AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The collapse of the Dutch center-right government over immigration policy will lead to an opposition Labour victory in early elections likely to be held in a few months, an opinion poll showed on Friday.

This could be a preview for what may come in the United States if congressional elections, and Presidential elections both swing to the Democrats at the end of this year and again in 2008.

Balkenende's government has prided itself on tough restructuring of the welfare state and had planned a series of windfalls for its citizens in its last year in power. Early elections may make it unable to reap enough benefit.

While Bush’s administration didn’t try to restructure the welfare state… AT ALL!, the United States is no where near the socialistic structure that Europe burdens under. However, his tax cuts and scant increases in social program spending would be completely reversed should the left suddenly take control of both the Congress and the White House.

"This was supposed to be the harvest year for this coalition government. The economy has just started to recover…” daily broadsheet De Volkskrant said.

Well, for anyone in this country wishing they had a glimpse at what domestic things they could expect if the left were to suddenly take over control of the government, watch Holland’s progress from here. This is a rare opportunity for a sneak preview of what things may be like. Kind of like getting to sample the ice cream before picking a flavor, only MORE IMPORTANT

Most of us should have been aware that when the group known as Hamas (aka: the Gaza branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) took power in Gaza as the political leadership of the Palestinians Israel would be very anxious. After all, this is the group they have essentially been at war with in the strip for the last 20 years.

Palestinian militants, often associated with Hamas, conduct terrorist strikes on Israel population centers and military patrols and checkpoints. Israel retaliates with bombing runs and incursions into Palestinian territory.

The Israelis also realized that Hamas, as part of its convenient, would not accept political negotiations and/or treaties that still maintained the existence of Israel as a state in what Hamas considered the Palestinian lands.

“Article 13: There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.”

Other elements were also at work in Israel (i.e. the PLO), but with the death of Yasser Arafat, many in and outside of Israel were optimistic that the days of open violence between the Israel and militant Palestinian factions were over. However, elections to fill the political void behind Arafat soon turned sour to many Israelis as the Iranian supported group Hamas took over political power, and became a legitimate political party.

While world insisted that Israel give Hamas a chance, and continue with their withdrawal plans, many inside the Israeli government continued to express their concern that Hamas would not be able to effectively run the government, and that the PLA under their leadership, and without Israeli military support would not be able to enforce peaceful relations between the two peoples.

Now, after the subsequent capture and hostage scenario of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, kidnapping and then execution of an 18 year old Jewish settler, all while militants mock Israel over their capture of the soldier, Israel begins in earnest its military campaign against the west bank.

They’ve launched missiles into Gaza, rolled into Palestinian settlements with tanks, and now even arrested up to 64 parliamentary members of the ruling Hamas political structure. Israel is poised to strike at Palestine and strike hard. The motives behind this action are suspect by many:

(REUTERS) "The issue was not about the missing soldier but it is a pre-planned plot to destroy the Authority, the government and the parliament and to bring the Palestinian people to their knees," Hamas lawmaker Mushir al-Masri said.

While Mr. Masri may very well be right, what is not recognizing is that the militant factions of Hamas and other Palestinian orginizations are playing right into the hands of the conservatives in the Israel’s government.

(AP) Government spokesman Asaf Shariv said Asheri's killers would be arrested, and Israel would try to bring them to trial.

"Their days as free people are numbered," Shariv said.

He may have been speaking of more than just these specific militants as the battle drums are beginning to beat louder in Gaza. (REUTERS)

In an implied threat to Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and his Syrian host, Israeli warplanes buzzed one of President Bashar al-Assad's palaces on Wednesday. A Syrian official said the air force fired at the planes.

Preparing for an offensive in north Gaza, a region used by militants to launch rockets at Israel, Israeli aircraft dropped leaflets urging residents to avoid areas troops may target.

From the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

This report then goes on to site some specific critics that the AP failed to mention:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

Yet again, there are willing accomplices in this charade of Gore’s movie. My view is often attacked by saying that all scientists that refute global warming are on the oil/industry payroll. I think you’ll find that all scientists that support global warming on getting paid by the scare it produces. Many of them wouldn’t have a job if there wasn’t some fictional crisis to study.

And what about Gore, why would he do this? What does he have to gain? Well, actually a couple of things:

1. He is a politician, and they love themselves, and love the spotlight. This has regained that attention after losing the election to Bush six years ago.

2. After being the Vice President of the United States of America, did you really expect him to go back to being an Investigative Reporter?

