By Richard Larsen

I’ve never been a great fan of the comedian George Carlin. His politics were dubious and his take on religion was an unmitigated attack on anyone of faith. That combined with more than his share of expletives made listening to an uncensored routine by him in his later years unbearable. Those objections aside, he did provide his share of laughs over the years.

Many from my generation will recall his role as the Hippy-Dippy Weatherman from routines on The Tonight Show. One of my favorite lines from that role was his weather forecast, “Tonight’s forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning.”

Always the master of new insights to the obvious, he brilliantly captured the illogic of human theory regarding some of the most elementary truths of life. One that he nailed precisely was the radical environmental movement, and he revealed the illogic of the movement in a fashion only he could.

Quoting from his routine, Carlin said, “Let me tell you about endangered species, all right? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control nature. It’s arrogant meddling. It’s what got us in trouble in the first place. Doesn’t anybody understand that? Interfering with nature. Over 90% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone. They’re extinct. We didn’t kill them all. They just disappeared. That’s what nature does. We’re so self-important. Everybody is going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What?

“I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths, people trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. There is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are (bleep). The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. It’s been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little more than 200 years.

“Two hundred years versus four and a half billion, and we have the conceit to think that somehow we’re a threat, that somehow we’re going to put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us, been through all kinds of things worse than us, been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. We are! We’re going away.”

That’s the inimitable George Carlin putting into perspective the arrogance of man, while at the same time, trying to maintain that we’re all simply products of nature.

When you think about it, the ideologies are all wrong here. Those who are most adamant from a secular perspective that we all evolved from the primordial slime with a few proteins adapting to form our world and humankind are the ones who think we can control nature. While those of us who believe that we were created by God seem to be the ones mostly cognizant of the fact that we are part of nature and we’re not omniscient and omnipotent and can’t control it. What a perplexing dichotomy! You would think the ideologies would be swapped.

Now let’s apply the radical lunacy Carlin identified to a real-life scenario, and voila, we have the 2008 Democratic National Convention! Vowing to make the convention the “greenest” in history, they’ve struggled to find the necessary accoutrements to make the convention environmentally friendly and politically correct. To pull this off, the DNC hired an official “Director of Greening,” longtime environmental activist Andrea Robinson.

They need the balloons to be biodegradable, as well as everything else used in the convention. Ms. Robinson hired an Official Carbon Adviser, who will measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every discarded coffee cup.

They’ve ruled out fried food, and every meal must include “at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and while.” They’ve also stipulated that 70% of the ingredients should be organic, or grown locally to cut down on shipping emissions.

I have a sneaky, uneasy feeling that this is what we can expect if these clowns ever completely run the country.

It’s really too bad Carlin graduated from mortality when he did: he could have had a lifetime of new comedy routines from just this one event!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Mark Twain provided many invaluable insights into American life. Time has only validated the veracity of many of his truisms. In his inimitable way, Twain once declared, “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress…But then I repeat myself.”

Many statements coming from the Democratic leadership in Congress this past week proved once again how correct Twain was. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barak Obama all parroted this week, “We can’t drill ourselves out of this problem,” referring to $135 per barrel oil prices. This was in response to President Bush and John McCain calling for expanded drilling on the outer continental shelf. Since when has increased supply not eased demand and pricing issues? We absolutely can drill ourselves out of this mess! Increased supply and reduced consumption are always solutions to market scarcities.

Crude oil production in the United States has declined 40 percent over the past 25 years even though demand has soared. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 75 billion barrels of oil have been precluded from drilling due to Congressional action over that period. That oil would be enough to replace all of our imported oil, excluding Canada and Mexico, for over 22 years. World oil demand is projected to increase by 40% over the next 22 years, and U.S. demand projected to increase by 28%, and yet Congress’ solution is to claim “we can’t drill our way out” and tax the oil companies more!

I find it unbelievable that Venezuela and China can drill 60 miles off the Florida coast but the U.S. cannot because of the power of the environmental lobby. Why is it that the Democratic Congress will not allow U.S. oil companies, empirically the most environmentally sensitive oil companies in the world, access to these areas but will allow Venezuela and China access, when they have the most abysmal records of environmental sensitivity? The argument against expanded drilling is obviously not based on environmental concerns.

