My Position on Man-Made Global Warming

With some of the debate happening on this site, and with my promises to review a global warming book and Mr. Gore’s movie, I thought a little explanation of my own thoughts on global warming may help for the coming articles. I don’t claim to be a climatologist. It seems like every news agency has a complete staff of those, so we don’t need any more. I have read a few books on global warming, I have studied geophysics a little, and I enjoy reading articles that appear in the news about global warming. I am not paid by any oil company, research institute, or President (current or former). However, if anyone out there knows how I could get paid by these groups for my opinion, please let me know.

First, there is no consensus about man-made global warming. If you don’t believe me, check out my global warming tag and see how many comments I get on my global warming posts. Most of them are quiet heated (on both sides). Even if there was consensus, science has nothing to do with consensus. Political policy involves consensus, but not science.

Secondly, there is a lot about the Earth’s climate we don’t know. Scientists don’t understand how clouds form or their exact effect on climate. They know clouds effect the environment, but they are not sure to what degree. Global computer models that are constantly sited are only as good as the assumptions the programmer puts into them. The data we do have is very small and incomplete (accurate hurricane measuring didn’t really start until 1944) when compared to the age of the planet. For every study citing ice cores or tree rings as evidence for global warming, I can show you another study that says the exact opposite.

Third, there is no proof that global warming is a bad thing. If the planet was to increase its temperature by 1 degree over the next 100 years, that might be beneficial. It could cause an increase in plant life and human life. Hot weather kills less than cold weather. If we knew a 1 degree increase might cause an additional 1000 deaths in the summer, but save 10,000 lives in the winter, would that be bad?

I believe that the Earth is getting warmer. I am just not sure how much of that is man’s fault. The Earth’s climate is constantly changing. It has been since before man got here and will be for a long time after we are gone. Just by existing on the planet, man has some impact on his environment, as do all other creatures that inhabit the Earth. The question is: what component of the Earth’s warming is our fault? Various sources claim the Earth has gotten warmer over the last century. The amount varies from less than 0.4 degrees Celsius to about 1.0 degree. I don’t believe all of that is man made, but how much of it is?

I also believe that most “solutions” currently offered by environmentalist are unrealistic. Many of them would cost a tremendous amount of money for very little real benefit. The more extreme solutions even wish to implement a population control with no settlement having more than 20,000 people. Think of that the next time you are in New York, London, or San Francisco.

We need real research to solve what component of the current climate is a result of man. Then we need to decide if there is anything we can actually do to change the Earth’s climate. We need to figure out if we should change the environment, and if the change is worth the cost. If the best we could do is to lower the temperature by 0.01 degree at a cost of $100 billion would that be a good investment?

I hope I haven’t rambled too long. I also hope this helps clarify my views on global warming and gives my readers a base line for the upcoming book and movie reviews. As always, I welcome comments about this or any other post.

Another Muslim Cartoon Scare

American newspapers have entered into a new phase of self censorship today. The “Opus” comic that runs in many major newspapers was pulled from most papers this weekend, and won’t appear next weekend. What could cause the Washington Post and other papers to pull the comic? It has dared to, “… [take] a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists.”

Fox News has a complete rundown of the story. While I don’t like Salon.com, they are running the comic in its entirety. Salon deserves credit for this. You can view the comic at Salon and make your own decisions about just how scandalous this comic is. Apparently a running joke has been one of the Opus characters trying different religions. Last week, the comic poked fun at the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. I don’t remember hearing any outcry from conservative Christians, and I don’t believe I remember reading on Drudge that the newspapers were worried about the reactions of Christians to that comic.

The Washington Post had some initial concerns with the new installment of Opus. Being the responsible editors that they are, they decided to show the comic to some of the Muslim staffers to “gauge their reaction.” Fox News said that these staffers reacted “emotionally” so the Washington Post decided to pull the comic, and send a warning out to the other papers that feature the comic. When asked why the previous strip that poked at the late Reverend Falwell wasn’t also flagged, Writers Group comic editor Amy Lago said she didn’t think the readers would misunderstand the humor in it. Apparently, there are fears that Muslims might misunderstand the humor in the current Opus comic.

I believe this is a perfect example of the true nature of Islam in today’s world. While Islam may have once been the religion of peace, it is no longer viewed that way, and with good reason. Anyone who doesn’t remember the fiasco over the Dutch cartoons or The Satanic Verses can do a quick Google search for it. There are no other religions in the world cause this sort of reaction in Western papers . The very same papers that are nervous about “the Muslim reaction” didn’t even think about a Christian reaction to a comic. I would argue the editors wouldn’t bat an eye at a comic poking fun at any other religion out there (with the possible exception of man made global warming).

