The truth about carbon credits

Achieving a global carbon credit mechanism continues to be at the top of the agenda of the three contenders for their party’s presidential nomination despite numerous scientific studies concluding that warming of the entire solar system is part of a natural cycle. Non-stop propaganda from the news media and politicians continue to blame man made carbon emissions for warming the planet.

Even though man made global warming is a complete fraud, proponents are using fear of global warming and alleged accompanying catastrophes as a basis for a world carbon credit system. This carbon credit system is a funding mechanism to consolidate wealth into the hands of the big global corporations and to potentially fund regional and global governmental institutions.

The European Parliament Peter Liese of Germany said "We want a worldwide system as soon as possible". … There must be an end to the status quo that nothing is done … which has predominated for many years now."

The European Union is pushing for the carbon credit scam in Europe, and the United States Senate is now trying to pass the Lieberman-Warner Senate Bill 2191 which is called America’s Climate Security Act of 2007. This bill is supported by Democrats and John McCain. If it is enacted into law it will establish a carbon credit system here in the United States that will give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extraordinary enforcement powers over this system.

Any facility that emits or imports fuel that could potentially emit more than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year would be affected by this bill and would be forced to abide by the rules and regulations the bill establishes. It has been reported that one average automobile emits approximately six tons of carbon dioxide on a yearly basis; so obviously 10,000 metric tons is not a lot of carbon dioxide.

Each facility covered by the bill is required to submit to the EPA Administrator periodic reports and anyone that violates the reporting requirement is subject to a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day for each violation.

So what is this about "carbon credits", sometimes also referred to as "carbon off-sets"?

The bill sets up a carbon credit system whereby credits may be issued on a yearly basis to allow "covered facilities" to continue to emit climate-changing carbon dioxide. A "Climate Change Credit Corporation" is established in the bill which would collect large amounts of money by auctioning off increasingly more valuable carbon credits. The bill authorizes this corporation to auction off an increasing amount of carbon credits over time. The bill also mandates that fewer and fewer carbon credits will be made available over time, so these carbon credits will become increasingly more valuable and more money will be funneled into this tax exempt corporation.

A carbon credit or offset is a financial instrument supposedly representing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Although there are six primary categories of greenhouse gases, carbon offsets are measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e). One carbon offset is said to represent the reduction of one metric ton of carbon dioxide, or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases.

In the Lieberman-Warner bill something called The "Carbon Market Efficiency Board" is supposed to be established. This board would become price fixers for the market of carbon credits, just as the Federal Reserve manipulates the value of Federal Reserve Notes, the Carbon Market Efficiency Board will manipulate the value of carbon credits.

Many critics say the bill is nothing more than government fascism which gives broad police powers to the EPA, establishes a board with the power to manipulate the value of carbon credits and establishes a nonprofit corporation with no definitive government accountability that will have a great deal of wealth funneled into it by auctioning off what in the future will be increasingly more valuable carbon credits.

Carbon credits are also a way for many social environmentalists to continue to drive their gas guzzlers and for Al Gore and John Edwards to live in huge electric power-consuming houses while continuing to proclaim how environmentally conscious they are. In fact, anyone of us can go online, determine how many carbon credits we need and buy them from one or another approved sources.

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner. If Gore's motivation in pushing Global Warming is so altruistic, why did he establish a multi-million dollar corporation to cash in on it? Another question is did Gore create his business before the international global warming reports came out because he knew in advance what they would say?

There are practical reasons for participating in the carbon credit market if you want to soothe your polluting conscience. For example, $160 you can turn a Hummer H2 into a zero-emissions vehicle. No tools or mechanical ability are required. That's what a California company called TerraPass promises. It would cost less, of course, to turn a small car into zero-emissions vehicle; that would only be about $40. The stickers TerraPass sends its customers of course do nothing to stop pollutants from coming out of a car but, in theory, the company offers its customers the chance to reduce pollutants from other sources, like power plants, in an amount equivalent to that produced by their car. That way, you can drive your car while having no net effect on the amount of pollution in the air, according to the company.

Believe it or not, TerraPass started as a class project at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School; Tom Arnold is TerraPass's chief environmental officer and sole full-time employee. He has three students working for the company and a three-member advisory board. The company says it is a for-profit enterprise, but caps its profits at a maximum of 10 percent of revenues.

Presumably the money received by the company will be used to purchase pollution allowances on the Chicago Climate Exchange. The Climate Exchange allows polluting companies that produce less than a certain amount of airborne pollutants to sell credits to other companies that then allow them to go over the limit. TerraPass says it also invests buyers' money (remember it only has one employee, the "owner") in power-generating wind farms and other projects that reduce air pollution.

