Wednesday, April 30, 2008


Al Gore says that anyone who doubts global warming is the equivalent of someone who still thinks the earth is flat. In his mind and the minds of all the "climate change" miniions, to disbelieve in the dogma of global warming is sheer heresy, if not outright stupidity. They speak of the scientific "consensus" and how gobal warming is now accepted by all scientists with an IQ higher than an ice cube.

Well, the earth may not be flat, but Al Gore's brainwaves certainly are. The consensus in the scientific community that Gore so often speaks of, upon closer inspection, has little merit. A medical researcher named Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte studied a total of 528 peer reveiwed papers concerning global warming published between 2004 and 2007. What he discovered blows glacier-sized holes into Al Gore's 'consensus." Of the 528 papers published by scientists, only 45% unequivocally endorsed the theory of global warming.For some reason, Al failed to mention this in his recent "60 Minutes" interview.

So if you are one of those skeptics who is unconvinced the world is coming to an overheated end, you are not alone. Despite what Al Gore tells you, you are in the company of many of the world's most astute scientific thinkers.

Saturday, April 26, 2008


I hate to say I told you so, but I TOLD YOU SO! Back in November 2007 I posted an article about the boondoggle and scam that is the ethanol program and how it presented a potential danger to our food supply. Well, the danger has already materialized.

In this country and around the world, food prices are skyrocketing and shortages have begun to appear on food shelves. Even in the United States, a staple like rice has started to be rationed by some major retailers.One of the causes of the price hikes and shortages is the ever-increasing price of oil. The second reason is the rush to produce biofuels. It is not too difficult to see why we have escalating food prices for basic commodities. It takes 400 pounds of corn to produce 25 gallons of ethanol. Right now, 30% of our corn is being used, not for food, but for ethanol production.Tons of corn that would be going to feed people is now being diverted away from the market. As a result, the law of supply and demand kicks in and prices go up. And because corn prices are so high, farmers are devoting more acreage to growing corn, causing the supply of other crops like wheat and soybeans to decrease, which in turn makes their prices increase. Senator John McCain called our ethanol program "highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress."

Ethanol is a dubious alternative fuel for many reasons: It is expensive to produce; it costs more per gallon than gasoline; it gives less gas mileage than gasoline; it produces less horsepower than gasoline. In addition, we now know it is reeking havoc with our food supply.

This all boils down to one basic question. Do we want to raise crops to feed human beings, or do we want to raise crops to put in the gas tanks of our cars? Human deprivation and starvation is a mighty high price to pay for fuel.

Thursday, April 24, 2008


Going into the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Barack Obama is still the frontrunner for Democrat presidential candidate. When the feverish primary campaigning and debates began early in 2007, the pundits had all but sent out invitation to Hilllary Clinton's coronation.A substantial number of Americans didn't even know who the hell Barack Obama was. Now he's on the verge of running for president. The big question is: Should he get his party's nomination, can an African American be elected President of the United States in 2008?

Obama's main support has come from African Americans (no surprise) who have given him 95% of their votes.His second largest block of supports have been young people, particularly those of college age. But to win in November, he would require support from a much broader section of the electorate. That gives rise to a second question: How many white Americans are prepared to cast their presidential vote for a black man?

It is one thing to cast a vote for an African American in a primary contest; afterall, it doesn't put him in the White House; it merely makes him eligible for residency. It is quite another thing to cast a vote in a general election, where the votes do determine the next White House occupant. Given the history of this country, I truly believe that when it comes time to cast that vote, many white Americans will have second thoughts and serious misgivings about casting their vote for an African American.

The polls, in my opinion, will not give an accurate picture.Cowed by political correctness and a desire to avoid coming off like a racist and bigot, I believe many whites will tell pollsters that they would cast a vote for Obama. As a result, virtually all the polls will overestimate the strength of Obama's support among white voters. I am not suggesting that the vast majority of white Americans are racially biased and will cast their vote on the basis of skin color. I am saying that a signifigant number of whites will vote on that basis.

Of course there are many diverse factors and issues other than race that will influence a person's choice of candidate. What we can be sure of is race has been and will continue to be a major issue in the political life of America.

Thursday, April 10, 2008


Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi--among others--is urging President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in China this summer. There are also a number of people who say we should completely boycott the competition like we did in 1980. This is one of those extremely rare instances where I find myself in agreement with Speaker Pelosi. Given the recent incidents of violence against Tibet, along with China's generally abysmal track record of violating basic human rights, a Presidential boycott of the opening ceremonies would be the appropriate symbolic gesture to the Chinese government and the rest of the world. Given that we consider our country to be the bastion of liberty and human rights, it would appear inconsistent for the President to attend the ceremonies, and thereby indirectly paying tribute to this repressive Marxist regime.

What do we have to lose by not attending? Is President Bush afraid of offending the political leaders who brutalize and terrorize their own citizens? And what if they are offended? Are they going to stop trading with us, their number one buyer of Chinese goods? Are they going to turn off the flow of billions of our dollars into their country?

The next logical step would seem to be a complete boycott of the Olympics; however, to do so would be to interfere with the lives of thousands of American athletes. Olympians devote their lives to the competition. They spend years in hard work, intense training, pain and sacrifice all for the hope of basking in the Olympic spotlight of athletic glory. The government has no right to trounce on those dreams. It should be left to the individual conscience of each competitor to decide whether or not they will compete.

The root of the problem lies with the Olympic Committee. They should have never awarded the Games to a country that spits on human rights. Tens of thousands of ordinary Chinese have been ruthlessly uprooted from their homes for the sole purpose of constructing the necessary infrastructure for the Games. Their suffering and anquish rests not only on the shoulders of the Chinese government, but on the Olympic Committee as well.

The Olympics should be hosted only by countries whose governments recognize and respect the rights of their citizens. The Games are about celebrating and rewarding
individual human acheivement. To award the Games to a country like China is to denigrate the spirit that symolizes the best that human beings can be.