Because I was curious as to what we, as a nation, actually spend Joe Taxpayer’s money on, I went to the US Office of Management and Budget and pulled the outlays report. Outlays, for those of you that don’t know are defined by the US Senate as:

“Outlays are payments made (generally through the issuance of checks or disbursement of cash) to liquidate obligations. Outlays during a fiscal year may be for payment of obligations incurred in prior years or in the same year.”

The numbers are all in millions of dollars and all cover actual overlays in FY 2004

Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs:
$515,678 to cover:

Military Personnel
Operation and Maintenance
Procurement
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Military Construction
Family Housing
Income security for veterans
Veteran’s education, training, and rehabilitation
Hospital and medical care for veterans
Veterans housing

Community and regional development, Education, training, employment, and social services, Health, Medicare, Income security, Social security
$1,441,621 to cover:

Community development
Area and regional development
Disaster relief and insurance
Total, Community and regional development
Elementary, secondary, and vocational education
Higher education
Research and general education aids
Training and employment
Social services
Health care services
Health research and training
Consumer and occupational health and safety
Medicare
General retirement and disability insurance (excluding social security)
Federal employee retirement and disability
Unemployment compensation
Housing assistance
Food and nutrition assistance

International affairs, General science, space and technology, Energy, Natural resources and environment, Transportation, Administration of justice, General government
$206,104 to cover

Legislative functions
Executive direction and management
Central fiscal operations
General property and records management
Central personnel management
General purpose fiscal assistance
Deductions for offsetting receipts
Ground transportation
Air transportation
Water transportation
Farm income stabilization
Agricultural research and services
Water resources
Conservation and land management
Recreational resources
Pollution control and abatement
***Energy supply*** (this one actually made the US some money!)
Energy conservation
Emergency energy preparedness
Energy information, policy, and regulation
International development and humanitarian assistance
International security assistance
Conduct of foreign affairs
Foreign information and exchange activities
International financial programs
General science, space and technology:
General science and basic research
Space flight, research, and supporting activities

None of this includes the money paid out to interest on federal bonds and other investment obligations of the government, but for fun’s sake we’re going to throw some percentages around:

Total money spent out (in this list): $2,163,403 million dollars, also known as 2.2 trillion dollars. Wow!

Of that total, the military makes up 24% of total money spent, the federal government itself is 10% and social programs make up the other 66%

Of those social programs, the biggest spenders are Medicare at $269,360, Income security (worker’s comp, unemployment…) at $332,837, and Social security at $495,548. These along are a combined 51% of the money spent by the US government (in this sample)

Now, we could look at this and be just amazed how much we spend on social services, or we could do another number check and go with rough percentages of dollars spent per person.

The current rough average (from the CIA fact book) of the United States’ population is 298,444,215. The number of military personnel is 2,571,454. There is no real estimate of how many folks work for the Federal government, so we wont even try. Some estimates have it has high as 17 million, but that includes contractors and military, and other functionaries.

So, percentage wise, that means that the military spends, on average $200,000 per year, per person (yes, this includes equipment and all that, but it is supporting the military personnel, so it’s getting lumped together).

The Federal government is spending roughly $4830 per year, per person on social services.

Wait a minute! That means that while on average, the Government’s military spending is only 35% of it’s social program’s spending… and less than a quarter of its total spending; per person the US Government is spending roughly 97% MORE on its military personnel than it does on the average citizen.

Draw your own conclusions; I’m not sharing mine yet.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House confirmed on Monday that the top U.S. military commander in Iraq has drafted a plan for U.S. troop cuts there, but said the plan was just one option.

President George W. Bush said he had met with Gen. George Casey, but reiterated that any decision on troop reductions would be based on conditions on the ground.

"In terms of our troop presence there, that decision will be made by General (George) Casey as well as the sovereign government of Iraq based upon conditions on the ground," Bush said. Any recommendation by Casey would be "aimed toward achieving victory," he said.

The New York Times reported on Saturday that Casey had drafted a plan that would first reduce U.S. troops in Iraq in September and cut the number of combat brigades to five or six from the current level of 14 by the end of 2007.

There are currently nearly 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Democratic critics of the president reacted angrily, saying over the weekend that the Casey plan appeared similar to their calls for the administration to draw up a timetable for troop withdrawal. Yet when they urged this they were accused of wanting to "cut and run" by Republicans.