Author Lee Rogers gave this example in 2007 to demonstrate how carbon credit works on a commercial scale:

"A Carbon credit works like this:

Companies are limited to 80,000 tons of emissions, but "Company A" outputs 120,000. To offset this, Company A purchases 40,000 tons worth of carbon credits, therefore bringing them within the so called ‘legal limit’. This opens the door for multibillion dollar corporations to output even more, just by paying a "small fine" of purchasing carbon credits, which may or may not be used recently after their purchase, and even still, may not be used towards a truly worthwhile cause. All the while, Company A is increasing their emissions, while still complying with the Kyoto Protocol."

Although carbon credit advocates are carrying the day, there are critics of the system. They argue that emissions trading does little to solve pollution problems overall, as groups that do not pollute sell their conservation to the highest bidder, not the worst offender. Ironically, many environmental activists consider strong advocacy of carbon trading by Al Gore and others amounts to a denial that global warming is imminent since it permits carbon dioxide emission to continue over a long period of time. Critics of carbon trading, such as Carbon Trade Watch, also argue that by including private activities "it places disproportionate emphasis on individual lifestyles and carbon footprints, distracting attention from the wider, systemic changes and collective political action that needs to be taken to tackle climate change".

Another problem as The Financial Times noted in an article on cap and trade systems "Carbon markets create a muddle" and "...leave much room for unverifiable manipulation". The paper actually conducted an in-depth study of the carbon credit business and made some very revealing findings". Their investigation found:

■ "Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts."

There is also the issues of what do those selling carbon credits do the reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are proponents of the idea merely using the global warming fanatics to line their pockets and do so-called environmentalists scam the system for political advantage.

For one example, The United Nations runs a scheme under the Kyoto Protocol that allows rich nations to invest in clean energy projects in developing countries and in return receive certified emissions reduction credits (CERs) to offset their own emissions. However the credits are being used on projects that would have gone ahead anyway. A UN commissioned report prepared by Germany's Oeko Institute for Applied Ecology, said "projects lacking this so-called 'additionality' help increase gases blamed for global warming by giving firms a spurious justification for continuing to pollute". "One out of five emissions reductions credits sold under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) lack environmental integrity".

How about the use of carbon credit money to "fix" wetlands; does this reduce carbon dioxide emissions? The American Littoral Society received some help from the New Jersey legislature. New Jersey coastal wetlands were included as part of the legislature's climate-change package passed in 2007. That law provides that future sales of carbon credits by energy companies and other big carbon dioxide emitters can be used to restore salt marshes. How does that alleviate the "problem" of greenhouse emissions?

Do conservation activities that allow trees to grow bigger differ from what would have occurred without the carbon payments? And when can you start measuring the difference? Are carbon offset trees growing bigger from a simple desire to do something good for the environment? And should that count as a carbon credit?

Or how about California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger use of carbon credits to justify his anti-environmental activities; is this what global warming fanatic supporters of the carbon credit system had in mind? Schwarzenegger will buy "carbon credits" in the Fred M. van Eck Forest, in the form of trees "allowed" to live and grow bigger and older so they can absorb more carbon dioxide. The purchase will offset some of the global-warming gas released during the governor's frequent trips by private jet. (How do you allow trees to grow bigger; by not cutting them down?)

Anyone can buy credits like this when they purchase an airline ticket; generally for $10 to $15 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions. That's roughly one person's share of a commercial jet's emissions in a round-trip flight across the country. But it is difficult to know exactly what the money buys because there is no accounting. Furthermore there is no agreement in the industry yet on what projects should count toward carbon credits.

For example, in California under AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the state will cap its carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels, and carbon trading is expected to become commonplace as California tries to stay under the cap.

The city of Fargo, N.D. stands to earn more than half-a-million dollars each year from carbon credits.

What did the city do to earn those credits? They responded to citizen complaints about a smelly landfill. Fargo Solid Waste Manager Terry Ludlum can point to a map on the wall at the city landfill; it shows an aerial view of the landfill and it's covered by red circles. Each of those circles represents a methane well and there are 40 of them on the 160-acre landfill.

As reported in a local paper, "A few years ago, as new developments sprouted near the city landfill, people started complaining about the smell. The smell was methane gas from the decomposing garbage buried under dirt. So the city put in wells and started pumping the methane out. First they burned it and then they started selling the gas to Cargill for heat to dry grain at a nearby grain elevator. Now the methane provides heat and electricity for the landfill operation, and extra electricity is sold to a local utility".

