IF YOU SCRATCH a Democrat this year, you will probably find someone who feels like they are waking up out of a bad dream, the bad dream of 28 years of conservative backlash against rational, progressive governance.

To put it another way, Democrats have learned nothing from the last 30 years. They still believe in top-down expert-led central government programs to organize and direct the commanding heights of the economy, politics, and the culture.

But here’s my prediction. After Barack Obama gets elected president and the Dems increase their majorities in Congress they are going to get a wake-up call. Americans really don’t know what they want, but they don’t want liberals bossing them around.

Here are four issues that show the Dems just don’t get it.

Universal Pre-K It’s not just Hillary Clinton with a lovely wrapped present of universal pre-kindergarten schooling and care. It’s Obama. Writes Terence Jeffrey about Obama’s plan to raise our kids for us:

We used to do it ourselves. Now, convinced we have better things to do, many of us leave the job to others.

Encouraging this flight from parenthood, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has proposed what he calls his "Zero to Five" plan. It is a collection of programs aimed at getting the government involved in the raising of your children from the moment they are born.

Are you really sure about that, Sen Obama? Given what a wonderful job government has done with K-12 education, do you really think that a centralized, top-down, bureaucratic approach to early childhood education is really going to be anything other than a big plum for the education blob?

Energy and Global Warming Sen. Obama has said that $5 per gallon gasoline is inevitable. He just wished it hadn’t happened all of a sudden. As Sheldon Alberts reports, Obama is against “dirty oil” like the Alberta tar sands play that is ramping up north of us in Canada.

Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed he would break America’s addiction to "dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive" oil if he is elected U.S. president — and one of his first targets might well be Canada’s oil sands.

Obama says "The possibilities of renewable energy are limitless." Well, yes, Senator. But until renewable energy actually comes in cheaper than fossil fuel it is just a possibility. You can’t commit the people of the United States to a possibility. And that means that you can’t commit the United States to a radical move away from fossil fuels merely on the prediction of advocates that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have catastrophic results a century from now. What if they are wrong?

What you can do is spend a little here and there on research and on easing the development hurdles for new technologies. But a rigid top-down energy program is going to fail. “Plans are useless, but planning is essential.” That’s what President Eisenhower said about military plans. The same applies to any top down plan. It doesn’t survive the first few minutes of battle, but it’s essential to have thought and planned about the future, so you can adapt when you find out that your assumptions were all wrong.

Fairness Doctrine

Nancy Pelosi told a group of journalists recently that she was in favor of reviving the Fairness Doctrine, according to John Gizzi. It’s understandable that Democrats are frustrated by the success of Rush Limbaugh and talk radio. But the answer isn’t to try and shut them up. The answer is for elite liberals to think seriously about their agenda and about why “liberal” has become a dirty word.

Actually, Rush gives the impression that he is hoping for a revival of the Fairness Doctrine. It would make him the most popular man in America, and probably propel a Republican into the White House.

Universal Health Insurance Democrats still can’t get beyond the century-old idea of cradle-to-grave government-controlled health insurance. What will it solve? Not much. But it will create a crisis in health care that will reverberate through the political system with unknown results.

Raising Tax Rates Senator Obama is promising to raise tax rates on the wealthy, by extending the FICA payroll tax and by increasing capital gains taxes and dividend taxes. Apart from the fact that the rich are already paying a bigger share of income tax than before and the bottom half of taxpayers are paying nothing, there is the international problem. Worldwide, governments are lowering tax rates. Does Obama really think he can raise tax rates in the US without a negative hit to the economy?

All these issues tell me one thing. Democrats haven’t really tried to think about the meaning of the last 30 years of American politics. They just want to forget the nightmare of Reagan and Bush and get back to politics as usual. That means that they are in for a nasty surprise.

Monday, June 23, 2008
Boumediene: A Supremely Problematic Court Decision
Author;Fred Thompson

As I pointed out last week, and as legal scholar John Yoo did earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, the “Boumediene Five” have done our nation and our Constitution no great service. But beyond the rhetoric, we really need to understand the real world impact of this ruling on the war we are waging against our enemies.