Two things I note here:

1. Democrats are really trying to whine about this under the umbrella of “we thought of this first”? Give me a break already, yelling “Get our troops home!” in protest rallies is not the same as a militarily designed withdrawal plan.

2. Anyone else notice the uncanny timeline this “plan” has in conjunction with certain upcoming elections and campaign efforts?

The Iraq war is possibly the most contested issue in modern American politics. While pundits and politicians attempt to push hot-button issues like gay marriage and global warming to the forefront as important issues (because they are easy vote getters), we are allowing our politicians to ignore the real significance and morality surrounding the war. This is partly due to the fact that many people have made up their minds about the way they feel towards the war. It may also be due in part to people’s desire to remain on a shallow level of directness towards something as complicated as the current war campaign the United States is involved in.

I regularly try to examine those things I consider to be part of my belief structure. I try to essentially debate myself over the topics that hold more implications than simply being right or wrong. Recently, one of these items has been the Iraq war. I do not believe it to be a black or white issue, as many in the political circles have tried to portray. I think that the morality of the issue is something even more complex.

Essentially, all of us (psychos not withstanding) have a basic premise that murder is wrong (regardless of your religious stance). War is essentially government sanctioned murder en masse. However, again, it is not that simple. While murder is wrong, killing someone in self defense, or defense of others is considered right, or at the least, understandable. Does God see this same rational for the breaking of His law? Does God give stipulations and classifications to His law? While I understand that every infraction is forgiven through the Christ, does He address the issue of “Do Not Kill Another Person” with escape clauses?

I think that he does not. I think that unless God Himself commands you to kill someone (as the Bible gives example of), you are essentially dictating your own will above that of what God has told you to do. Now, all of human history, even devout stories in the Bible have examples of man creating stipulations and clauses surrounding those basic morals we hold true. Stealing is ok if it is life or death for you or your children. It is ok if it is one nation taking from another. It is ok if general consensus agrees.

Lying is ok if you are doing it to save someone else’s feelings. It is ok if it is to protect someone else. It is ok if your country is trying to keep some secrets in the name of “national security”.

So it is with man; we are the ultimate rationalizers. We can essentially convince ourselves of anything given the proper motivation. Give a man a choice to kill or be killed, he will kill, and then clear himself of any wrong doing without societies approval. Nations and states act no different. They act in self interest and self preservation, then use various rational to explain away and exonerate themselves from any debt of guilt of consensus “wrong doings”.

Back to the topic: the Iraq war presents many intricate dilemmas in this arena. While the original premise of the war was widely accepted by Americans, and thus justified by common consent, the effort to preempt Saddam’s dispersal of WMD has proved fruitless. In it’s steed, and to continue the rationalization of our actions, the reasoning has now morphed into liberation of oppressed Iraqi citizens from the brutality of an oppressive and violent regime.

However, this presents yet another dilemma: why do we chose to use military force, to sacrifice our men and women in an effort to liberate an oppressed people at one location, but then neglect the same crisis in another? As we pour millions of dollars, hundreds of lives, and political turmoil into Iraq, we neglect places like Colombia, Darfur, China, North Korea, and others. We invade one country, topple their government, put their former leaders in trial, and then pay for the reconstruction (of the damage we caused). We do all this without general consent via the UN.

Yet we then stand ideally by as thousands are brutalized in Darfur waiting for this same UN to take action. We suddenly choose not to use our military force or resources, general consent or not, to end the oppression and brutalization taking place. This begs the question of why? Why would America, the land of the free, the home of the brave, the beacon of freedom, justice, and liberty chose to only right specific wrongs it perceives in the world, but then to ignore others?

Again, the nasty trait of self-interest and self-preservation enter into the fray. Our government, given the specific charge of protecting America and her interests is doing exactly that. We are in Iraq for a two-fold reason, both of which serve the purpose, morally acceptable or not, of serving the best interests of the United States.

While I do not expect my government (a conglomerate of people and bureaucracies) to act with a specific moral compass, I do expect the individuals surrounding it to act and direct their leadership in a fashion that doesn’t belie their professed morals and standards. If we were a nation of compassionate and understanding people, of hard working and reasonable citizens, we wouldn’t allow our government to act on our behalf in a fashion that we would condemn if it were someone else.

This statement applies both ways. Political operatives on both sides promote and act in ways that may be the best solution to the predicament of self-service, but then contradict the very ideals that we are supposed to hold dear.