Further evidence of the imbecility of Congressional Democrats on the oil issue was provided courtesy of Sen. Charles Schumer a few weeks ago. He said that even if we drilled in ANWAR it would only affect the pump price of gas by a penny. Yet when the President went to visit Saudi Arabia Schumer said if the President could convince them to increase output of 1 million barrels a day it should drop the price of gas by $.50. That is the same output potential from ANWAR, and yet he, and other obstructionists on Capital Hill continue to get away with such duplicity and idiocy. If we had started drilling there in the ‘90s when it first passed Congress, we would now have more control over our own oil production while working on viable alternative sources of energy.

Instead, what is their solution? Impose a “windfall profit tax” on the oil companies. What is that likely to do? Is that going to decrease oil and gas prices? Of course not! If they’re going to be taxed at a higher level, they have to pass on the cost of those increased taxes to their customers. Do none of these people understand economics?

And while we’re at it, let’s define what a “windfall profit” is. According to any legitimate financial dictionary, a windfall profit is “a sudden unexpected profit uncontrolled by the profiting party.” Oil companies, although they do not control the price of crude oil anymore than ethanol companies control the price of corn, they do have an impact on the pricing at the consumer level. Not only are the oil companies not engaged in “windfall profits,” but their profit margins lag behind most other industries represented by the S&P 500. And with the steady increase in oil demand and the finite availability of crude, current profit margins can hardly be classified as “sudden.”

In a free market system, supply and demand determine prices. However, in a commodity based industry like oil, commodity prices determine costs to the consumer. They are not “fixed” by oil companies, nor are they governed by OPEC. Gas prices we pay are driven by commodities traders who buy and sell contracts on crude oil based at least in part on perceived global supply and demand. These commodity prices determine the oil companies’ replacement cost for the gas currently being distributed.

If Congress authorized increased domestic drilling, even the short-term price of gasoline would likely improve because the futures prices are affected in large part by perceptions of supply and demand. With the anticipated increased domestic production, prices would start to drop.

It would appear that the Democrats in Congress are in a full-court press to make the country as miserable as possible to ensure a victory in November. And even if they win they will not change their position on domestic oil production since they’re so firmly in the back pocket of the environmental lobby. The no drill, no refining, no nuclear energy Democrats obviously want us to pay more for energy, more for government, more in taxes of all types. If they take control, our modest .6% growth rate for the first quarter of 08 will look like a roaring economy!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

According to the Associated Press, Bradley Stowell (below right), a 36-year-old man with a history of sexually abusing more than two dozen minors, has been released from prison and, according to Idaho’s Sex Offender Registry, is now living in Boise at 1703 S. Jackson St., near the intersection of Overland Road and Roosevelt Street, one block east of the Hillcrest Country Club.

He was convicted in 1998 of the molestation of two brothers, who were attending a Boy Scout camp in eastern Idaho where Stowell was serving as a camp counselor. Although according to state law he could have - and should have - been sent away for up to 25 years, he was out of prison soon enough to violate his probation in 2005 (for viewing pornography and hanging around with children) and be sent back to a prison for a 2-to-14 year stretch. But he served just three years of that sentence, and was released despite the recommendation of a hearing officer that he is still a risk and should remain behind bars.

Last December, Stowell’s hearing officer “strongly” recommended that Stowell be denied parole, and added these ominous words: “If Mr. Stowell is released into society, he will simply victimize more young and innocent children in Idaho. To protect the parents and children of Idaho, Mr. Stowell’s continued incarceration remains vital.”

As a side note, this tragic incident confirms that the Boy Scouts are absolutely right to “discriminate” against homosexuals who want to serve as Scout leaders. The rate of pedophilia among homosexuals is up to sixteen times as high as among heterosexuals (homosexuals comprise just 3% of the population but are responsible for between 34% and 40% of all instances of child sexual abuse), and the BSA has a right and a responsibility to protect the young boys under its care from predatory adults.