If Islam is going to exist with the Western world, it is going to need to coexist with it. This comic is very, very tame by Western standards. If Islam truly is the religion of peace, then people should be allowed to discuss it, or criticize it without fear for their lives. And if the Western media is still a place where ideas and news can be discussed, then it must stand up to cowards and tyrants who would bully the media from covering topics the bullies don’t like.

My Ramblings....

This post is a little different from my usual post. I am just updating my normal readers on the goings on and what is coming up. If you aren't interested in a few ramblings, it would be a good idea to stop here and check back sometime tomorrow. Otherwise, don't say I didn't warn you....


My Schedule: I am traveling off and on over the next week and a half. I hope to update this site tomorrow, Wednesday, and sometime over the weekend. Be forewarned that I am traveling and because of that, I won't make any promises. Next week I will be back home and my schedule should be back to normal.


Global Warming: I haven't written much about global warming lately. That hasn't stopped those who believe passionately in global warming from attacking me lately. For the latest on that discussion, check out my last post. I am currently reading the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. This has been a very thought provoking and entertaining book so far. Look for a Book Review on it in the coming weeks. On that same note, I have a promise to Familyman that I still intend to keep. I promised him I would watch Al Gore's "documentary" on global warming. I have a copy of An Inconvenient Truth. Since I am traveling so much, I am going to put the movie on my iPod and watch it on a plane or two. As with the P.I.G. book, look for a review on Mr. Gore's movie in the coming weeks as well.


The Newark Executions: Michelle Malkin is continuing to follow this story even though the main stream media doesn't seem to know it exists. I can't find much information on it from CNN or Fox News. However, Mrs. Malkin is doing a very good job of keeping attention focused on it. She has pointed out that more details are surfacing in this case that point to the gang MS-13. An additional adult was arrested and, as with the other adults, his immigration status is also "questionable". It is questionable in that he didn't have a valid drivers license or social security card, but was arrested with a U.S. Passport that authorties weren't able to say was a valid passport. This is an appaling story that needs to be followed. I encourage everyone to check out Michelle Malkin's website for the latest on this story.

I hope you enjoyed these tidbits. I am also asking for a few book recommendations. I am constantly writing book reviews and I always write book reviews about books I like. I am asking for recommendations from my readers with a different political belief system than my own. So, for those of you who believe that bigger government is better, or that we should have a national healthcare system, or that man-made global warming is going to kill us all, let me know what you think. Now is your chance to give me the titles of the books that you are sure will change my mind.

Thanks for reading, and check back in the next couple of days when I will return to my regular format.

Book Review: America the Last Best Hope

In 1921, the English writer G.K. Chesterton came to America to travel and speak. He, like other foreigners I mention in Volume I …saw us better, in many ways, than we saw ourselves. What he saw here, what he found here, is a reaffirmation of what I attempt to recapture about our country – describing it as Abraham Lincoln did: “the last best hope on earth.”

This passage is how Dr. William “Bill” Bennett opens America, the Last Best Hope Volume II. This volume covers U.S. History from 1914 to 1989 (or from a World at War to the Triumph of Freedom as the book is subtitled.) I think Dr. Bennett does a good job of capturing that essence Chesterton saw in America and that Lincoln described.

I chose to start in the middle of Dr. Bennett’s series because it covers a time period that I wasn’t taught much about in high school or college. Most of what I know about our own history since World War I is because of my own reading. I thought this would be a great way to expand on that knowledge. What I found was Dr. Bennett covered such a wealth of material that calling it “expanding my knowledge” probably doesn’t do it justice.

Dr. Bennett devotes a lot of time to the different Presidents and their policies from WW I to the Cold War. One would expect that in a history book, but Dr. Bennett does a good job of examining each President critically. He points out the success of each President, and also illustrates their failures. However, far from dwelling on our countries failures (of which we have our share) he spends an equal amount of time on those things our country should celebrate (of which there are many).

Dr. Bennett has argued in other venues that we must build up our history program in our school system. He states in this book, “It is sad but true that American students know less about American history than any other subject they study.” Dr. Bennett describes American history as the “glory and romance” of our nations story. The quote comes from the National Archives: The glory and romance of our history are here preserved in the chronicles of those who conceived and built the structure of our nation. Dr. Bennett’s book is the type of patriotic examination of our history that should be used in schools to teach American history. His book lends a romantic feel to our history.

I would recommend America the Last Best Hope to schools but also to anyone who is curious about our history. Dr. Bennett breaks the topics in his book along major time periods in our history and provides a good overview to each chapter. I enjoyed reading it from cover to cover, but it would also serve as a useful reference book to someone who was writing about prohibition, FDR, World War II, Vietnam, or the Cold War. Finally, anyone who wants to know more about America would benefit from reading America, the Last Best Hope.

New Details in the Newark Executions

Last week I posted on politics.wikia about the executions of three teenagers in Newark, New Jersey. For the most part, details have been very sketchy in the main stream media, while the blogosphere has been hoping mad. The more information that comes out, the more outraged I am about this.