We are, every American, unwillingly or willingly, unknowingly or knowingly, engaged in a fight against radical Islam that uses terrorism as its main weapon. Our global war on Terrorism is really a war against the radical faction of Islam that uses said “Terror” to achieve their goals.

In this effort, there are many that are politically aligned against it. They act, say, and do things to undermine the efforts in a self-service mentality, and against all moral standards and ideals. They readily sacrifice their conscience to achieve a political goal, and in the process hurt those they profess to represent.

On the other hand, we have many Americans that have political commitments towards this war. They have essentially seeded their crops in this field, and cannot afford to pull them out. They will sacrifice their conscience to rationalize any and all actions that maintain their grip the political power and the self-service that being in Iraq serves.

The comment that “Iraq is about oil” is true. While it is very shallow in its understatement, it is none the less true. My previous question of why Iraq but not Darfur is answered in oil. Not barrels of oil, and not the dollars behind the oil, but the strategic and significant power that control of oil represents. Let’s not fool ourselves, oil isn’t just about paychecks and cars, it is the lifeblood of the world. Without it, the most powerful nations in the world would be reduced to third world status. Ignoring this fact is naive at best, deceptive at worst.

However, the question I am asking myself is over the morality of allowing, even supporting our government’s blatant moral lapse in acting towards our own self interests. We are not in Iraq for any great ideal or principle other than advancing American interests. Does that deserve my support and confirmation? If I have to rationalize it out, is it still the right thing to do? When do we draw the line of acting in self-interest, and actually abiding by our self appointed ideals?

After wooing his Chinese audience, the renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist said:

“he was afraid that Earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid." (AP)

Now, I’m not a cosmologist, a climatologist, a physicist, or even a doctor. But I do know that Venus is, at minimum, 67 million miles from the sun, and at maximum 68 million miles from the sun. At the same time, the earth is, at minimum 91 million miles and at maximum 94.5 million miles from the sun.

So unless my math is wrong, the earth would also need to jump roughly 26.5 MILLION miles before those kinds of temperatures were really possible, no matter how many SUV’s are driving at once.

As this stuff gets more debunked, the claims get more ridiculous.

UPDATE!!

(MIT's Technology Review) Global Warming Bombshell

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

This is 2 years old... why have I not heard about it in the MSM before? (wisper Bias now)

-Thanks to AOW for this

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

-Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks

Patriotism, as defined by Dictionary.com is “love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it”

Essentially, patriotism is nationalism. Nationalism is, was, and will be the root cause for most wars. Why not disperse with the very notion of patriotism, thus removing the desire for nationalist defense of one’s place of domicile?

This I believe is the crux of modern day liberalism. It is the nucleus of the numerous issues and ideals surrounding the modern liberal platform. For without the nationalism that so directly influences our domestic and foreign policy, then what would stop us from achieving true globalization and multi-centralism (aside from religion of course).

In essence, if you remove the fraternal loyalties to either nation or religion, then there remains nothing to stop global cooperation and acceptance of each other in an effort to effect beneficial change in the world’s society.

In an effort to analyst this further, I will use a fictional time line of the effects of removing said principles from the people of this great nation. For before we delve too far into this, we must first accept that all people and nations will not comply with this desire for removal of nationalistic tendencies.

2008: United States National Election
Liberal nominee X wins Presidency and begins sweeping domestic agenda to remove crippling nationalism from our paradigm.

2010: 70% Approval rating of US President at home and abroad as probably the most globally popular president of the modern era holds office following a dramatic reduction in global US military presence.

2011: US military forces have been pulled from around the world, and only maintain bases on US soil, or protectorate soil unless otherwise directed by the UN.

2012: Election Year Liberal Incumbent Wins
Due in no large part to the sever reduction in military responsibilities and operations, the US budget is not only balanced, but in a surplus. The US dollar is at its highest value in a century, and the economy is doing well as the current budge requirements do not necessitate any new taxes that could hamper growth.

2013: Enthusiastic about the new trend in US policy, the EU offers the US a seat in the Union. As an after effect, the military is now scaled down by 75% as mutual defense treaties with all of Europe and previous UN obligations have removed the need for more military than just to defend US from improbable invasion or attack. membership as a cross-Atlantic venture to solidify this new path of diplomacy.