If the Democrat Party, Boise Mayor David Bieter, Republican Sen. Tim Corder, and the Idaho Human Rights Commission have their way next year, another effort will be made to provide special protections on the basis of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” putting the Boy Scouts directly in the crosshairs of radical homosexual activists. If such a law passes, the BSA in Idaho will be hauled into court for making any effort to protect the young boys in their care from homosexual predators like Bradley Stowell.

Bottom line: Stowell has already been released from prison twice in less than a decade for committing unspeakable crimes against children.

As the father of the two Scouts said, “Three years in prison does not compensate for 10 years of molestation and terror.”

Idaho still does not have a mandatory minimum sentence for a first-time sex crime against a child. “Jessica’s Law” statutes (named for Jessica Lunsford, right, raped and murdered at age nine) in many states now impose a minimum 25-year sentence on any adult who is convicted for the first time of violating the sexual innocence of a child.

And as Stowell’s case illustrates, perpetrators are rarely caught and convicted for their first offense. Stowell himself admits that he had victimized two dozen other children before finally being caught and convicted. Each pedophile who receives his first conviction has almost certainly left a trail of other victims, damaged for life psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, and physically, in his wake.

But Idaho lawmakers, beginning with the governor, resist passing a Jessica’s Law in Idaho for one reason and one reason alone: money. The administration estimates it would cost $279 million over the next 25 years to implement a Jessica’s Law here, primarily due to the need for more prison space.

But $279 million is only slightly more than the $240 million in increased funding the governor claims we need for just one year of road-building in the Gem State.

In other words, if just one year’s funding for roads is directed into the prison system, the Jessica’s Law funding issue will be largely resolved.

I remain convinced that most of Idaho’s moms and dads would gladly dodge potholes for an extra year to see their children protected from the likes of Bradley Stowell. And the parents of his next victims - and according to his hearing officer, there will be more - will be outraged that Idaho’s public officials cared more about pavement than kids.

Please call Governor Butch Otter today at (208) 334-2100 with a simple, courteous and firm message: “It’s time for Jessica’s Law in Idaho.” You may email him at governor@gov.idaho.gov.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

One of the side affects of a horrendously out-of-control county budget is the fact that the Assessor’s office has to generate the tax revenue to pay for it. With apparent questionable operations and the lack of ethical guidelines and competence previously characteristic of the Assessor’s office, the County has been able to generate the necessary property valuations to meet the budgetary demands of a 30% increase in the County budget this year.

This past week I’ve visited with dozens of individuals who have had dealings with the Assessor’s office, and the emerging picture is downright ugly. Having been run with competence and fairness for years under the leadership of Diane Bilyeu, it is now a veritable cess pool of cronyism, incompetent leadership, retribution against taxpayers, and unethical operations.

Since Jo Lynn Anderson took the helm at the Assessor’s office, the department has steadily declined in professionalism and competence. According to the State Tax Commission, the office is out of compliance with state guidelines, and it appears it will be so again this year. After two years of being out of compliance, the state can intervene to remedy the situation and the County can lose State revenue. That appears likely to occur.

Our current Assessor and her assistants, “the management,” have refused repeated offers to receive management training to improve operations. She came into the office with no management or assessment experience other than drawing maps for 35 years for the department. Consequently, the de facto managers of the office are her assistants. Jo Lynn also no longer attends Idaho Association of County Assessor’s meetings since they sometimes go into Executive Session where only Assessors can attend, and since Jo Lynn has no functioning knowledge of the appraisal business, she won’t attend those without her assistants.

Much of the problem seems to be the hostile work environment that the management has created. The professional appraisers who are or have been there have been coerced to perform unethical adjustments to assessments contrary to standards of the industry. The appraisers’ reluctance to make such adjustments created significant tension between them and management, and has resulted in the loss of all but two certified real property appraisers and one manufactured home appraiser, where there should be at least seven altogether. The Assessor has hired unqualified friends and political supporters who draw pay at the high end of their scale. The Assessor brags that the reason they receive such high compensation is because she brought in so much revenue for the County last year.