In Boumediene v Bush, besides, for the first time in history conferring habeas corpus rights on alien enemies detained abroad by our military during a war, the Court struck down as inadequate what Chief Justice John Roberts called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded enemy combatants.” Consider the rights that our country provided to the enemy prisoners in question before Boumediene:

The right to hear the bases of the charges against them including a summary of any classified evidence.

The ability to challenge the bases of their detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures. As Robert’s pointed out, some 38 detainees have been released as result of this process.

The right, before the tribunal, to testify, introduce evidence, including exculpatory evidence, call witnesses, cross examine the government witnesses and secure release if and when appropriate.

The right to the aid of a personal representative in arranging and presenting their cases before the tribunal.

The right to have the government search for and disclose to the detainee any evidence reasonably available to it tending to show that the detainee is not an enemy combatant.

The right to appeal an adverse decision from the tribunal to the Federal DC Circuit Court along with the right to employ counsel and secure release if entitled to it.

The right to petition the DC Circuit to remand a detainee’s case for new tribunal consideration if the petitioner comes up with newly discovered evidence.

The right to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a yearly review of the status of each prisoner including the right to have the Secretary of Defense review any new evidence that may become available relating to the enemy combatant status of a detainee.

As a part of that yearly review, the opportunity for the detainee to explain why he is no longer a threat to the United States, which could lead to his release.

The DC Circuit can order release of the prisoner, and the head of the DOD Administrative Review Boards can, at the recommendation of those panels, order release upon an appropriate showing.

Again, these are the rights terrorists and battlefield combatants had before Boumediene was decided. These provisions provide more process than any that has ever been afforded prisoners of war in history. They go substantially past the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention. These are the rights that the majority decided were insufficient — and the result?

Their decision granting them the right to habeas corpus relief in federal courts.


Look, this issue isn’t going to go away, so consider these things the next time you hear someone defend the Supreme Court’s majority opinion as an attempt at “basic fairness” and to help prevent an innocent sheepherder from being improperly detained:


First, the Court left total confusion and uncertainty as to what rights these habeas petitions will vindicate. What will be the nature of the review under these new habeas rights? Will the Court review the constitutionality of the detention hearing procedures? What will be the burden of proof in these new proceedings? Will they have a factual hearing in order to try to recreate the circumstances in the field at the time of the detainee’s apprehension?

The answer is no one knows. It will all be dumped into the laps of some federal district judge and his or her law clerks. These are unprecedented circumstances and there is no way to predict what some judge might see as his or her new mandate under the constitution.

Again, it will be a federal judge — not the President or the Congress or a military tribunal — who will decide the appropriate extent to which the detainee will have access to classified military information, as just one of the more troubling examples. In other words, the branch of our government least qualified to make determinations on national security and foreign policy will now do just that. One other thing is certain. Whatever comes out of this new habeas corpus mish mash will generate a new round of appeals and our avowed enemies will work their way deeper and deeper into our court system.

Second, the majority opinion throws into question whether the tens of thousands of detainees in Iraq and the more than 1000 in Afghanistan are now entitled to habeas. Is the Court going to extend habeas protection to all foreign detainees held in foreign territory over which the United States is not sovereign, but has de facto control? We could be looking at tens of thousands of military detainee habeas cases in federal court.

Third, the Court’s decision encourages al Qaeda to continue in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions are designed to protect civilians and to reward combatants with certain protections if they abide by the Conventions. Al Qaeda specifically targets civilians and wears no uniform to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Our policy now is to give al Qaeda combatants privileges that exceed the Conventions in terms of access to our court system without requiring al Qaeda to abide by these conventions themselves. This, of course, is an incentive for them to violate the law of war. They receive no penalty for not doing so, and by not wearing uniforms, makes any standard of proof requirement with regard to enemy combatant status more difficult for the United States. We are literally giving the enemy the means by which they can do us great harm.