Iofemi Hightower, Dashon Harvey, Terrance Aeriel, and Natasha Aeriel were ordered to kneel down in front of a wall and were then each shot in the head. Natasha Aeriel is the only one who has survived the attack. There are some conflicting reports, but it appears authorities have arrested five individuals, two adults and three minors. The two adults, Jose Carranza and Rodolfo Godinez, are both foreign nationals with criminal records. Carranza has been confirmed as an illegal immigrate, there is some question as to whether Godinez was in the country legally or not.

Carranza has been indicted twice this year. He was indicted in April on aggravated assault charges. In July he was indicted, "…on 31 counts which included aggravated sexual assault of a child under 13 years old and endangering the welfare of a child he had a duty to supervise" [emphasis mine]. The sexual assault began when the girl was five years old and continued over the next four years. He should never have been allowed back on the streets as a normal citizen with these kinds of charges. However, being an illegal immigrant, with no ties to this country, he shouldn't have been given the chance to shoot four kids in the back of the head.

Authorities believe Godinez was preparing to flee to Mexico and then El Salvador in order to avoid being arrested for the murders in Newark. Records indicate that he may have been in the country illegally as well. Godinez was ordered deported in 1993 and there is no record he ever left the country. Two of the youth's arrested in the case, one of which was Godinez's brother, had recently started bragging that they were members of the gang MS-13. The house Godinez was arrested in also netted 10 other illegal immigrants during the arrest.

While the media doesn't seem to be covering this story, it is an outrage that Carranza and Godinez were even on the streets able to carry out this crime. Newark's status as a "sanctuary city" has contributed to this crime as well. When a city stops enforcing certain laws, people like Carranza, Godinez, and the members of MS-13 will start ignoring all of the laws. If illegal immigrants are arrested for violent crimes, they should be held without bail until their court date. In addition, "Sanctuary Cities" should be held accountable for violating the law. In addition to loosing federal funds, the city officials that decide on the "sanctuary" status should be tried the same as the criminals. In the murders of Iofemi Hightower, Dashon Harvey, and Terrance Aeriel, Newark officials helped put Carranza and Godinez there that night. The failure of Newark and other officials to deport illegal immigrants that break the law contributed to the death of these three teenagers.

Unity '08

This is going to be a little bit of a different post. I am not going to try and convince you of anything. Instead, I am asking my readers to investigate something, and give me their feedback.

A few days ago I got an email from a group called Unity 08. This group is working to get a third party ticket nominated and on the 2008 Presidential ballot. At this point they don’t have any specific issues or solutions they are running on. Instead, they are hoping to nominate a Republican and a Democrat to run (one for President and one for Vice-President).

They have decided that the two party system no longer provides us with the best candidates. Unity 08 believes that the Republican and Democratic ticket will be dominated by the extreme right and left. By nominating one member of each ticket, they hope to have a very center ticket.

The email provided me with a link to fill out an online survey. If you don’t visit the site, I do recommend the survey. I thought it was very interesting, and made me look at a few things in a different light. However, be warned. The survey says it takes about 10 minutes. I believe I spent closer to 25 or 30 minutes on it.

In addition to the two party ticket, they are accepting nominations for delegates. If you think this is the ticket for you, you can submit your information online to be one of their delegates. The delegates will discuss what issues will be critical to the Unity 08 ticket in the spring of 08. This “nominating convention” will be held online. After the convention, they are doing a secure sign in that will allow you to vote on the ticket. Again, this is done online. One thing I do like is how they are taking this to the 21^st century. They say on their site that they have hired a legal team, and are complying with all Federal Election laws.

My knee jerk reaction is to be against this. I believe you create a ticket, or a movement. by having some driving ideal or solution. I think leaving the entire definition of the “party” up to random voters will make it hard for many people to become passionate about the ticket. The only way to defeat a Republican or a Democratic ticket is by being passionate about what you believe in.

I think this is a very interesting idea. It would be very hard to vote for a ticket I didn’t believe in. However, I am interested in how the debate of the issues might go. I would encourage everyone to check this group out. They seem to be serious. Of course, this could be a clever ruse by a third party candidate to try to build momentum. Anyway, if you check it out, let me know what you think of the group or the survey. And I promise my next post will be back to arguing one side or another of an important point.

Time to Ban Chinese Products?

In what seems to be a daily happening, there has been another major safety warning issued for a product made in China. As of this writing, there hasn't been a recall on the product. The new recall involves vinyl baby bibs that have been found to contain three times the amount of lead that is allowed in paint. While there hasn't been a true recall, parents have been warned that if they have these bibs and they are damaged or torn, they should be thrown away.