The Assessor’s office is required to abide by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) developed by the Appraisal Standards Board (ASB). These standards mandate equitable and ethical appraisal of property values. Yet my research consistently turned up examples of excessive valuations next to properties virtually unaffected by reassessment, in spite of more improvements made to the neighboring properties. Also contrary to USPAP standards, if the Assessor’s office can’t gain access to a residential property, management has instructed department appraisers to value the property with a half-finished basement. When the reluctant appraisers were told to engage in these unethical practices, the issue was forced by telling them they have to do it “because I’m management.”

Commercial assessments are now being done by an appraiser not trained or experienced in commercial appraisal. This has created profound inequity in assessments in similar properties throughout the county, significantly higher than similar properties in neighboring cities.

When the rare successful appeal of an assessment rescinds the Assessor’s valuation, an attitude of retribution is assumed. Within earshot of many witnesses, a member of the management team told one taxpayer who was successful in his appeal, “We’ll get you next time you son-of-a-b****.” And to another, “You got me this time, but we’ll get even.” One of them, after a successful appeal by a residential taxpayer, inquired “How quickly can I go after (taxpayers’ name) again?” Management demanded a $20,000 higher assessment on a residential property declaring, “He’s a tax crybaby and he needs to learn a lesson.”

We all saw the headlines earlier this week of how the Assessor’s office is attempting to “tax-rape” ON Semiconductor. This is unacceptable, and all too characteristic of how the Assessor’s office now operates. If something isn’t done immediately to remedy the situation, Bannock County will be decimated. Retirees will be forced out of their homes, residents forced to relocate outside of the county, and businesses forced to close their doors because of the exorbitant tax rates. It would be disastrous if ON closed shop here because of property taxes. And we’re dreaming if we think new businesses will be willing to locate here when they get a whiff of what’s happening with property taxes.

I don’t think we can wait for two more years when the Assessor’s term ends. It’s time for a recall and time to clean up the Assessor’s Office!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

After going through the anguish of the trial for the brutal murder of young Samantha Mayer, her family will now have to face the agony of going through another sentencing trial after the Idaho Supreme Court set aside his death sentence.

In the course of vacating the sentence, the Court kicked the Bible out of Idaho’s judicial system for good measure.

The murderer, Darrell Payne, was found guilty of the kidnapping, rape and murder of Mayer, a BSU coed, and has been on death row since 2002. In truth, he should have been executed six years ago, satisfying the demands of justice and allowing Samantha’s family to find closure and some measure of peace.

In the summer of 2000, Payne had previously sexually assaulted two 14-year-old girls in Barber Park and raped another Boise woman in her apartment before abducting and murdering Mayer while she was on her way to class early that fall.

The Court’s ruling recounts the brutal and heinous nature of his crime. According to the ruling, which you may read at the link following this column, the murderer forced his young victim into her own car at gunpoint and then raped her, “leaving bruises, cuts and scrapes on her face, back and buttocks.”

Then, after raping her, he shot her in the back of the head, tossed her body in the back seat of her car, drove her back to his home and dumped her body in a concrete drainage tank containing water and garbage, after putting a plastic bag over her head. When her body was found, she was found with her clothing leaving her body in a sexually exposed position.

He then went into his house, ate some left-over pizza, took the victim’s keys, purse and credit cards and took a drive to the Oregon coast. If there ever was a man who without question deserves to die, and deserved to die six years ago, Darrell Payne is it.

But, according to the Idaho Supreme Court, District Judge Thomas Neville impermissibly allowed victim impact statements from individuals other than Samantha’s immediate family, allowed them to express their opinions of Payne and the sentence he deserved, and quoted the Bible in support of the death penalty.

Samantha’s family members and friends, whose lives were utterly devastated by her inhumane murder, variously described Payne, according to the ruling, as “evil, a waste of aspirin, a sociopath, a cold-blooded killer, unremorseful, a predator, cold and calculating, not a man, not even human, selfish, a coward, a pathetic monster, a wimp and a man without a conscience.”

Anybody got a problem with that? If your daughter were kidnapped, raped, murdered and dumped in a concrete tank by a guy who then had a spot of lunch and used your daughter’s car and credit cards to take a jaunt to the coast, I believe you’d think - and be willing to say - much the same thing. And you would be convinced that your opinion regarding what should be done to the man who wantonly took the life of your daughter should count for something in our system of justice.