Methane collected from the garbage now saves Fargo more than $300,000 a year. But that's not all. Preventing all that methane from escaping in to the atmosphere earns the city carbon credits. Terry Ludlum explains, "If we say it's worth $4.00 a metric ton, all of a sudden you're dealing with $600,000 of income". If the carbon market keeps trending up, Fargo's annual carbon earnings could easily top a million dollars in a couple of years. Is this a great country or what?

Not only are individuals being scammed but the about the federal government is as well.

As part of the one-year-old "Green the Capitol" project to reduce the level of pollution created by members of Congress (and as we know that is quite a lot), the House purchased $89,000 in carbon offsets from the Chicago Climate Exchange, an offset brokerage company. The company then paid farms in the Midwest to take steps to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon offsets were created to counterbalance the release of carbon into the air through practices such as planting trees, which feed off of carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, or employing companies to use non-carbon dioxide-producing fuels as energy.

Republican Representatives Joe Barton (R-Texas) and John Shimkus (R-Ill.) asked the GAO to look into "questionable purchases of carbon offsets" after recent media criticism of the venture revealed that while several farmers who had received money from the House purchase were actively sequestering carbon credits, they might not actually be using the money to further their carbon reduction efforts".

This is what the carbon credit scam is all about; it's a way to get paid for doing something you'd do anyway or not do at all. In this case, the beneficiaries may be small farmers but also include massive companies like Archer Daniels and Cargill. Generally it is major corporations that are pushing hardest for "Cap n' Trade" legislation. General Electric is a major windmill producer and has the largest congressional lobbying budget of any company in the world. General Electric would receive a huge windfall if this so-called "market" is ever made mandatory or legalized even more than it already is.

As one columnist said, "There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it".

The global carbon credit market is expected to be around $70 billion this year and this figure will grow exponentially as governments come on board with similar programs. Such an amount of money will attract scam artists worldwide. How can carbon credits be a good idea when you're giving money to a project that doesn't really need it or it isn't used at all except to line someone's pockets. Buying carbon credits might make you feel better about all the pollution you're generating, but that doesn't make it any less harmful, if it is, -- especially since your carbon credit is more or less pointless.

Would building a wall at the Mexican border be “apartheid”?

If we ever actually built a fence at our Mexican border The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), the Israeli version of the ACLU, might very well claim this was the "onset of legal apartheid"; that’s what the organization told the Israeli Supreme Court in a challenge to a security fence built by the government to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks.

The Mayor of a Palestinian village, Ali Abu Safia, says Israel took Palestinian land to build a fenced road within Israel; he says it’s not for security it’s for politics. Of course, he probably would not say that terrorist killing of Israeli civilians and lobbing of rockets and mortars into Israel was not for politics but Israeli attempts to defend its citizens from attacks are for politics and not for security. This is the logic that prevails among Palestinians and increasingly among western journalists and civil right organizations.

The Israeli Supreme Court apparently has the power to decide what steps the government may take to defend against terrorism in its efforts to minimize deaths of Israelis. This seems an outlandish notion to clear thinking people but it is the same thing in the United States. Our Supreme Court feels it is also entitled to determine what our government may or may not do and how we may or may not treat terrorists captured in battle against American military.

Previously the Israeli court ruled that the government could build a road on Palestinian land and in return could compensate the Palestinians for land used for road construction. This sounds very much like our right of eminent domain where private land may be taken for public purposes.

After the protected road was built other roads were authorized to be built for Palestinians who did not have reason to fear terrorist attacks and murder from their Palestinian brethren. However, the attorney representing the Palestinians who argued the case against protected roads for Israelis said a widespread policy of this nature will be "apartheid". Speaking for opponents; Dore Gold said "the protected road is not for ethnic separation [as in the case of apartheid] since both Palestinians and Israelis can use the road. It is to keep out of secure areas people living in chaotic areas. If the Palestinian authority … had fought terror, this wouldn’t have been necessary".

Before the road was protected in 2003 five Israelis were killed by gunfire on the road and since then a number of people have been injured by stone throwing.

Media Quotes about Global Warming - no wonder so many are brain washed

If you haven’t noticed the news media have a definite agenda when it comes to climate change. All media accounts assume on something akin to religious faith that man is responsible for global warming; they ignore or undermine critics, and promote government intervention to save the planet from this threat. Ironically, not many years ago, in the 1970’s, journalists reacted in the same manner regarding global cooling.