This "non-recall" comes on the heel of a number of other recent recalls on items and products from China. Recently an assortment of toys have been recalled because of the lead in their paint and toothpaste and dog food have been recalled because of toxic ingredients that have been found in them. Whether this list of recalls is directly because of the Chinese government or not, the government does have its share of blame in this. Just as our government passes standards for products made in the U.S.A, the Chinese government has a responsibility to provide an assurance that the products from it's country won't kill consumers in other countries.

When the recalls started, many news agencies wrote of the "open secret" in China. It seems it was well known that certain industries were replacing ingredients with ingredients that could hurt the consumer. While I have never been to China, if this is true, then the Chinese government is as much at fault as those businesses that made the products that are now being recalled.

It is time to discuss a possible ban on Chinese imports. A government's role is to protect its constituents first and foremost. It is time for the United States to consider what it needs to do to guarantee citizens can buy products without fear they may kill them. China has been preparing itself for an eventual war with the United States for some time. Many argue that China has already started this war on the economic front. It was a travesty for the United Nations to award this communist nation with an Olympics. We shouldn't be worried about hurting the feelings of the Chinese regime. We should be concerned with the well being of our citizens. If China can't promise their products are safe, maybe the United States should ensure no one here will die from those same products.

Should New Jersey Stand Trial?

I have a new piece up at Politics.wikia. I wrote a piece for them about the illegal alien who executed three college students in Newark. He had been indicted twice before for violent crimes and was out on bond.


Drop by Politics.wikia and let me know what you think.

Romney in ‘08

I am finally ready to declare my support and the support of Political Friends. We are endorsing Mitt Romney for President in 2008. A friend told me when Mitt first declared that I should watch him and I would be impressed. Months later, I have to say that he was right. My friend originally said I would want to support him because he was a Republican that got elected Governor of Massachusetts. While that is an impressive feat, there are other things I like about Gov. Romney as well.

First, I think a critical factor for any candidate this season is how they view Iraq and the war on terror. Governor Romney's site has "Defeating the Jihadists" as one of its prominent issues. I have been impressed by some of his public statements and his support for President Bush's troop surge. Governor Romney has called for a surge of support for the troops. On his official website, he says, "An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations." He calls for America to lead a "broad-based international coalition" to defeat the jihadists. Both of these points seem to be ideas that Democrats can support as well. He also calls for something many have called for in the war against jihadist, "…the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims."

Secondly, I am pro-life. Much like Governor Romney, I had a different belief before I truly had to confront what abortion meant. Governor Romney says that once he had to look at legislation involving abortion, he came to believe that abortion was wrong. I agree with that. When my wife got pregnant, I was confronted on an almost daily basis with the fact that another human life was growing within her. This life deserved to be protected and have a voice in what happened to it.

Governor Romney also has executive leadership. Many Republican and almost all Democratic candidates can't claim that. Romney was President of the Mormon Church, and Governor of Massachusetts. As Governor, he looked at running his state as he would run a business. Because of that, he lowered taxes in Massachusetts and increased revenue to the state. He believes in keeping taxes low and in simplifying our incredibly large tax code. I too believe in both of these points.

Finally, I believe it is a good thing to have someone in office that believes in God and has a core faith. Romney is quoted in the Boston Globe and on his site as saying that our love of liberty, love of country and love of God are what make us a successful nation and society. Romney believes that Americans look for a, "…purpose greater than ourselves in life." That kind of belief in the people of our nation is critical for a President of this great nation. I don't see that in other candidates. Because of that, I am supporting Mitt Romney for President.

The Iraqi Parliament takes a Vacation

In a recent editorial, Cynthia Tucker, of the Atlanta Journal – Constitution, argues that since the Iraqi parliament is taking a month vacation, it is time to pull our troops out. Her column spends no time discussing any of the military or political strategies that might argue for or against a withdrawal from Iraq. She argues that the very fact that the parliament is vacationing doesn’t really matter. In her opinion, since, “[s]ome block of Shites or Summies is always stalking out,” we shouldn’t expect the Iraqi parliament to get anything accomplished anyway. If our troops can fight in 130 degree weather, then the Iraqis can hold parliament in session. If the parliament won’t convene, then we should go.

Mrs. Tucker isn’t alone in her opinion. I am sure there are many people who would agree with her. I also believe the Iraqi parliament should be doing everything they can to provide for the security of their country. The parliament probably has plenty of work to keep them busy. However, if the democracy that is forming in Iraq is going to work, then the Iraqi voters need to hold the parliament to task. I don’t believe we should threaten our ally. It is in our best interest to have a democratic Iraq. That democracy is going to make decisions we aren’t going to like, and threatening to withdraw our help isn’t the knee jerk reaction we should be looking for.

My criticism of Mrs. Tucker is that she doesn’t acknowledge what might happen if we pull out. While I agree that the parliament should probably be criticized for taking a month off, I disagree with her lack of concern for what the aftermath of a United States troop withdrawal might look like. When the U.S. left Vietnam, millions died in South Vietnam, Cambodia, and in the surrounding waters. No one is arguing that anything less might happen if we leave Iraq.

