and his multicultural background.

The only surprise came from the Des Moines Register, who criticized John Edwards, saying, "His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change". Normally, the liberal media loves to criticize corporations, since they see them (incorrectly) as Republicans. Maybe this time, an inter-office memo was sent out to the editorialists, reminding them that the Des Moines Register is, in fact, a CORPORATION. Ask not for whom the Edwards bell tolls Des Moines, it tolls for thee.

At the UN Climate conference in Bali, a global tax on carbon emissions was recommended by a panel of participants. Advocates said the tax would be “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.” (Translation: Bend over, United States Of America). Basically, the richer countries would be paying for the poorer countries to prepare for the catastrophic specter of global warming. It's CO2 socialism. Advocates of the tax say failure to adopt it will bring about the end of all life on earth as we know it, and some even worse stuff too. And that's their conservative estimate.

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm

Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”

The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal."

The UN was presented with a new report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”

Sounds to me like somebody hasn't done their homework here. There's a big difference between $10 billion and $40 billion. Expect the actual cost to be much, much, much higher if the UN ever convinces the US to go along with this step toward the end of our national sovereignty (to prevent it, elect a Republican in 2008). I wonder what the UN would do if america didn't pay it's global taxes ? Maybe they could put blue helmets on our soldiers and have us attack ourselves, or perhaps they would foreclose on Washington, D.C. It's a brave new world.

Not everyone favors the global carbon tax. There is a group of scientists who are strongly against it. These are the people Al Gore would call "deniers" (like Holocaust deniers) and "anti-scientific" (even though they ARE scientists). The Goreacle is not real flexible on this issue. He says the science of man-made global warming is settled (even though it isn't). Speaking of science, is Gore a scientist ? I think not, even if he did invent the internet.

…a team of over 100 prominent international scientists who warned the UN that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."

The scientists wrote, “The IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." The scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sent the December 13 letter to the UN Secretary-General.

Could there be more to all this than the stated reason of reducing carbon emissions and preparing for the post-apocalyptic globally warmed world ? It sounds to me like there is. Listen to the following quotes. These people sound more like socialists who want to run the world than folks concerned about climate change:

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

In 2000, then French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed Kyoto as a “socialist scheme.”

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007.

In addition, many critics have often charged that proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science.

Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said in 1990, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

I will close with a prayer of thanks.

Thank you, Lord, (and Florida and the Supreme Court too), for not letting Al Gore become president of the United States. Amen.

On tuesday, December 11th, 2007, The House of Representatives voted on House Resolution 847 (H.R. 847), which dealt with "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith". H.R. 847 was sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), and had 60 co-sponsors (58 Republicans and 2 Democrats).

My first reaction to this news was, why is Congress voting on a resolution about religion at all ? Congress doesn't need to recognize the importance of Christianity or Christmas. The 75% of americans who call themselves Christians can do that just fine all on their own. Congress just needs to stay out of religion's business altogether. That is what the Establishment Clause in the Constitution is all about. The Republicans should never have brought this issue to the floor of Congress. It isn't their business. Of course, the resolution passed overwhelmingly (372 - 9, with 10 voting merely 'Present'), because who is going to vote 'No' on a resolution saying that Christianity and Christmas are important ? Even if you aren't a Christian, I think it's pretty obvious that Christianity is iimportant in america. It's the leading american religion by far.

Except 17 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted either 'No' or merely 'Present' on H.R. 847. More on that later.

Now, let's go back in time a few months to September 2007, and House Resolution 635 (H.R. 635), which dealt with "Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and expressing respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion, and for other purposes". This one was sponsored by Rep. Eddie Johnson (D-TX), and co-sponsored by 29 Democrats and 1 Republican.

I have the exact same reaction to this resolution about Islam as I do to the resolution about Christianity. This isn't the business of Congress. This time, the Democrats are the ones who shouldn't have brought the resolution. This resolution also passed overwhelmingly, by a vote of 376-0, with 42 voting merely 'Present' (1 Democrat and 41 Republicans).