Here are just a few examples of the propaganda spewed by inexpert but diehard voices in the public media of which the founder of the “big lie”, Joseph Goebbels, would be proud, courtesy of Business and Media Institute (grammatical errors and all):

"There is an even greater threat that scientists can only speculate about. As global temperatures rise, they may cause the massive West Antarctic ice sheet to slip more rapidly. Then we'll be facing a sea-level rise not of one to three feet in a century, but of 10 or 20 feet in a much shorter time. The Supreme Court would be flooded. You could tie your boat to the Washington Monument. Storm surges would make the Capitol unusable. For Today, Paul Ehrlich in Washington, DC, on the future shoreline of Chesapeake Bay." -- Paul Ehrlich acting as a news correspondent for NBC in May 1989

“Do people here know that very likely in the next – well several decades – all of this is going to be underwater?” -- CBS anchor Harry Smith, February 1, 2007

“Farmers say [truffle] production is down by 50-75% this winter season and they blame global warming, warning that if thermometers keep rising — as many scientists predict they could — France's black truffle will one day be just a memory.” -- Jenny Barchfield, Associated Press, Feb. 25, 2008

“Climate change has already refashioned the geography of the Arctic, melting glaciers that past adventurers – not to mention the Inuit who make their home in the far north – once journeyed on securely.” -- Bryan Walsh, Time.com Feb. 22, 2008

“What’s your best advice to me and families like me who really want to be responsible and pay even more, but do the right thing because we know this is an issue?” -- Ann Curry, NBC “Today” Jan. 31, 2008

“For a base price of about $12,000, you get a lot of pricey stuff – four airbags, electronic stability control and a reinforced passenger safety cage. What you don’t get is amazing gas mileage. According to the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], the Smart manages just 36 miles per gallon in mixed driving.” -- Lester Holt, NBC “Nightly News” Jan. 27, 2008

“I’m on the prowl for victims, converts in our growing movement.” -- Matt Lauer, NBC “Today” Jan. 25, 2008

“Like the warming scientists are seeing in Greenland and the North Pole, the prime suspect behind the melting at the South Pole is global warming. Manmade carbon dioxide and other gases trapping heat that may well be warming the waters in the coldest police on earth.” -- Anne Thompson, NBC “Nightly News” Jan. 14, 2008

"Al Gore, sexy man. The thinking girl's thoroughbred." -- Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan, The Washington Post, Dec. 12, 2007

“The human race is doomed.” -- Jeff Goodell, Rolling Stone Nov. 1, 2007

“Even global warming may play a role [in allergies]. New plants are moving into areas they weren't before, and this fall has been so warm. So, ragweeds and grasses are in the air and they interact. The allergies you inhale may in fact have an impact on the foods you eat. So, it becomes very intertwined.” -- Nancy Snyderman, NBC “Today” Oct. 25, 2007

"Climatologists say, while we can't blame on fire on climate change, we can say that these factors are combining in that area [Southern California] to set up what could be a century of fires just like what we're seeing now." -- Tom Foreman, CNN “Anderson Cooper 360” Oct. 23, 2007

“In Resolute [in Nunavut territory], the native Inuit are not so sanguine about the benefits of balmy weather. One man invited [James] Graff [London-based senior editor of Time] to watch a videotape of his 16-year-old daughter killing her first polar bear, a rite of passage that is under threat as the melting ice reduces the bear population. For the Inuit, says Graff, ‘the idea that a warmer Arctic would be an easy place to live would occur only to someone from the South.’” -- Richard Stengel, Time magazine Oct. 1, 2007

“Here’s to some global cooling so we get a chance to wear winter’s hot new coats.” -- Marie Claire, October 2007 issue

“Public awareness [about global warming] lagged behind, partly because of a disinformation campaign funded by the fossil-fuel industry.” -- Bill Blakemore, ABC “World News with Charles Gibson” Sept. 23, 2007

“There’s great concern about the impact of the melting ice on the wildlife in that area. For example, the loss of Arctic ice could mean the loss of the homeland for polar bears.” -- Sam Champion, ABC “Good Morning America” Sept. 18, 2007

“Climate change could have global security implications on a par with nuclear war unless urgent action is taken, a report said on Wednesday.” -- Jeremy Lovell, Reuters Sept. 12, 2007

“[How should journalists report on climate change?] It depends …When you cover the history of the space program, you don't quote the percentage of Americans who think the moon landings took place on a stage in Arizona.” -- Sharon Begley, Newsweek Aug. 13, 2007