2014 Jan: Mexico, pressing for more direct economic help from the US to aid it’s flailing economy asks the US to institute a policy of worker tax/support of Mexican workers, essentially nullifying the border between the two countries, and allowing Mexican workers to pay US taxes, but also receive US federal benefits. Due to large surplus in national operating income, and highly diminished sentiments of nationality, the measure passes, and President signs official treaty.

2014 Mar: Mexico and America sign protectorate treaty to create United American States, combining flags and anthems and making national language primary English with secondary of Spanish. Spanish becomes mandatory in Elementary and all public signs must, by law be printed in both languages.

2014 June: To represent both Cinco de Mayo and the Forth of July, June 6^th-10^th It is extended for 4 days to include Memorial Day, Veteran’s Day, Flag Day, and other US and Mexican National Holidays is designated the United American States National day of remembrance.

2014 Nov: Petition sent up to Congress to hold general national elections and officially unifying the two nations (Mexico and US). Also, hidden in the bill is to remove Thanksgiving from nation observance as it is strictly a former US holiday. Another round of elections to be held in early 2016 for permanent government seats.

2015 Jan: Canada, under increasing pressure from both Europe and the United American States proposes that Canada, along with other South American countries be allowed access to the United American States. At the same time, the first evidence of the budgetary problems of increasing the social programs to so many new and unemployed citizens begins to surface. Inflation rates increase and interest rates rise. At the same time, China and Russia join with Iran in annexing Iraq. Together, they create a unified front against OPEC. The EU and UAS (United American States) do nothing to stop it as no one can agree the who or how to support the military operations that would be necessary.

2015 Jul: China invades Taiwan and joins with North Korea in “unifying” the Korean peninsula, then forcing Japan into a protectorate agreement creating a Asian/Soviet bloc. Inflation and economic calamity are warned at on almost every news reel. The UAS (United American States) has depleted all surplus moneys and is running a negative budget of over 16 trillion trying to continue large scale social programs for all former US, Mexican, Canadian, and other South American citizens. The EU has forced the United American States to pay higher dues as their population and GDP potential dramatically out perform that of the other members.

2015 Dec 15: China and Russia launch a ground assault on the former soviet bloc nations, retaking them in days. They use their combined navies to blockade the European nations in and move to blockade United American Sates on the West Coast Ports. Iran, under the threat of nuclear action moves into Saudi Arabia and Oman, completely controlling the Persian Gulf and essentially all Arab oil exports.

There demand is simply that they be allowed to retake lands that originally belonged to them pre-cold war, and that anything but unconditional acceptance will result in sever military action.

2015 Dec 21: After emergency meetings between the EU members and UN delegations, it is decided that the EU nor the other UN members can support long term warfare with the logistical channels already cut off (naval blockades). They also agree that under threat of economic sanctions, Russia and China must allow occupied states to retain their current trade obligations. China and Russia Agree, and hence occupy former Soviet states and then have Iran pull navy out of Gulf occupation.

2016 Feb: Election Year for United American States
With strong political factions now calling for fiscal reform and military independence, Conservative Nominee Z gains office. In an immediate attempt to reclaim military independence, and to ensure that the States will never again be quartered in by foreign military powers, President signs emergency military acts and begins directing large amounts of funds towards military development.

2016 Mar: President unveils new plan called “Take our Country Back”. To offset high cost of military development in an already struggling budget, President revokes many social programs, sending millions of under-employed families struggling for housing and food. President also revokes payments allotted to EU funds.

2016 April: EU imposes economic sanctions on the United American States, hurting even further the struggling economy. Riots start in the streets as poor around the states are delved into conditions not seen since the 1940’s.

2016 Jun: Seizing on the political instability in the EU and States, China moves to take over control of those portions of South America not included in the States. Iran, under the umbrella of Chinese and Russian protection, recreate the Persian empire in the Arab world and begin exiling Jews from the region, flooding Europe with mass refugees, sinking their economy into the same depression seen in the United American States.

2016 Aug: Revolutionary forces in the United American States take arms against the government as labor class forces move to secure resources for their needs. In the chaos, those labor forces join with communist (if you could still call it that) China, and essentially effect a “bloodless” revolution where the United American States no longer exist, and most of the world is now under the oppression of a very diligent Chi-com government.

No one stopped it because it wasn’t in their best interests, and there was no unifying goal for any of the people involved. The nation was put into a terrible economic position because no one cared specifically about their country, and the nationality that normally makes people stand up and fight for their freedom was removed because it was classified as “useless patriotism”.