Mrs. Tucker also fails to consider an additional key point in this discussion. If the parliament of a fledgling democracy like Iraq is going to take pointers on behavior and what is expected of them, where might they look? What lessons would they take from the behavior that our own congress has shown over the last seven months? If the Iraqi parliament has studied the political theatrics of the U.S. House and Senate, we should be thankful all they are doing is taking a month off.

And finally, is there any chance we can convince our congress to take a month off?

Thoughts and Prayers for victims of 35 W Bridge

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the victims of the bridge collapse in Minnesota.

Democratic Leadership betting against America?

There seems to be more and more people who believe the surge in Iraq is working. On Monday, I wrote how the New York Times and Newt Gingrich are both saying we need to stay the course. I have written numerous times on here about the cost of America leaving our allies in Iraq on their own.

Since Monday, there are more and more articles appearing on the web discussing both the New York Times comments on the Iraq war, and the reaction by Democrats. Before I question the motives of some of the Democrats, I want to point out that I don’t believe all Democrats, and certainly not all Democratic voters think like Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, et al. For example, the House Majority Whip, James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) says that success in Iraq is a real problem for the Democrats. The more good news out of Iraq, the less likely the “Blue Dog Caucus” of Democrats are to vote to leave Iraq. If the Republicans and the Blue Dogs are both willing to wait on the September report from Petraeus, Pelosi and Reid won’t be able to get the votes to require our troops to leave Iraq. Hence the “real big problem” as Rep Clyburn put it.

There have also been many comments and articles on the Junior Representative from Kansas and her comments. While the House Armed Services Committee was being briefed by General Jack Keane, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D- Kansas) walked out of the briefing distressed. When she returned, she said, “There is only so much you can take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while. So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things -- after so much frustration of having to listen to what we listened too.” Rep. Boyda went on to say, “Those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, here’s the reality of the problem.” What did General Keane say that upset her so much? While noting that there are still problems in Iraq, the General was explaining some of the success we are currently having in Iraq. How can the United States succeeding in Iraq be so offensive?

The New York Times did a poll recently to gauge the American support for the war in Iraq. When they found that people who supported the United States going to war in Iraq had risen from 35 percent to 42 percent, they were confused and bewildered, and immediately redid the poll. The problem is that the second version of the poll showed the same result: American support for the war in Iraq is increasing, not decreasing.

And finally, for those of you keeping score at home, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) is also supporting the surge. In addition to being a Democrat, Rep. Ellison is also the only Muslim in Congress. The AP quotes him recently as saying, “The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership.”

While we are a long way from leaving Iraq, there is a lot of good news coming out of Iraq. Many believe the surge is working. However, the Democratic leadership doesn’t want to hear it. While Boyda is a junior member, it is not that hard to imagine Reid, Pelosi, or Murtha trying to follow her example at the next military briefing they get. The Democratic leadership is actively pulling against any success by the American military in Iraq. Many politicians before them have tried to bet against America with their political careers. What happened to those politicians? They find themselves on the ash heap of history. Pelosi, Reid, and the rest better learn to support the country they claim to represent, or start brushing off those resumes.

American Congress for Truth Blog

I have written about Bridgette Gabriel on this site before. She is a Christian who grew up in Lebanon as the country was invaded by Muslim fanatics. I reviewed her book, Because They Hate, and I still believe it is a very important book that everyone should read.

Mrs. Gabriel now heads up the American Congress for Truth. This group is dedicated to warning the West about the growing threat of radical Islam. After I read her book, I went to the site and signed up for email notifications. These notifications are typically quick articles about radical Islam.

I received an email in the last couple of days that announced a new blog for American Congress for Truth. I have added it to my link list and encourage everyone to visit the blog. Already, they have a wealth of information on the site.

Gingrich and the New York Times

Chris Wallace (Fox News Sunday): Why do you think that some Democrats want to start pulling out troops even before General Petraeus gets a chance to issue his progress report in September?

Newt Gingrich: The left wing of the Democratic Party is deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American Defeat.

In 1975, when there were no Americans left in Vietnam, the left wing of the Democratic Party killed the government of South Vietnam, cut off all of its funding, cut off all of its ammunition, and sent a signal to the world that the United States had abandoned its allies.

What I would say to any Democrat who wants America to leave is quite simple. Millions of Iraqis have sided with the United States. They are known in their neighborhoods. They are known in their cities. If we abandon them, they are going to be massacred.

How can you, in good conscience, walk away from these decent people and leave them behind to a fate which we've seen, for example, in Afghanistan, where the Taliban recently was machine-gunning girls as they walked to school because the Taliban is determined to stop women from getting educated?

We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, "We actually can win this thing," I want to understand the rationale that says, "No, we don't want to let America win. Let's legislate defeat for the United States."