“How about if newspapers abandon their old way of doing things when it comes to the issue of global warming, and turn their influence to good? It just might be that through this issue alone, newspapers revive themselves to some extent. Editors are shirking their responsibility to improve our world, in my view, so let's change that.” -- Steve Outing, column on Editor & Publisher web site

“[G]lobal warming may hasten the destruction of some of the world’s most treasured buildings and heritage sites.” -- Mark Phillips, CBS “Evening News” June 19, 2007

“The business case for going green is increasingly clear, even without Al Gore droning on and on and on about it: where green goes, so does the bottom line.” -- Time magazine, June 7, 2007

“Scientists say the world’s temperature will rise about two degrees in the next 50 years no matter what we do, but if we act now it might level off after that.” -- Bill Blakemore, ABC “World News Sunday” April 1, 2007

"It's surreal to have pre-eminent scientists tell us very seriously that civilization as we know it is over ... The scale is unprecedented. It touches every aspect of life." -- ABC News correspondent Bill Blakemore in the Summit Daily News, March 13, 2007 Mar, 14, 2007

“Global warming is not coming; it is here.” -- Alexander Wolff, Sports Illustrated March 8, 2007

“Consider the case closed on global warming.” -- Bryan Walsh, Time magazine Feb. 19, 2007

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." -- Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe Feb. 9, 2007 “The top climate experts from all around the world, speaking with one voice, issued a blunt and bleak assessment today on global warning. There was no ambiguity in their words.” -- Charles Gibson, ABC “World News” Feb. 2, 2007

“Do people here know that very likely in the next – well – several decades all of this is going to be under water?” -- Harry Smith, CBS “Early Show” Feb. 1, 2007

“There was a time when we would say ‘global warming’ on television and would be inundated with, like, conservative think tanks and conservative … conservative oil-industry-tied groups whose only job was to try to change the wording ’global warming’ to ‘climate change’ or to get it into something that didn’t suggest that Americans were doing it or that consumers were doing it and that energy companies had any kind of say in it … so we’ve really come a long way on this debate, haven’t we?” -- Christine Romans, CNN “In the Money” Jan. 27, 2007

"Never has good weather felt so bad. Never have flowers inspired so much fear. Never has the warm caress of a sunbeam seemed so ominous. The weather is sublime, it's glorious, it's the end of the world." -- The Washington Post, Jan. 7, 2007

“So I’m running in the park Saturday in shorts thinking this is great but are we all gonna die?” -- Meredith Vieira, NBC “Today” Jan. 7, 2007

"Balmy typically means good things: soothing, mild, pleasant. Yet the word has taken on a more negative connotation lately. People worried that the cause of such a mild December was global warming, and yesterday the joys of wearing short sleeves were tempered with the anxiety of environmental disaster." -- The New York Times, Dec. 27, 2006

"Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned." -- George Monbiot, The Guardian (UK) Dec. 5, 2006

Sometimes a choice is no choice at all

I have voted in every presidential election since 1956. Sometimes the choices were clear and sometimes not so clear but in every instance the choice was between one American and another. The differences among candidates were in political ideas, Democrat and Republican. What a tragedy for our country this is not the case in 2008.

Two possible choices for Democrats are a "particularly good liar" married to the original, and a come-from-nowhere product of the Chicago political machine who won the political lottery and became a senator. Both are at best socialists and can easily be described as anti-American in philosophy and ideals. For twenty years the novice sat on the knee of a virulent preacher who in earlier times would be tried as a traitor to the country. The national shame is that so many among us are willing to support and vote for them.

In the past Americans could choose to vote for a Republican opponent who shared their values and distinguished himself as somebody not prone to accept Democrat positions on important issues of the time; sadly this is not the case this year.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are two sides of the same socialist coin. Both want universal health insurance (erroneously called universal health care) which they say will provide health care for all, both want the government to control aspects of our lives never envisioned by our country’s founders as even possible, both want to have the United States weakened and to lose the war against Islamic Nazism and both want the government to grow endlessly at the expense of those that make the country great through hard work and self reliance. Marx, Lenin and Stalin would be proud of them; as they predicted, capitalism will self destruct if allowed enough time.