America stands for something more than just the people that populate her. She always has. She is a symbol and a figure head in the progress we hope to make in the world. She represents hope and opportunity in a world so severely lacking it. Regardless of the political leanings of her leaders, since her inception over 200 years ago, America has been the bastion of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Why Patriotism? Because some things ARE bigger than you, and some things are worth sacrificing for.

Getting tough with the White House Press Corps, the President ardently stood up to one particular member:

(AP) Bush called on Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten and asked if he was going to ask his question with his "shades'' on.

"For the viewers, there's no sun,'' Bush said to the television cameras.

Unfortunately, the President was having another session of bad "strategery" by his press conference prep-team as the man was wearing medical sunglasses due to sever vision loss:

But even though the sun was behind the clouds, Wallsten [the reporter in question] still needs the sunglasses because he has Stargardt's disease, a form of macular degeneration that causes progressive vision loss. The condition causes Wallsten to be sensitive to glare and even on a cloudy day, can cause pain and increase the loss of sight.

While President Bush did issue an official apology... it makes you wonder whats next? Is the President going to question the wheelchair bound woman in the third row why she wont stand up when addressing the President of the United States? How about asking a deaf-mute to speak up? You know, there are some folks that get paid a lot more money than I do to babysit him and make sure these kinds of things don't happen. Maybe their funding got cut help balance out the $94.5 billion bill he just signed for the war and hurricanes?

Good Grief

(CFP) Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

7 Doctors, all renowned scientists, refute the hysteria surrounding Global Warming. Not the “outcasts” that the left always claim debate their attempts at fear tactics.

How long are we going to let folks like Gore keep running around ginning up false panic, a la, Chicken Little so that leftist’s factions can continue to raise funds and impose their ideals? Make no mistake about it, this is a means to an end: Control

LONDON (Reuters) - Defense minister Des Browne said on Tuesday it was impossible to predict how long British troops would have to stay in Afghanistan to help bring security to the country.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House aide Karl Rove, U.S. President George W. Bush's top political adviser, will not be charged in the CIA leak case, his lawyer said on Tuesday.

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters) - Tropical Storm Alberto's chances of becoming the first hurricane of 2006 receded on Tuesday as it crept toward Florida, dumping heavy rain on the deserted coastline and shuttered homes.

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States on Tuesday reasserted its right to develop weapons for use in outer space to protect its military and commercial satellites and ruled out any global negotiations on a new treaty to limit them.

The DNC agenda seems to be failing miserably. Rove's cleared, Alberto wont help the global warming hype, the US is making space weapons, and Great Briton isn't deserting the US in the Middle East.

But don't worry loyal leftists, there's hope yet:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Al Gore hopes to train 1,000 messengers he hopes will spread out across the country and present a slide show about global warming that captures the essence of his Hollywood documentary and book.

Pide Piper leading the lemmings off the cliff?

(AP) CAPITOL HILL - Dwight Eisenhower was president when Robert Byrd was first elected to the Senate from West Virginia.

Today, the 88-year-old Byrd becomes the longest-serving senator in history, surpassing South Carolina's legendary Senator Strom Thurmond.

Byrd entered the Senate 47 years ago after serving 12 years in the state Legislature and the U.S. House of Representatives.

His time in the senate amounts to 17,327 days.

And while he uses two canes to get around and grieves over the recent loss of his wife of 69 years, Byrd is running for an unprecedented ninth term.

He bristles at questions about his age and stamina.

"Age does not affect me except in my legs," he says, adding "I've got a head up here that hasn't changed one iota in the last 25 years."

Byrd makes no apologies for directing huge amounts of federal money to West Virginia to pay for new highways, water projects, federal buildings and job training centers.

But he does admit to a few errors: he participated in an unsuccessful filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And as a young man, he joined the Ku Klux Klan.

So, the longest serving Senator in history was a KKK member, attempted a Civil Rights Act Filibuster, and is a proud and successful Pork Practitioner.

OUTSTANDING! America, Outstanding!