--Parital transcript from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace on July 29, 2007

Viewed from Iraq, where we spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.

--Excerpt from A War We Just Might Win from the New York Times, July 30, 2007

[Emphasis mine]

The New York Times and Newt are agreeing on at least one point, we are making significant progress in Iraq. For an icon of the conservative movement, and a bastion of the liberal left to agree either means there is a coming apocalypse, or we should sit up and take note. Where McCain was laughed at for saying he could stroll through parts of Baghdad without body armor a few weeks ago, the New York Times now makes the same claim. Could it be that the United States is winning in Iraq?

The New York Times tempered their enthusiasm, with this cautious note,"… there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008." But it is still optimism. Optimism seems to be something many of the Democrats in Congress and the Senate seem to lack. And consider what it means that a liberal newspaper is discussing the surge working in Iraq.

Newt is correct in describing the bloodbath that will happen if we leave Iraq. I have written on this site before about the dire consequences of pulling out of Iraq. There is no military force on the planet that can defeat the United States Military. Our enemies know that they can only win by turning public opinion in the United States against our military, by turning us against ourselves. The Democrats seem to have fallen for this tactic. However, if the New York Times can change its opinion, then it is time for Reid, Obama, Clinton, and the rest to reexamine their stance on the war. Will they be puppets to the ultra left wing of their party, or will they put aside their partisan differences and do what's right for the country.

Help Protect John Doe

The House and Senate Conference Committee on Homeland Security has been debating an amendment that should enjoy support from both the right and left. The amendment has been called the “John Doe” measure because it is designed to protect people when they report suspicious activity from being sued. The post 9/11 mantra of “If you see something, say something,” should be protected and encouraged.

This measure came about in response to the six “flying imams” who were taken off a Northwest Airlines flight last year. I wrote at the time that the actions of these imams were suspicious, and may have been done simply to get a reaction. After protesting in front of Northwest and after calling the passengers on the flight racist, the imams decided to attempt to sue the unknown passengers that reported them. I have said all along that I felt this was a planned attempt to weaken security at airports and to make passengers question whether they should say something about suspicious activities. Remember, these imams were causing a disturbance on the plane; they weren’t simply sitting in their seats and minding their own business.

After the imams announced plans to file suit, lawmakers quickly passed measures in both the House and the Senate to protect people who report suspicious activity. However, Democrats in the House and Senate Committee tried to block this measure from part of a new homeland security bill. Senator Pat Leahy spoke against it for some time on the floor. Luckily, concerned members of both chambers have been able to keep the measure in the bill thus far. However, these same Democrats are now talking about limiting the number of amendments to this bill so they can target the John Doe measure for removal.

Today, Fox News reported that TSA officials have issued an alert to be on the lookout for terrorist attempting a dry run with explosive components. The TSA sites increased seizures of improvised components as one of the reasons to issue the alert. One example given was of a device that was seized in San Diego. The device consisted of a checked bag with two ice packs wrapped in duct tape. The gel had been removed from the packs and replaced with clay.

It would appear the terrorist mean what they say when the promise to attack us on U.S. soil again. Why would any elected official, Democrat or Republican, want to put our citizens at risk by not protecting them? Shouldn’t concerned citizens be protected when they are making a good faith effort to alert law enforcement and protect themselves and others? Why would we allow lawsuits that may make people cautious about reporting suspicious behavior? I simply can’t see any reason someone in our government would be against this measure.

Feminism vs. Muslim Women?

I have often wondered why some of the most vocal critics of America’s involvement in Iraq are some of those who would have the most to loose under Sharia law. Where would the ACLU, Moveon.org, and assorted gay rights groups be if they were forced to live under Sharia Law. I don’t understand why some of these groups don’t make a common cause with those fighting for the same rights in Iraq and the Middle East.

For example, under Muslim law, women have very few rights. While most citizens in the Middle East have very little influence over their government, many women are in even worse shape. How often have we seen articles in the news about honor killings? How many female genital mutilations are performed in the Middle East without the consent of the girl being exposed to this barbaric practice? How many girls are sentenced to prison because they were raped?

I recently read an article in the Weekly Standard from May of 2007 by Christina Hoff Sommers that ask some of these same questions. She asks why there aren’t more demonstrations here in the United States to help women in Muslim countries. Ms. Sommers points out, “[d]uring the 1980’s, there were massive demonstrations on American campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today’s campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world.” Ms. Sommers argues that while the, “…condition of Muslim women may be the most pressing women’s issue of our age...” too many feminist groups today are focused on attacking the United States and not on examining the condition of women outside of the U.S.

I did a random sampling of feminist groups in the United States to see if Ms. Sommers was being fair in her characterization of these groups. Very few of the websites I visited talked at all about women outside the United States. In a domestic violence study on the Center for the Advancement of Women, the group mentions talking to what it considers a diverse group: non-minority, African-American, Asian, Latina, adult and teenage women. Since the study does bring up religion, I was surprised there was no mention of Muslim women.