Well, the Court ruled that “none of these statements were admissible,” and set aside his death sentence on the grounds that such statements were impermissibly “inflammatory.” The Court added insult to injury by emphasizing in the text of their ruling that victim impact testimony took a full day, as if her family and friends did not even deserve eight hours of the court’s time to describe their loss.

Further, the Court ruled that friends of the family should not have been permitted to recount the impact of the crime on them, even though they were as ravaged by the crime as Samantha’s immediate family.

Two of the disallowed impact statements were from Samantha’s best friends, both of whom were in her wedding, and will experience this tragic loss for the rest of their lives.

And then to add frosting to this sorry cake, the Court unanimously ruled, even though every homicide statute in the United States is founded upon the Sixth Commandment, that the mention of any passages from the Bible that call for the death penalty for murder is likewise inadmissible since they represent “calls to religious authority as the basis for punishment.”

Samantha’s own father, in his victim impact statement, was the one who told the court, “Numbers 35:16 states, ‘If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.’”

He also quoted the words of Deuteronomy 22:25: “But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.”

When a father cannot appeal to Scripture in asking for justice for his own murdered daughter our courts are on the verge of losing any pretext to moral authority they might have.

As Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel has said, “Citations to the incorporation of this Commandment (’You shall not murder’) from colonial times to the present are legion. Courts have been very candid in tracing the prohibition against murder back to the Sixth Commandment.”

Well, if such declarations are “inadmissible,” our system of justice has no proper foundation at all because the Founders based our entire system of government on a “call to religious authority,” the conviction that our civil rights - which include Samantha’s right to life - are gifts to us from our Creator.

If the Court were to be consistent on this matter, it would have to prevent any American citizen or attorney from so much as even referring to the Declaration of Independence in a court of law.

Forcing Samantha’s family to relive their pain in a second sentencing hearing strikes me as cruel and unusual all by itself. Where do they go for justice and fairness?
The victim’s father, Paul Blomberg, told the Idaho Statesman, “We want to move on with our lives, and we can’t do that until this is over.”
Justice and compassion are two sides of the same coin. When justice is done, when perpetrators are adequately punished for their crimes, it provides some expression of compassion and closure for those who loved the victim. Injustice, on the other hand, as we have here, is a gross form of hardheartedness toward the victim’s family and friends and shows no appreciation or regard for their pain and suffering.

Injustice instead inflicts a fresh cycle of agony and heartache on the victim’s family and shows an inexcusable preference for the so-called rights of callous killers.

It appears that the Court primarily cited previous court rulings rather than the law itself in its opinion. Perhaps it’s time to scrap bad precedent and go back to the law itself.

Whether or not the “law” and precedent dictated the outcome of the Court I will leave to those with more knowledge of technicalities and loopholes in code.

What I do know is that even if the “law” has been upheld, justice has not been done.

And since the only purpose of law is the implementation of justice, something is badly, badly wrong with this picture.

Idaho Supreme Court: Idaho v. Payne

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

FRESH DAWN FOR IDAHO GOP: SEMANKO JUMPS INTO RACE FOR CHAIRMAN

Former congressional candidate Norm Semanko sent a widely distributed email out last night indicating that he will allow his name to be placed in nomination for the chairmanship of the Idaho Republican Party at this weekend’s state convention in Sandpoint.

He has, correctly in my view, determined that current chairman Kirk Sullivan does not have the support necessary to be re-elected. Despite the frantic and occasionally heavy-handed tactics of the governor’s office and others to prop Sullivan up, his support among grassroots Republicans has evaporated.

The grassroots wants closed primaries, and have made that abundantly clear by repeated votes that should have been binding on Mr. Sullivan’s actions, but were not. Thumbing his nose at his own party faithful, Sullivan has obstructed every effort to close the primaries, including delaying obligatory legal action long enough to make sure no ruling could be issued until after this weekend’s GOP state convention.

He even had the audacity to declare in a televised interview on primary night that he remains unconvinced that a closed primary is a good idea, as if the decision was his to make, once again displaying an elitist disdain for the will of the people that has infuriated the party faithful.

