What to do about high gas prices . . .

When my wife had the gumption to bring up possible "price-gouging" by oil companies, I realized that the low political fever sweeping the country was for real. Here's a good (even though the author treats the DNC more favorably than the GOP) op/ed on the subject--entitled, "Political Gas on Gas Prices." The best quote from the article relates to choosing between the parties and how they'll deal with high oil prices:

This time, however, the American people apparently have no choice. With respect to gas prices, the only option is to be governed by economic demagogues.

Too soon for movie about 9/11?

Regarding the release of United 93--a movie chronicling the hijacking of an airliner on 9/11, I like what Rich Lowry has said about the "controversy":

We could be losing a major battle in the War on Terror in Iraq and seeing a flagging of resolve in the war generally, yet some people think we can't yet be reminded what started the whole thing: It's never too early to be defeated, but always too soon to recall the brutality of our attackers.

Read the rest of his op/ed here.

Yikes, on the subject of McCain

Here's a fascinating report about the Democrat Party and Hillary and McCain. First, it's interesting to me that many Democrats love Sen. Hillary Clinton but realize that a majority of their fellow citizens aren't as enamoured with her--I commend them for their self-awareness (I guess a LONG string of electoral butt whuppin's are beginning to register).

Second, it's interesting that 55% of Dems polled had a FAVORABLE view of Sen. John McCain . . . that should tell us something about what makes him popular.

Lastly, I believe it is probably best that the muddled middle of the American electorate not hold sway over who the parties nominate. Policy is about ideas, and the leadership or charisma quotient of a candidate is only relevant in the context of what ideas said person will seek to advance. We don't need mushy-headed thinkers to be leading us with charisma toward nowhere.

If you like "24" . . .

Here's an interesting article about a scheme attempted by the Clinton administration to pull a nukular fast one on Iran. Kind of like the idiotic scheme of "24" president Logan.

McCain opposes Federal Marriage Amendment

"Straight-talkin'" Sen. John McCain opposes Federal Marriage Protection Amendment--if I didn't think that McCain really is a Liberal, I'd think it was a Sister Souljah maneuver.

For the record, I think McCain may be the best example of a so-called "Moderate"; his position on any given issue rarely has any basis in principle.

Well, gosh, where's the Liberal outrage concerning leaking classified info?

Where's the outrage from the Left about potential leaks of classified information? A Senior Intelligence Officer (which I've heard is the Intelligence service's equivalent of a 4-star general in the military) in the office of the Inspector General (which exists to investigate leaks and violation of agency protocol) has admitted--according to reports, that she broke the law and violated CIA policy, but all we hear is backpedaling from the Left. BUSH HAD THE AUTHORITY TO RELEASE "CLASSIFIED" INFORMATION TO REBUT ACCUSATIONS FROM SPOUSE-JUNKET WILSON, Mary O. McCarthy plain 'ol violated the law for partisan reasons, never attempting to address purported concerns about CIA activities through the proper channels.

You can't spell "demagogue" without Dem

Although my philosophical beef is with Liberals, not Democrats, per se, I've always wanted to make a bumper sticker that reads, "The Democrat Party: Demagoguing, Pandering and Appeasing since 1820," and this op/ed describes how the Democrats' current politicking on the issue of oil prices manifests that credo.

NY Times statistical Bush-bashing re. Katrina

This article documents the sloppiness of reporting on the Bush administration and how (I believe) a knee-jerk liberalism can impact things like . . . hmmm, polling perhaps.

Scandal in White House! Was Cheney dozing . . . ?!

Boy, this is important stuff, whether or not the VP may have dozed off during a meeting with the Chinese dictator Hu. But if you look at the pictures on ABC's site, it appears that Cheney, Rice (and Rumsfeld, in the background of the Cheney-alone pic) are bowing their heads as in prayer. Here is one with Cheney and Rice in it. Judge for yourself . . . then . . . who cares?

This Jerry Lewis ain't funny

I just read this WSJ article about Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) who is chairman of the House Appropriations committee and is scandalously indifferent to Conservative appeals for spending restraint and above-board operations. The article is entitled "The Minority Maker," and it irks me that ol' Jerry has been in the House for 14 terms and would likely remain for 14 more, content to be in the minority as long as he had his pork.

A first!! An example of Republican voter fraud.

Though this headline is plainly misleading, "Phone-jamming records point to White House," I have to note this is the first example of Republican voter fraud I've encountered. It appears that someone in the NH GOP paid for an Idaho company to "jam"--or repeatedly call and hang up on, the phone lines of a Labor Union's phones to prevent the Union from giving people rides to the polls.

First, The headline is misleading because it implies that the phone jamming plan was approved or hatched or whatever-nefarious-term-you-can-think-of by the WH because there were phone calls placed to the WH political office on the day of the election. Calls into HQ in a hot race are VERY common, and the phone-jamming would obviously have happened on the day of the election and the plan ("scheme"/"conspiracy") had been paid for a week prior, so I doubt phone calls made the day of the election to WH has ANYthing to do with this plan.

Second, though I DESPISE voter fraud, it is some comfort to see that Sununu (the Republican) won by 5%, so I doubt that 2 hours of jamming phones at a single "get out the vote" center was the deciding factor in the election. Nonetheless, I'm glad they busted the folks who were involved (and I don't think that Democrat lawyers need to be allowed to subpoena WH staffers on a fishing expedition).