And who can we choose to become president if we are unsatisfied with the Democrat contenders; a "maverick" Republican often praised by Democrat house organs for his Democrat-like political achievements. But being a maverick in politics is nothing worthy of praise; it simply means someone who is willing to deviate from his party principles and become, in the words of the dictionary, "a lone dissenter" from the politics of those who elected him to office. Even now John McCain contravenes many political views important to Republican supporters and appeals to "independents". But who are independents; aren’t they those who prefer to sit on the fence when it is necessary to make hard choices?

McCain like his Democrat "adversaries" is taken in by the man-made global warming hoax and wants to replace independent American decisions of security and self protection with being a "good world citizen" who strives to accommodate to the views of others who do not have the same primary obligation to protect Americans. Catering to world opinion is not something an American president should do if he is to fulfill his Constitutional obligations to the citizens of the United States.

Another problem with McCain is his failure to understand when Democrats are eating his lunch. Joining with Feingold and Kennedy to create laws only shows he is not a true Republican because there is no way that these kinds of legislative partners are capable of producing laws that reflect our core values.

How could someone who wants to become president not see through the hogwash of the "inconvenient untruth"? McCain is willing to accept the international mantra and act on this false premise even if it means subverting the greatest country in the world and leads us into economic ruin and unpleasant changes in our quality of life. Al Gore acolytes ignore real science and latch onto the unscientific belief that man can change a planet that has withstood a history of violent climate changes before humans were around to drive gas guzzlers and before the light bulb was invented. Unbelievably McCain is one of them. Has anyone asked McCain on what evidence does he believe we are warming the world by what we do?

Too often elections are occasions to vote against a candidate rather than an opportunity to vote for a candidate of choice. Unfortunately for us all the presidential election in 2008 is one such time.

States like California run deficits; do illegal aliens have anything to do with it?

California is a big state and so are its annual budget and budget deficit. Whether a state, federal government or household, there is a basic reason for having a budget deficit; more money goes out than comes in. Tax and spend Democrats have proven to be expert at both.

California Governor Schwarzenegger along with a Democrat controlled state legislature have racked up a $14 to $20 billion deficit (depending on who does the accounting) and for many years have "balanced" the budget by issuing more and more bonds to supply missing funds. Not even the slightest effort has been made to "live within its means"; i.e. not spend more money than it receives from its high state taxes.

When Republicans suggest that at least part of the money crunch is due to elaborate benefits paid to illegal immigrants, the Governator bristles. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called it a "big mistake" to blame illegal immigrants for the state's huge multi-billion dollar budget gap, after Republicans proposed a decrease of benefits for illegal immigrants to save money. Schwarzenegger said: "There is, you know, always a time like this where you start pointing the finger at various different elements of what creates the budget mess, and, you know, some may point the finger at illegal immigrants, I can guarantee you, I have been now four years in office in Sacramento, I don't think that illegal immigration has created the mess that we are in."

Republicans (unlike Republican-in-name-only Schwarzenegger) contend "There's a cost associated with illegal immigration whether we're in a deficit mode or not," (Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville) "I think it just becomes more (significant) when we're in a deficit mode and we're having to make tough cuts across the board in education and health and human services. Those should be provided to the citizens of this country and people who came to this country legally" (and "only those" I might add).

Although Democrat lawmakers sympathetic to illegal immigration may disagree, Republicans on Tuesday said illegal immigrants cost the state $9 billion annually, citing a Federation for American Immigration Reform study released in 2004. (How much more is it in 2008?) They estimate that California spends about $7.7 billion alone on education for children of illegal immigrants.

It is difficult to disagree with the notion that benefits given by states like California and the federal government are a major attraction for many to enter the country illegally. One spokesman said "It serves as a magnet and taxpayers should not be burdened with those costs".

Information forwarded to me describes the billions of dollars spent in this country as a result of the undeterred illegal immigration. All the web sites mentioned are legitimate but some are no longer available on the internet. Also, some numbers are not current so the true cost today is likely higher than that shown.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens
each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77%20 (an estimate made in 2002; how much more would that be now?)

2. $2.2 Billion a year is spent on food assistance programs
such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis...org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis...org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion a year is spent on primary and secondary school
education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of
English!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion a year is spent for education for the
American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion a year (2006) is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &
social services by the American taxpayers.
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion a year in suppressed American wages are
caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's
two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,
their children may make a huge additional crime problem in
the US.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 million illegal aliens
that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal
aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine,
meth, heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U.S. from the Southern
border.
Homeland Security Report:
http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of
mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period' (if we could do it, but I doubt it is politically or otherwise feasible, nor do I recommend it).
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 billion in remittances back
to their countries of origin. ($25 billion to Mexico)
http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million sex
Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States ".
http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is more than $340 billion each year.