GOP headliners have been planning all along to attempt to reverse the party rule on closed primaries at this year’s convention, and I expect that effort will now collapse with Semanko’s announcement. The party faithful have made it abundantly clear that they are insistent on closing party primaries, and I believe Semanko will honor their decision.

Sullivan has further angered social conservatives in the party by making efforts to remove God and pro-family planks from the state GOP platform.

Indications are that Sullivan will refuse to step aside, and a loss to Semanko at the state convention would be an embarrassing public defeat not only for him for the entire party establishment, which has expended its not inconsiderable resources in what is likely to prove an unsuccessful attempt to prop him up.

A Sullivan victory at the state convention - by best accounts an unlikely prospect - would be sure to fracture the party and tempt many disgruntled conservatives to disengage from the party altogether.

The smartest and wisest course of action would be for the governor to ask Sullivan to step down in the interest of party unity in the present and party effectiveness in the future.

Word on the street is that Semanko may receive some high profile endorsements today from leading conservatives in the party, which is likely to seal Sullivan’s defeat.

Should Rod Beck step aside in deference to Semanko, as he has indicated he will, the path will be clear for Semanko to be elected to the position of party chair, perhaps by acclamation, which would serve as the first step on the road to restoring party unity.

Semanko is an unapologetic fiscal and social conservative, is universally well-liked, and will make sure that everybody plays by the rules and is treated fairly and evenhandedly, whether they are party commanders or foot soldiers. This will ensure a level playing field for all and relieve the agitation among conservatives who watched as Sullivan blockaded the clear will of party regulars, refused to enforce party rules in order to help his favored candidates for office, and blocked others from full participation in the party process.

Semanko’s election to the post of party chairman will represent a clear and unambiguous victory for conservative principles in the party, and a major step toward returning Idaho’s GOP to its fundamental principles of fiscal and social conservatism.

There is still time for the Idaho GOP to avoid the catastrophe that has befallen the party at the national level, which has lost power and credibility because it has abandoned conservative principles of governance.

This convention may be the last and best chance for conservatives to regain leadership of the Republican Party in the Gem State and return it to its roots.

The possibility now exists that the Idaho GOP, from the top down, can once again become the advocate for smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal restraint and family values that Idaho citizens need and deserve.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

Let’s start this discussion by admitting a very wrong guess. We have written in this column months ago that Hillary Clinton was all but certain to be the Democrat nominee. It would take a lot of energy and a determined interest to know how on earth she managed to squander a huge opening advantage. But she did, and it probably doesn’t matter much to the pro-Life movement because Barack Obama is every bit as committed to killing the innocent as Clinton. (Maybe some smart guy will write a decent book as an offering to political junkies explaining her melodramatic implosion).

So here we are: Obama versus McCain.

There will plenty of weeks to discuss this race. For today, let’s consider the drama unfolding around Obama’s pick for Vice-President.

One of the folks being touted as an alternative to the Hillary VP disaster is Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. Media pundits correctly point to the fact that Sebelius comes from a leaning Republican state in the Midwest; she is a woman – and she is not Hillary Clinton.Those are all credible facts in Sebelius’ favor.

But those same media analysts go to the next level and describe her as some sort of “moderate”.

That will be a hard sell.

The most damaging thing we’re aware of is her symbiotic relationship with George Tiller – America’s most notorious abortionist. He is credited with providing much of the campaign finance to her first election. She has reciprocated by doing much to protect him from criminal prosecution for his flouting of Kansas law prohibiting late term abortions. (Her latest act was to appoint a pro-abortion Attorney General who has worked overtime to keep records away a Grand Jury investigating allegations against Tiller).

Now a new scandal has emerged: Sebelius feted George Tiller and his abortion clinic staff at the Governor’s Mansion in April of 2007 – while Tiller was under criminal investigation. To make matters worse, this political fundraising event was paid for by taxpayers until a pro-Life group forced the issue just two weeks ago.

While McCain has shown no disposition toward using the bully-pulpit to defend preborn children, he may be moved to do so should Obama be foolish enough to select Sebelius.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Here we are on the verge of a possible recession (we haven’t had two quarters or even one quarter of negative GDP growth), and in the midst of an energy crisis with $135 oil, and what was Congress debating this week? A tax that will hit the economy from $1.7 to $4.8 trillion, and cost the average American family up to $3,726 per year! Such legislation will, if eventually passed, virtually ensure an ongoing recession by adversely affecting national GDP by 2 to 3% per year according to Time magazine, which inexplicably thinks it’s a good idea.