Here's the part you members of the left side of the political spectrum will not like that I'm mentioning:

17 Democrats voted either 'No' or 'Present' on the Christianity resolution, but voted 'Yes' on the Islam resolution. Those who voted 'No' on H.R. 847 and 'Yes' on H.R. 635 were Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Diana DeGette (D-Co.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fl.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Fortney Stark (D-Calif.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.). Those who voted "present" on H.R. 847 and "yes" on H.R. 635 include: Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Donald Payne (D-N.J.), Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.).

What is the possible explanation for this ?

A defense of the Dems voting 'Yes' on the Islam resolution is that they wanted to show Muslims that we are not prejudiced against them. This does not explain the 'No' vote on Christianity, however. Does this show a bias within the Democratic party against Christianity ? I think it probably does, even if it's the minority opinion.

There were also 41 Republicans who voted merely 'Present' on the Islam resolution and voted 'Yes' on the Christianity resolution. The same thing could be said in reverse about them. Does this show a bias against Islam ? I think it probably does, even if it's the minority opinion, but it is radical Islam that is the enemy of america, so I think this is somewhat understandable, even though I disagree with it. We shouldn't condemn all of Islam due to the actions of the radicals (though they have an AWFUL LOT of radicals, I have to admit).

Any thoughts on this, folks ?

The Clinton campaign brought up Barack Obama's high school drug use as a weapon against him. Obama has openly admitted to it and never attempted to hide it. Unlike Bill Clinton, who "didn't inhale", Obama did inhale and is honest about it. I respect Obama for telling the truth, even if it hurts him in this presidential race. There are no perfect people on this earth. As for respecting the Clintons…nah, don't think so.

This story is standard operating procedure for a Clinton campaign. First, the story is leaked to the press, and then the Clinton candidate denies any knowledge of it. They have run this play many times before. The hit man this time was Bill Shaheen, national co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Shaheen made his remarks to the Washington Post (Gosh, I can't imagine how it became public after telling the Post !). Now, get a load of this. Shaheen said he was concerned that REPUBLICANS would use Obama's past drug use against him, even as Shaheen, representing the Clinton campaign, was using Obama's past drug use against him. These people are shameless.

Here's what Shaheen said, from the article:

Shaheen, an attorney and veteran organizer, said much of Obama's background is unknown and could be a problem in November 2008 if he is the Democratic nominee. He said Republicans would work hard to discover new aspects of Obama's admittedly spotty youth.

"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" said Shaheen, whose wife, Jeanne, is the state's former governor and is running for the U.S. Senate next year.

"There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome," Shaheen said.

And here's the stock Clinton denial:

Clinton's campaign said it had nothing to do with his comments, and Shaheen said later he regretted them.

"I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way," Bill Shaheen said in an e-mail released by the campaign.

A campaign spokeswoman, Kathleen Strand, earlier had said "Senator Clinton is out every day talking about the issues that matter to the American people. These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way."

Right. And Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

Anybody who believes this was not a planned move by the Clintons, please raise your hand (Seriously. I have special software that allows me to see you sitting at your computer reading this…Reverend, you can put your hand down. I already know you believe the Clintons. It's part of your religion, The Doctrine of Democratic Infallibility). The rest of us all know better. The second Shaheen mentioned the Republicans during this dirty political trick against Obama, everyone in the country should have know it came straight from Hillary. Hillary blames the Republicans for everything, especially her own coverups. A vast right-wing conspiracy, remember ? Every time she gets into a rough spot in a debate, she starts talking about the "Republican machine". It's a reflex with her.

Obama knows the Clintons are being dishonest. Here's a response from his campaign manager, David Plouffe:

"Hillary Clinton said attacking other Democrats is the fun part of this campaign, and now she's moved from Barack Obama's kindergarten years to his teenage years in an increasingly desperate effort to slow her slide in the polls. Senator Clinton's campaign is recycling old news that Barack Obama has been candid about in a book he wrote years ago, and he's talked about the lessons he's learned from these mistakes with young people all across the country. He plans on winning this campaign by focusing on the issues that actually matter to the American people."

I, for one, hope this blows up right in Hillary's face. I hope she loses Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Does anybody have Oprah's phone number ?