California and other states with illegal immigrant populations are experiencing similarly high costs; no wonder states like California that have a large illegal immigrant population are having budget deficits.

California leads the way in increasing the cost of electricity

Our country has a history of following “innovative” legislation enacted by California; other states are often quick to follow the California plunge toward liberalism. However in the case of a follow-the-leader response to changes in world climate, the country will leap off the edge of the cliff if states adopt California restrictions on fuel used for electric power generation.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law last September that went into effect in January this year. It essentially prohibits California utilities from signing long-term contracts for power, including those from out of state, unless they emit less CO2 per MWh of electricity produced from natural gas fired power plants). Although the law does not specifically ban power generation from coal-fired electric power plants, the limit imposed by the law is set so low as to exclude all coal-fired power plants.

To phase out coal in the rush to lead the way in the fight against global warming, regulations have been approved in California that limit the purchase of electricity from power plants that fail to meet strict greenhouse gas emissions standards. This is particularly bad news for neighboring states which have built coal plant facilities specifically to service the electricity demands of Californians. According to the Los Angeles Times, 47% of the electricity purchased by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power comes from giant coal-fired plants in Arizona and Utah.

The recent climate control law is part of the comprehensive effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California from all sources; power plants, cars, industry, and agriculture. Of course, the basic premise is that mankind somehow affects planet climate changes, in this case “warming”;the mounting evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

This climate change law is in addition to a new carbon cap law signed by the governor last year and going into effect by 2012. All electric power distribution companies in California are required to have 20 percent of their power generation from renewable resources by 2010.

The state estimates about 10 percent of California’s greenhouse gases may be attributed to electricity generation from coal-fired plants outside the state; there are none within California. The carbon cap requires greenhouse gas emissions to be cut to their 1990 levels by 2020, about 25 percent below where they would otherwise be. (But there is no realistic way of determining with any degree of accuracy what emmisions were in 1990.)

The California Public Utilities Commission has established a greenhouse gas emission performance standard for base load generation that must be observed no later than June 30, 2007. The standards require that emissions from power generation plants cannot be any higher than the greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas fired plants. The effect of California’s legislation is to dictate how electric power is generated outside of the state because so much of electricity is imported from coal-fired power plants in nearby states.

Estimates vary but global warming enthusiasts believe that coal fired power plants emit roughly twice the greenhouse gases of natural gas fired power plant on a pounds per megawatt basis. California will clearly make it extremely difficult to sell conventional coal-fired electric generation into California.

Before these laws were passed in California, the State Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee acknowledged: "depending on the level of allowable greenhouse gas emissions and how existing plants' emissions are calculated, this bill could render many existing conventional natural gas, co-generation, biogas, and biomass plants, as well as coal plants, ineligible for [long-term] contracts unless they improve their emission performance by rebuilding or adding pollution controls." The state government ignored the fact that this technology does not yet exist, and the high cost, but adopted the rigid standards anyway.

California statutes clearly authorize utilities to recover costs associated with complying with the two statutes which means that industrial and residential consumers will be left to pay for this expensive “save the planet” effort of political correctness.

If all this wasn’t bad enough, consider the impact California leading edge climate control laws will have on our country’s dependence on foreign oil, and the resulting security risk that entails.

Alberta tar sands hold about as much oil as Saudi Arabia. The oil that is technologically retrievable today from Alberta's tar and oil sands is estimated at 280-300 GB (billion barrels). (The Wall St. Journal says "at least 174.") Saudi Arabia's oil reserves are listed at 240Gb. Total reserves for Alberta, including oil not recoverable using current technology, are estimated at 1,700-2,500 GB. The cost of producing oil from Alberta tar sands is about $25 per barrel.

However, tar-sand oil leads to high CO2 production; according to Wikipedia: "for every barrel of synthetic oil produced in Alberta, more than 80 kg of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. A barrel of oil weighs 130 kg, and that's about 80% carbon, so that's ~110 kg carbon." The molecular weight of CO2 is 12 for carbon plus twice 16 for oxygen, equaling 44 compared with pure carbon’s 12. So, 110 kg of carbon in a barrel of oil produces (44/12)*110 kg, or about 400 kg of CO2. Getting energy from tar sands instead of natural gas results in emitting more CO2 than emitted by by natural gas.

What does this mean? Since California law prohibits buying power from power plants using a fuel that exceeds the CO2 emissions of natural gas, the state will not permit use in California of electricity generated from plants that use oil from Canadian tar sands.