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for a majority of the Supreme Court to make new law based not upon precedent but upon policy preferences of members of the Court. But this time it’s part of a much bigger picture. It is about power, and who gets to exercise it in an area that is vital to the security of this nation. This time it’s not only wrong, it’s dangerous.

It should also be noted that Senator Obama thinks that the decision in Boumediene v Bush is an excellent one. I don’t know what’s worse: that he doesn’t understand what the Court has done … or that he actually does and still thinks this was a sound ruling. Good luck to all of us.

From time to time we hear on the news some foreign leader whining that he didnt get his way and that Americans have a "cowboy" mentality. Really? Does George Bush remind anyone of Clint Eastwood? Does Dick Cheney have the presence of John Wayne? I think not. Furthermore if we had characters like those played by Clint and John meeting with foreign leaders who would come out on top?

What would ol Kim Jongs reaction be if instead of the usual niceties our president just walked up to the negotiating table and said "if ya tell me its a fine day ill shoot ya"? Talk about setting the tone! Imagine if the next time the North Koreans tested a few missiles the president flew over to Kim Jongs pad and said "well pilgrim ya started a lotta trouble this mornin coulda got a lotta people killed" and then slugged him right in the piehole.

Oreily, Hannity and the boys would abandon fair and balanced and start jumping for joy proudly proclaiming "finally we have a foreign policy that works" and even hardcore Lefties like Olbermann would giggle a little, if only off camera.

Now obviously i dont support this kind of behavior but admit it its fun to think about.

Now the next time ahmadinejad starts spouting off about wiping Isreal off the map the president should just say; do what you need to do Mahmoud but remember "dyin aint much of a livin boy." If brother Mahmoud wants to keep enriching uranium, building centerfuges, and interfereing in Iraq I say we should negotiate. Send in the airforce to blast a clear landing site in Tehran and land the president with marine 1. The presidents first statement in the negotiation should be; ok Mahmoud I told the VP if Im not back in 10 minutes "get three coffins ready" and continue, while he wonders who the other two coffins are for.

If mayhem and death are what these people want lets show em that we understand their language. Screw it! lets just challenge Chavez to a showdown at high noon. Id bet money that Hugo would pipe down real fast if he thought the American president was going to show up drinkin shots of whiskey and weilding a pair of six shooters.

Poutin could use some of the cowboy treatment to. Invite him to a poker game, sit him with his back to the door, deal him aces and eights and see if he figures it out before the bullets start flying! simple right? The cowboy may not operate like a former KGB agent but thats why he is effective no one expects him.

I think what foreign leaders forget is that real cowboys have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to bull s#*t and they dont really care who disagrees with them. Politicians have to at least pretend to give a crap and take other peoples "feelings" into account. Indeed cowboys should be seen as our last line of defense when suits and fancy words dont cut it

 

That this bill is even being discussed is pure insanity, and if passed democrats dont need to take all the blame. Republicans allowed the bill to pass the Senate Foreign Relations Committee without hearings or a roll call vote so no member can be held accountable. Hmmmm... sound familiar? it should because the same bill was passed the same way last year. So covertly, the bill does have bi-partisan support.

 

Now lets think for a moment; Global Poverty Act, the Great Society, the New Deal, are ya with me here? Any self respecting conservative can offer fact based arguments on the failures and long term consequences of the social experiments of FDR and LBJ, and this new  "war on poverty" is even more insidious. Senator Obamas bill would require American taxpayers to cough up a staggering $845 billion in foreign aid much of which will be inexplicably "lost", stolen or mismanaged or even in the hands of our enemies. All in the name of? you guessed it... eliminating poverty.

 

Heres where it gets interesting; the bill would require our president to "develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the acheivement of the Millenium Development Goal of reducing by one half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 dollar per day." HUH!? While eliminating poverty is a worthwhile goal the notion that our tax dollars could accomplish this by 2015 is one for the cuckoos nest.

 

The next obvious question is; even if we could, who's to say that we should? Before dropping billions of our dollars from the povertycopter may i suggest fixing social security, or maybe ummmm... medicare or ummmm... paying down the deficit so our citizens dont end up living in poverty. Its high time the U.N., the liberals, and the RINOs realize that the American taxpayers are not branches of some ever expanding money tree, they are real people with real problems of their own. If poor nations need more cash maybe - dare i say - they should try more capitalism!