A more prominent group, The National Organization for Women (NOW), list as their top priorities: Abortion Rights / Reproductive Issues, Violence against Women, Constitutional Equality, Promoting Diversity / Ending Racism, Lesbian Rights, and Economic Justice. “Global Feminism” appears as bullet point five under “Other Important Issues”. You will be happy to know that at number four in this same category is “Fighting the Right”. Under “Global Feminism” the most recent article is dated October of 2006. I did a quick search on Google for “honor killings” and found articles on CNN, The Christian Science Monitor, and other sources much more recent than that.

However, not being active in any of these organizations, maybe I was missing something. Going back to the homepage for NOW, I looked to see what the most pressing issues facing today’s women are. The first article was “Breaking News: Cleavage on Display”. This insightful bit of reporting was referring to Hilary Clinton’s “brazen step” to wear a low neckline. Here is the link to the story if you think I am making this up. And this was the headline as of the writing of this article.

There are feminist movements active in the Middle East. Occasionally American feminist will try to help these movements only to be attacked by organizations such as NOW. In her article, Ms. Sommers points out that these movements are gaining some momentum, and that they don’t like what they see in their American counterparts. A 1998 book quoted in the article said that some Iraqi women’s advocates don’t like what they see as trying to divide men from women, and separating women from their family.

In her article, Mrs. Sommers points out, “A reviewer of Irshad Manji’s manifesto celebrating Islamic feminism aptly remarked, ‘This could be Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare.’ Ipso facto, it should be our fondest dream.” American Feminist should take a step back from the political parties and look at their own ideals. If women’s issues, and especially all women’s issues, are what their organizations are about, how can they not support an effort to provide women in the Middle East with a stable democracy to live in? Are feminist in these groups so against the Republican party and George Bush that they would want the women of the Middle East to live in conditions they would never, ever, dream of here in the U.S.?

To drive the point home, the cover of The Weekly Standard with Ms. Sommers article shows three women who are coverd except for their face and their hands. The center woman has some hair showing on the top of her head. The caption for this cover is "Government agents in Tehran warn a woman about her clothing and hair during a crackdown to enforce the regime's dress code, April 22, 2007." Is this really the environment that NOW wants women living in?

What Happens if We Leave Iraq?

There is a growing political argument to leave Iraq. Some Republicans have jumped ship to ask the President for a new course. The Senate exercised more political theatrics last night by staying up all night to debate calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. In the end, the bill failed. I think we have all seen a lot of debate on whether or not we should be in Iraq. But what would happen if we left?

As the war in Iraq has been fought, many have drawn comparisons with the U.S. war in Vietnam. At the end of the Vietnam War, the U.S. Military was winning on the ground. However, the political war was being lost. Much like then, our enemies in Iraq know that while they can’t beat our military, they can use our media to defeat our political will. There have been 3,600 military deaths in Iraq to date. For a “bloody civil war” that is a relatively low body count. The deaths in Iraq are nothing compared to what happened in Vietnam.

At the end of Vietnam, when our politicians voted to cut off all funding to our allies, there was an incredible blood bath. The North Vietnamese swept into South Vietnam and brutally killed and tortured untold numbers. The Khmer Rouge killed an estimated 2 million people in Cambodia. This was done in the name of giving the people of that region peace. Is this the peace we want for Iraq?

I think we should all take a step back and try to imagine a world where the President has given in to the demands of the Democratic Party and pulled out of Iraq. If we were to leave, Al-Queda and Iran would quickly carve up the pieces of Iraq they wanted like a Thanksgiving feast. Turkey would probably move in to grab the Kurdish area of Iraq. Iraqis would try to resist all of this. There would be violence in Iraq unlike anything we have seen there to date. Very likely, this violence would spread into the surrounding areas as well.

And in case you’re thinking, “That is tragic, but at least American soldiers won’t be trapped there anymore.” They wouldn’t be in Iraq, but they would still be in Afghanistan. What would that suddenly look like? Our enemies would draw their own comparisons. If they look back at our history, at Vietnam, at Beirut, at Somalia, and now at Iraq, what lesson would they learn? They would quickly learn that Osama bin Laden is right; if you hit the United States hard enough, it will walk away. If they study their history, what do you think they would do in Afghanistan? And how long before those same politicians who are now saying that we need to focus on Afghanistan decide that the death toll in Afghanistan is now too much?

People can argue on what the best course of action is in Iraq. Do we ignore the short term political gain for a possible long term gain with a stable Iraq? Do we stand by an ally and help to repair our image or do we live up to the “Paper Tiger” label? Do we decide that our military doesn’t know what it’s doing and 3,600 deaths is simply too many in war? And exactly what should we tell our allies that are now going to suffer violence we can only begin to imagine?