The Warner-Lieberman bill, the so-called cap and trade bill would have done that, and probably more. After all, when was the last time a government program cost projection was accurate? This bill, defeated by the Senate, was heralded by mainstream media, and certain politicians, as “bold national policy” designed to reduce carbon emissions and “contain climate change.” Yet even in the best-case scenario, the potential climatic impact would be a change in global average temperatures by about 1/100 of a degree between now and 2030. Who in their right mind would think that’s a cost-effective use of tax-payer money? Apparently a bunch of Federal legislators and many in the mainstream media fall into that inane category. It really makes me wonder what has happened to common sense in politics. It obviously is a rare commodity on Capital Hill and is declining as precipitously as Congressional approval numbers.

Cap and trade legislation forcibly lowers carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by placing limits, or caps, on companies that emit CO2, and affords a mechanism for them to trade or buy credits from companies that are under those limits. By creating such a mechanism, utilities and companies emitting less than the limit could sell credits to companies over the limit, which would have to buy the right to emit more CO2. The net affect on the environment is negligible, but the potential to drive energy related costs higher and higher is significant, according to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

MIT published a study earlier this year that estimated the cost of implementing such a system would cost $3,500 to the average American family of four by creating a massive tax on energy that is then passed on to consumers including a 44% increase in the cost of electricity. The NAM estimates the impact on the cost of gasoline would be as much as an additional $5.00 per gallon by 2030. That means if this bill was in effect now, gas would cost $9.00 per gallon.

Even if the CO2 emissions are reduced as predicted, based on the “science” of the proponents, the impact on the global environment is a decrease of 0.013 degrees of “prevented warming,” according to the National Center for Public Policy Research. Look at it this way, if you were buying a car, and the salesman said it may or may not run, and even if it did, it may not function the way it was designed to, would you dish out $3,500 for that car?

What makes much more sense is to do the same thing we did last year. Global temperatures dropped by 0.7 degree Celsius last year. That decline actually eradicates the increase of the past 100 years, according to all three monitoring agencies. So what did we do to achieve such a drop in global temperatures? Aside from individual conservation, we did nothing. Could it be that climate temperatures actually fluctuate regardless of mankind’s CO2 emissions?

The fundamental premise of this kind of legislation must be rejected. That premise seems to be that we can “save the planet” by reducing our carbon footprint. There is no underlying science that proves we can do so. Secondly, we must learn from the mistakes of Europe which has implemented cap and trade policies. The three years of Europe’s experiment has been a disaster both from an environmental perspective and economically, according to the UK Times.

Let’s consider a few facts. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas in the atmosphere that is measured in parts per million, or ppm. The vast majority of CO2 emissions, about 97 percent, comes from Mother Nature, including what we humans exhale.

CO2 is nowhere near the most important greenhouse gas; water vapor holds that distinction. An astounding 99.9 percent of Earth’s greenhouse gas effect has nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions. If measured on a football field, man-made CO2 would amount to less than a centimeter.

The Warner-Lieberman bill has been defeated but it was a dress rehearsal for another version next year, especially if Congress moves more to the left in the November elections. These efforts amount to draconian command-and-control attacks against our quality of life under the auspices of environmentalism. The underlying premises are flawed, and the recommended measures can virtually destroy the American economy. Unilateral disarmament was wrong militarily; and cap-and-trade legislation amounts to unilateral economic disarmament.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

History oftentimes is whitewashed through the lens polished by hindsight. People and events of any given time can seem inconsequential, but in retrospect, loom large in identifying causal events from a historical perspective.
The administration of JFK has been largely whitewashed as a “Camelot” presidency due in large part to its tragic premature termination. Some of that revisionist history is justified in light of subsequent events, but some is not.

The continuing flap over Senator Barak Obama’s assertion that he would be willing to meet unconditionally, yet with preparation, with any world leader, including those who seek to harm the United States, prompted one such opportunity for historical revisionism. The Senator defended his position, “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.” He went on to state, “When Kennedy met with Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war.”