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a "new beginning" for Iraq, the interior minister said on Friday (Maybe, at least symbolically)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The killing of militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at the same time Iraq finished forming its government was "a stunning shock" to al Qaeda, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Thursday. (I don’t think it “shocked" them too much Rummy)

In a strike that President George W. Bush said could help to turn the tide against the insurgency, two U.S. 500-pound (227 kg) bombs killed Zarqawi in a rural area near Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad, on Wednesday. (Combined with the governmental breakthroughs, maybe)

BUT:

authorities imposed a traffic ban in an apparent effort to prevent al Qaeda reprisal attacks. (It's not all peaches 'n cream yet)

And of course:

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Jazeera television said on Friday it would air a new video tape from Al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al Zawahri. (Keeping the Arab focus on the nut jobs)

KABUL (Reuters) - Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar vowed that the killing in Iraq of al Qaeda militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not weaken Muslim efforts against "crusader forces", a Pakistan-based news agency said on Friday.
(Making sure that Iraq knows more psychos are still coming, and to remain scared)

WASHINGTON (Washington Times) Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war. (Mad that Bush had a victory, the 2^nd string is always good for some idiot comments)

"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out." (And now he’s off to camp Sheehan)

So, Iraqis rejoice and join the Administration on what could be a watershed moment, while everyone NOT in Iraq is trying to quickly quell any positive momentum this may have on the United States efforts in Iraq.

What I find amazing, is that the same people that decry the United States for what the Iraqi people are now going through, would have us abandon them to total anarchy and chaos to meet their personal political agenda. Paradox? I think so. At least I understand the radical Muslims wanting us to fail… but fellow Americans that claim to care about the Iraqis, but would readily sacrifice them on the alter of political victory to the misery of brutal religious civil war… those guys I don’t get.

The 49 to 48 Senate vote fell short of the 60 votes needed Wednesday to prevent judges from striking down existing state bans on gay marriage via Constitutional Amendment.

The night before, votes were cast here in old Alabama, and voters gave overwhelming approval to a state constitutional ban on gay marriage.

I’m a religious man. I believe in God, and his law. I believe that our nation's laws are based, in part, from the essential law provided in the Bible. I also believe that these basic set of laws are acceptable to most humankind:

Legal Commandments:

-Do not murder

-Do not steal

Social Commandments:

-Do not commit adultery

-Do not lie

-Do not covet

-Do not dishonor your parents

Religious Commandments:

-Do not worship any other god

-Do not take God’s name in vain

-Do not worship idols

-Do not break the Sabbath

Now I’m not sure, but I don’t think anything about gay marriage is in there, not under either legal (the foundation of our legal system), social (moral precepts to ensure harmonious society), or religious (ensure a close relationship with God) areas of the Commandments.

The marriage that homosexual couples are seeking is a state institution, with state granted privileges that come along with it. If we, upon moral grounds based from religious standpoints, try to deny those same state instituted privileges, then we are practicing discrimination.

There is no other way to look at it. The idea behind the Founding Father’s design of no state religion was to keep specific religious overtones from government policy.

The Bible says that no sin is higher or lower than any other sin; that God sees all sin the same. If this is the case, then the adulterer is just as sinful as the homosexual. The murderer is no guiltier than a liar; in God’s eyes.

To suddenly assume that homosexuality, and the union by the state thereof is any more sinful than a common-law marriage (two people live together long enough, the state considers them married) is to put a personal hierarchy or value system on sin.

We, all of us Americans, have no moral, religious, or legal high ground to use in denying privileges to people based on something that, in God’s opinion, is no more sinful than when you looked at that co-worker and thought less than honorable things. It is not our place as humans to judge their sin, nor to deny them state institutions because of our notion of that sin.

Now realize I am not advocating that churches around the country pick up and start trying to unify gay couples under God, because THAT is wrong. But state unions are not of God, and have no religious bearing. They are equal to legal contracts entered at the Probate office every day (i.e. selling land and merging a buisness).

This is discrimination; to call it anything else is breaking rule number 9.

Once and awhile you read an article that just clicks with you. That is the moment you realize why professional Journalists get paid to do what they do, and I just do this because I like the pain.

Take for instance this ARTICLE in the Denver Post about Global Warming. He plainly points out from the beginning that HE is no scientists, but instead quotes real scientists.

Imagine this: THEY DON’T CONFIRM THE HYPE OF GLOBAL WARMING!

No, seriously, two world renowned climatologists go on record with this guy and put it out there that the entire Global Warming hysteria is nothing more than a weather version of the Crop Circles Hoax.

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.

However:

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Oh, and by the way:

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming.

So, what’s the story? Why do so many people want this to be true so bad? Why do they pull out countless numbers and studies and reels of information to prove their right… yet not one single serious scientific debate has EVER taken place?

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics.

Both Gray and Pielke (who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu)) say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

Bottom line, the writer, David Harsanyi sums it up best:

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.