Visit Me at Textual Relations!

I have a post up at a site I just found called Textual Relations. This one is on some of the information coming out of Iraq. Drop by and let me know what you think. Also, let me know what you think of the site. I am always interested in what my readers think of the other sites I write for. If you like it, leave a comment, it might submit more stuff for them.

Global Cooling: A case study in Liberal Debate

A few weeks ago I posted a blog entry on a study by Canadian Geologist Dr. R. Timothy Patterson. In his study, Dr. Patterson used cores from Western Canadian fjords to argue that the sun is a primary driver behind Global Climate change on Earth. Dr. Patterson stated, "[o]ur finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change." The purpose of my reviewing Dr. Patterson's work was not to convince my readers that "global cooling" was imminent. My intent was to highlight the work of a respected scientist who disagrees with the theory of "man-made global warming".

I believe man doesn't know enough about how the planet works, or how we affect the planet, to know if we are causing global warming. I have stated I believe there needs to be more research in the field. If individuals wish to change their lifestyle based on a belief in global warming, then good for them. Legislating how we are to live based on a knee jerk reaction to unproven science is dangerous and can have far reaching and unintended consequences.

My call for more study and debate has been met with the typical liberal hysterics. The first negative response to my article was to attack the character and reputation of Dr. Patterson. That was quickly followed by the always nefarious insinuation that he got, "…money from the oil and gas industry." While the critic (who was unwilling to identify himself) quickly stated that this money didn't mean he is on the take, it was, "…interesting."

Finally, a critic posted a response saying that Dr. Patterson had been, "definitively proven wrong". This very high sounding claim was made from a Reuters review of an opposing scientific study. This new study argued that the sun could not alone account for the temperature changes from the last two decades. Since my critic had posted a link to this article, I read it for myself to see what they had to say about Dr. Patterson. I found that there were a few conditions put into the study that I didn't understand. For example, the study has apparently taken out sunspot data. Dr. Patterson's study seemed to include sunspot data. The study also stated that there was, "…little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the century, but… researchers said it could not explain recent warming." This seemed contradictory to me. How can the sun not be a cause in global warming, and still have been a factor in the first half of the century? This new study seemed to focus in on temperature changes since 1980. Instead of a 1 degree over 100 year change, we are now focusing in on a 0.4 degree change over 20 years. The researchers seem to argue that a portion of that 0.4 degree is accounted for by the sun, but the remainder is due to man. The article does not state what percent that may or may not be. I posed these questions to my readers.

The response from my anonymous critic was not any sort of response to the science, but a quick post attacking me and my statements. While I wouldn't expect to change an opinion based on one study, my critics have insulted me for not doing that. Would someone who believes in man-made global warming change their minds after reading one argument against the position?

My criticism on the "man-made global warming" debate is that many who support this view don't like to discuss the facts. They wish to present a study or two, or even fall back on the bastion of truth that is the United Nations, then insult anyone who disagrees with them. They will attack a dissenter's character, ideals, and even question their funding before they will begin to discuss the facts. I invite everyone to read my original post and the subsequent comments. Look at who presents facts, and debates the issues, and who simply attacks and calls everyone else names.

The Evil we face in Iraq

Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett have both talked about a story from Michael Yon's blog over the last couple of days. On Mr. Yon's blog, he lists a few other news sources that have run with the story. I was unable to find any of the big named media groups (except Fox News) on his list. This story needs to be reported and repeated until every American can repeat it word for word. Here is the part everyone is talking about:

The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man's words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, "What did he say?" Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

We are currently engaged in a war with enemies who are as evil as anything we have ever faced. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are all cut from the same cloth that made the Nazis and S. S. of World War II. Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden are kindred spirits cut from the same cloth. Democrats and some Republicans have been playing at being at war. It is time for America to realize exactly what it is up against.

This morning the New York Daily News ran an editorial by Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Hillary Clinton. The editorial is a great example of 9/10 thinking. I think it says a lot about a Presidential Candidate when she writes and editorial demanding we withdrawal from Iraq when there are atrocities like the one above being committed by our enemies. It says a lot about Mrs. Clinton that she would write an op-ed piece and share the byline with a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Mrs. Clinton and every Presidential candidate should proclaim that the United States will not allow this type of evil to attack Democracies.

This morning, after repeating the story of these families, Bill Bennett said that we must stay in Iraq even if we lose ten times as many soldiers as we have lost. I agree. We must commit this country to winning Iraq as if our own continuation depended on it. Democracies must protect other Democracies. As Dr. Bennett said, we cannot allow people like this to occupy the same planet as we do. Democracies must also protect mankind from the kind of evil that would commit this evil against another person. If the full plight of the Jewish people had been known during WW II, no one would have argued to withdraw from the War. How can we as sane people discuss withdrawing from this one, knowing what Al-Queda is likely to do when we leave?