 

If we stopped reading now, we could dismiss s. 2433 as a "well intended" attempt. It doesnt end here though. Oh no it gets much, much worse. This is where the true Leftist nature of the bill is revealed, and where conservatives should have drawn the line.

 

The "Millenium Development Goal" mentioned earlier refers to the declaration adopted by the United Nations Millenium Assembly and summit in 2000 which called for the "eradication of poverty" by "redistribution of wealth and land," cancellation of "the debt of developing countries," and "a fair distribution of the earths resources." After reading these statements can any reasonable person deny that the U.N. is a socialist organization? We can be certain that when the U.N. talks of  "redistributing" anything, what they mean is taking from us and giving to the rest of the world.There was a time in this country when such suggestions would have inspired heated, spit flying condemnation from conservatives hell bent on stopping such encroachment on our way of life. The rest of the world can take care of themselves. The sad reality is that most poor nations are poor because their leaders keep them that way. Look around... the words "industrialized nation" are nothing more than a euphamism for "capitalist nation."

 

A report from Columbia University states the U.S. should spend $30 billion in addition to the $16 billion we already spend on anti poverty aid. Anticipating a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the U.S. to fork over such a sum, the report goes on to suggest the imposition of a global tax. Such as a tax on fossil fuels. Make no mistake the U.N. would like nothing better than to have the power to directly tax American citizens and the adoption of the Millemium Goals in 2000 has only increased U.N. demands to impose international taxes. Are the following taxes in our best interests?

 

1. currency transfer tax: a tax on the  rental value of land and natural resources.

 

2. fees for the commercial use of the oceans.

 

3. fees for airplane use of the skies.

 

4. fees on foreign exchange transactions.

 

5. a tax on the carbon content of fuels.

 

A quick question. Are the people that support this out of their minds? The average high school dropout could see the folly in such plans yet Washington politicians refuse to expose the obvious threats to American prosperity of the Millenium goals and many even support the lunacy.

 

Now; the real danger. As if throwing billions at corrupt dictators who act against us isnt bad enough, all the taxes, fees, and government freebies are just means to an end. The true goal here is put the U.S. under U.N global governance. Now before you dismiss this as conspiratorial craziness read on;the Millenium Goals call for a "standing peace force"(code for U.N. standing army), a "U.N. arms register" of small arms and light weapons (bye bye 2nd amendment), "peace education" from preschool to college (indoctrination of youth)(see also Hitler Stalin Mao etc) and "political control of the global economy." Also implementation of all U.N. treaties not already ratified by the U.S. all of which create monitoring commitees that compromise U.S. sovereignty.

 

Heard enough? wait theres more! The final face stomping comes in the form of "strengthining the U.N. for the 21st century" by "eliminating" the veto and permanent security council membership. This would reduce U.S. influence to 1 of 192 nations giving us the same vote as cuba. All of this while our tax dollars pay about 23% of U.N. expenditures.

 

Scared yet? Maybe even a little pissed off? Its time the U.S. sends the U.N. packing. Let the rest of the world wallow in the U.N. mire. America can and should take care of herself.

 

facts and figures from WorldNetDaily

sarcasm provided by brucetbo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cattle produce large quantities of methane gas through belching and flatulence when they digest grass, which accounts for about 15-25% of overall gas emissions, according to different estimates.

A single cow produces on average 350 liters of methane and 1,500 liters of carbon dioxide per day.

"For Copa-Cogeca, an organization that unites farmers of the European Union, the information received from Estonian farmers came as a huge surprise, and they could not recall a similar precedent in any EU country," said the party's spokesman, Jaanus Marrandi.

No other EU country imposes a flatulence tax on farmers.

A year after joining the Kyoto protocol, authorities in New Zealand proposed introducing a flatulence tax saying that New Zealand cattle are responsible for 90% of the country's methane emissions and 43% of greenhouse gas emissions.