As Hundreds of California students, faculty and staff skipped their classes and jobs on in May to protest federal legislation that could harden statutes on illegal immigration; many in America missed the fact that essentially these guys were protesting enforcement of the law.

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- Hundreds of people waving signs and skull-and-crossbones pirate flags demonstrated in Stockholm on Saturday against a police crackdown on a popular file-sharing Web site with millions of users worldwide.

Yet again, protests about government agencies that are trying to fulfill their primary purpose: Maintain law and order. Sure, you’re just swapping some music files around right? And after all, those stupid music companies are charge too much for a CD anyway.

But, I wonder why these same people don’t protest the government when it arrests and convicts someone who hacks into a bank system and transfers their money out to a different account? Essentially it’s the same thing: THEFT!

Why have the last 40 years been able to produce nothing but selfish and self-serving people that have an entitlement mentality that allows them to justify breaking the law?

Lover her or hate her, Peggy Noonan has posted an article about the potential rise of a Third Party that is worth your time. With America at an unprecidented high level of partisanship the climate seems right for a viable third party. And not some right of left wing fringe third party, but a mainstream attractive third party.

She states it best in her opening premise: "Something's happening. I have a feeling we're at some new beginning, that a big breakup's coming, and that though it isn't and will not be immediately apparent, we'll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began."

As disillusioned Republicans see their party acting like the very "enemy" being demonized during elections (high spending and no accountability), and their counter parts in the Democratic party see the DNC move to unseen levels of leftist idiocy, mainstream American may be ready for what both Parties fear the most: "Vote Pandering Flip-Floppers".

Note how bad that sounds. Rush Limbaugh, champion of all things Republican, has often termed moderates, and anything not solidly loyal to a party as "wishy-washy", "indecisive", and "weak minded". He has two goals in this tactic. One is to force those who may question some Republican decision making into a corner where they either feel inadequate for questioning their party, or like "traitors". The other is to paint a picture of the enemy that is slowly coming out of the fog on Capital Hill.

The "Politics as Usual" mentality has led growing numbers of Americans to turn in their Party membership cards, looking at the realities of the politicians rather than just the letters in front of their names. While some DNC and GOP leaders are beginning to react to this in a frantic effort to recruit the new "young blood" into their ranks, it may be too late.

Has the very thought of a "D" or "R" next to someone's name begun to give you a queasy feeling in your stomach? Have you started looking for anyone, anywhere, who doesn't try to force down your throat how "progressive" they are, or how "conservative" they are?

Why does Rush Limbaugh and Al Frankton hate the idea of that "wishy-washy" middle ground? Because a party that represented that group would have to do what America wants, not what the Party Elite wants. That would take the power away from the Party Elite, and give it back to the people. That would put people like Rush, Al, Dean, Gore, Clinton, Bush, Reid, DeLay, and others out of power, and you and me in power. It would mean once again: "A Government of the People, for the People."

Thanks to LASunset over at Political Yen/Yang for the inspiration, and please visit his site for a true indepth analysis of a viable Third Party.

WASHINGTON (Fox News) — House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner said Tuesday he will summon Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller before his panel to explain their decision to raid a lawmaker's office for the first time in history.

Calling the decision to authorize the raid "profoundly disturbing," Sensenbrenner signaled that he would not be among the lawmakers backing off their criticism of the Bush administration.

Seems I remember something about “the first to place blame is usually at fault”.

For his part, Gonzales has said that the search of Jefferson's offices was legal and necessary because the Louisiana Democrat had not cooperated with investigators' other efforts to gain access to evidence. An affidavit on which the search warrant was based said investigators had found $90,000 stashed in the freezer of Jefferson's house.

Here is what Mr. Sensenbrenner, and other congressmen seem to be truly worried about:

"We've never been told why the search had to be done in the middle of the night," noted ranking Democrat John Conyers of Michigan. "We've never learned why the member in question was not permitted to have his attorneys present while his offices were searched for some 18 hours."

Well Congressman, here is a hint: If they told you ahead of time they were going to do it, you’d probably remove any incriminating evidence they’d find. You’ll notice they don’t usually tell the crack house residents they’re coming before a raid either.

Perhaps leading Democrats are right in their assertion that the current slews of Republicans share in the “Culture of Corruption”? Capital hill is not above the law, and they should be made to realize that. We cannot allow them to attack the Administration's Justice Department for doing its job!

Anyone ready for a third party yet?