Historically, this is incorrect. The tendency is to envision a handsome, youthful President Kennedy facing the enemy of freedom, the Premier of the Soviet Union. However, the historical reality is far different. Kennedy’s faceoff with Nikita Khrushchev in June of 1961 was disastrous and actually led to an escalation of the Cold War, the construction of the Berlin Wall, led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as an escalation of the Vietnam War.

Just months into his administration, President Kennedy wanted desperately to visit face to face with the Soviet Premier. In his inaugural address in January, 1961, he declared, “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” With that as his foreign affairs theme, he was convinced that he could approach the totalitarian leader in a way not done before, and that he could have success in bridging some of the ideological chasms separating the two because of his intellect and eloquence.

Most of Kennedy’s senior advisors counseled the President not to meet with Khrushchev. Dean Rusk, then Secretary of State, queried, “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?” George Kennan, Truman’s Ambassador to the Soviet Union, counseled Kennedy to not rush so quickly without qualifications into such a meeting. He argued that Khrushchev had ramped up his rhetoric against the U.S., appeared to be more aggressively confrontational, and that the current pressing issues between the two countries should be handled by diplomats through the State Department.

As Nathan Thrall and Jesse Wilkins recently wrote, “Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, and cautioned America against supporting ‘old, moribund, reactionary regimes.’ Khrushchev used the opportunity to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was ‘very unwise’ for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.”

The face-to-face with the Soviet Premier was an unmitigated disaster. Diplomats on both sides of the table offered the same assessment. One of Khrushchev’s aides recorded that Kennedy seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev himself said of the two-day meeting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak,” and returned to Moscow elated at his newfound elevated position of advantage, and extremely unimpressed at the naïveté and seeming impotence of the new President.

Kennedy’s self-appraisal was no less severe. He said of Khrushchev, “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts.”

The consequences of this humiliating diplomatic effort could not have been foreseen. Just a few months later, Khrushchev ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall, and a few more months after that, authorized the shipping of nuclear missiles to Cuba to, as he phrased it, “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants.”

There can be no doubt that Kennedy’s weakness contributed significantly to Khrushchev’s perception that he could build the wall and install nuclear missiles off our Southern coast. As a result, Berlin was divided by a wall for nearly half a century and we were brought to the brink of a nuclear Armageddon in spite of Kennedy’s intelligence and articulation. It could therefore be argued that these events were precipitated because of Kennedy’s hubris and his self-perceived ability to persuade. To counter this weakness, Kennedy resolved that he wouldn’t get pushed around by the Soviets any more, and determined to make his stand in Southeast Asia. The rest is regrettable history.

A profound reminder to those who seek political office: “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

The very close win by Justice Horton on Tuesday represents a narrow escape for Idaho families.

We need only watch the evening news to see the disaster being constructed by judicial revolutionaries in California and New York to realize the magnitude of trouble committed liberals on the bench can bring to quiet, unsuspecting villages.

John Bradbury, a closet liberal, nearly pulled off a startling upset.

His television ads were brilliantly manipulative. He plugged into conservative anger over the manipulation by Idaho’s elites of the judicial election process. Bradbury hoped to focus conservative anger at Horton – a beneficiary of the appointment game that has been out of control for several years now. And it almost worked.

With over 149,000 votes cast on Tuesday, Bradbury lost by just 196 votes.

He would be getting ready for a pretty new robe if it weren’t for the diligence of our friend, Pastor Bryan Fischer, at the Idaho Values Alliance. We have partnered with him for several years on the Gem State Voter Guide – and it was Bradbury’s answers to this year’s survey which provided the dimmest insight into exactly how Judge Bradbury would reign from the Supreme Court.

While there were very limited resources to get the word out about Bradbury, the fact is enough conservatives learned that he was hard-core judicial activist from the Voter Guide to make good our narrow escape.

This situation puts a focus on how essential the Voter Guide project is, and to the need for meaningful reform of our judicial election process. Idaho’s legislative leaders must pay greater attention to this problem in coming sessions.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.