More on Tom DeLay . . .

There is a temptation common to man to iconize or idolize important people, and I hope/pray that I not often fall prey to that temptation. Unfortunately, I think that happens very often in the political realm and has happened with people like Tom DeLay. I just read a non-flattering piece about Tom DeLay-- "DeLay's Next Mission From God") that, among other things, pooh-poohs his religious conversion and resultant convictions. But the statement that made me wince, a statement that wasn't simply a Liberal journalist's opinion, was this quote:

the Rev. Rick Scarborough, introduced DeLay to a Christian conference just last week, saying, "This is a man, I believe, God has appointed . . . to represent righteousness in government."

I don't think there are many people that can live up to that billing . . .

This is disturbing: details of Abramoff's lobbying racket

Here is an eye-opening article, from the Conservative Weekly Standard, about Jack Abramoff's lobbying/influence business. I have supported Tom DeLay in his legislative agenda and defended him against partisan attacks, but the details of how things run on Capitol Hill is very disturbing to me. I don't believe that it is any worse than when Dems are in control, but I have a higher standard than, "What would a Liberal do?"

I predict . . .

I predict that we won't be hearing nearly as much about the Homeland Security employee busted for soliciting sex from a minor over the internet. I just read this report that he only came to Homeland Security (read: he became a member of the Evil Bush Administration) in 2001 after 26 YEARS WORKING FOR TIME MAGAZINE (where, incidentally, he had been caught storing porn on a company computer). This story is likely going to go underground, unless the MSM can somehow establish that he was always a closet Conservative or Republican. So much for the wisdom of reaching across the aisle to hire people in gov't.

Bush and the "leak" and Libby and . . .

The Left (and its Communications division, the MSM) is loving the misleading and disingenuous headlines which include in variation of the words "Bush," "Libby," "approved," "grand jury" and "leak." The reality is that there is nothing in this story--beyond juicy headlines, to impugn the President. Here's a great article on the subject, from NationalReview.com.

Here's another great article on the subject; here's the opening line:

The more one hears about Scooter Libby’s being authorized to “leak” information from the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the more this is revealed as a bogus kerfuffle, manufactured by the press — which should be ashamed of itself, since this kind of “leaking” is the media’s stock in trade.

McKinney's apology is not an apology

This was not an apology. Her "apology" was for actions she didn't admit doing, for events that she implied were out of her control and for a "misunderstanding." I do want this issue to go away, but McKinney should not be getting credit for "apologizing."

"Amnesty" defined

This article at NationalReview.com considers the way that many pols are running from the term "amnesty" in the debate about reforming immigration laws. I haven't known exactly how to articulate my view on this issue until reading this article and forming a response. The article is worth reading.

The more I think about it, I realize that I, too, disagree with the blanket pejorative term "amnesty" being used to disparage any legislation that doesn't, I assume, immediately punish any illegal aliens with deportation.

In my experience as a prosecutor, I saw that "punishment" can take many forms, but the keys to punishment are a) proving that someone has violated a law, and b) imposing consequences for their action. The appropriate consequences for a given offense were rarely as cut and dried as they appeared in statutes, so they often looked the same as what is being proposed with many of the proposals labeled "Amnesty"; in particular, the punishments generally involved a list of conditions given to the offender with the most sever punishment allowed hanging over their head. The objective was to move the offender away from a lawless lifestyle.

Of course, with some offenders or offenses, there was little motivation for mercy or a "second chance" or a chance at rehabilitation . . . but I'm not sure that coming to America (even illegally) for a better life qualifies as an offense for which mercy isn't warranted.

Like with any dispute, there is always the tendency to oversimplify your opponent's arguments to create a "straw man" for your forensic benefit. I think, in regard to the use of such fallacious argumentation, the immigration debate is no different.

Hee, hee, hee . . . Md.'s Steele is giving the race-baiting Dems fits

This article highlights the concern that the Dems have about facing Md.'s GOP Lt. Governor and U.S. Senate Candidate Michael Steele (who happens to be black).

Missing Link Found!!!

OK, I'll admit that this story tonight (from Drudge),"Scientists discover a missing link," is not good news for those of us who are truthseekers and who have a hard time accepting that we are here as a result of time+chance+protein. But when I read the article, I couldn't help but snicker at the presumptions and speculation masquerading as a) science or b) journalism.

First, the author states,"Scientists have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land with four legs and backbones more than 365 million years ago, but they've had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened." You don't have to be a logician (or a non-Evolutionist) to spot several fallacies in that one sentence. Nonetheless, this type of assertion is one reason I'm incredulous about such "discoveries"--too many of these scientists (incidentally, the most high-profile ones) have an agenda to advance. But I'm going to look at all this drivel, er data, with an open mind . . .

Fertility stats are culturally-telling

Via anncoulter.com, I read this great analysis of demographic statistics on fertility rates within the U.S. and in Europe. In sum, social conservatives (in my book, "conservatives") have more children (or simply have children) than do liberals. The author appears to be lamenting the statistic to some degree, for example, he draws this conclusion from the stats:

This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted or President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry.

However, he doesn't try to explain the differential in fertility rates. I'm not particularly troubled by dwindling populations raised within the Liberal worldview. But, unlike the Jihadiot baby boom happening in Europe, there is no reason (unless you're a Liberal Democrat) to be concerned about higher birth rates among God-fearing, golden-rule-valuing Americans.