Many western states have established goals of reducing greenhouse gases by specific amounts or to particular baseline years. Oregon's and Washington's governors joined Governor Schwarzenegger in 2003 in the idea of adopting coordinated strategies to address greenhouse gas emissions. It is likely that these and other states could now follow California and also adopt similar statutes. States across the country have more than a passing interest in the California legislation. Many politicos believe what California has done will result in increased pressure on the federal government to also enact similar legislation.

Congress and all three presidential contenders believe the hokum about global warming. So a new administration combined with a Democrat controlled congress almost certainly will adopt restrictions on what fuel may be used not only for electric power generation but for other purposes that they believe will add to CO2 emissions.

We have learned many times it is the public that will suffer the possible consequences and pay the ultimate cost of damaging action by energy decision makers, both in dollars and in the quality of life; now we can also add national security because our dependence on foreign oil will only increase once limitations are placed on use of Canadian tar sand oil.

How could anyone not be on the side of Israel?

An article on the Robert Spencer Jihad Watch site asked the provocative question “How could anybody in their right mind not be on Israel’s side?” I share the sentiment expressed in this question. One answer, unfortunately, is the Israeli government seems to not be in “their right mind” because it cannot be said they support Israel’s right to exist if they are willing to negotiate away Israel’s survival and fail to respond to the Islamic threat.

I asked a Muslim I respect “why do the Arabs hate Israel so?” The reply was that Arabs in general believe Israel pushed Palestinians out of their homes in the land which is now the country of Israel and Arabs other than Palestinians support them because the Koran says it is their duty to do so. Actually I have read the Koran and agree that it does support this belief but the basic problem is that the premise of Israel ejecting the Palestinians from “their land” is wrong.

Those who believe the Bible is a true historic account can point to various passages to support the contention that the land belonged to Jews long before any Arabs lived there. For one such account I refer to Ezekiel 36:16-17a, 18-28, which says in relevant part:

“The word of the Lord came to me, saying… I scattered them [the Jews] among the nations, dispersing them over foreign lands; according to their conduct and deeds I judged them. … So I have relented … Therefore say to the house of Israel: … Thus the nations shall know that I am the Lord, says the Lord God, when in their sight I prove my holiness through you. For I will take you away from among the nations, gather you from foreign lands, and bring you back to your own land. … You shall live in the land I gave your fathers; you shall be my people, and I will be your God.”

Since “the land”, Israel, was given to the Jews by God, anyone living there when the Jews were gathered “from foreign lands” following the holocaust, lived on that land only by sufferance of those not yet returned and cannot be said to have been evicted from land they "justly owned", because under God they did not properly own it.

The real problem in the Middle East is not the Palestinians were “forced out of their homes and land”; it is that Arabs are governed in countries of the region by theocratic dictatorships who want to remain in power at any cost and restive populations they rule need to have a diversion from the rigid domination. The Palestinian “plight” serves that purpose by bringing together Muslims in a religious “jihad” against those who they are told victimize other Arabs.

It is convenient that the Koran teaches Islam must triumph everywhere and eventually must rule. It doesn’t even matter if it takes a century or more or if it never comes to be. What matters is the fact that goal is established by the Koran and serves the purpose of the Islamic dictators. As long as the Koran is regarded as the word of God it cannot be reinterpreted into a less virulent form. As the literal Word of God, non Muslims will be a target forever and Israel is merely the most convenient object of their hate at the moment but Israel is by no means the only target of their wrath.

For decades Israel has been the most-publicized object of jihad because it is an “infidel nation-state, in the middle of ‘Dar al-Islam’, and contains the despised Jews; this is what sends Muslims into a fury. Although some Muslims may conceal that fury for the benefit of western government appeasers and diplomats; that fury will always remain.

The only consolation for Israel is that Israel is not the only object of Muslim hatred; all non Muslims are. In the Middle East Islamic Nazis achieve success through world-wide public relations efforts what they are unable to achieve militarily.

Western liberal sympathizers and Muslims call opponents of Islam crusaders and supporters of Jewish aggression. Many “intellectuals” agree with these accusations. Even the United States and Western Europe presume to preach to Israel as to what Israel has a "right" to do and what Israel "must" concede after fighting three wars of survival in the past fifty years. The United Nations decides what constitutes a "proportional" response. Again and again Israel is required to give up territory in every negotiation and agreement, all of which are breached by the Muslims. Israel is required to continue peace negotiation while under constant bombardment by rockets and mortars. Is it right to lecture Israel about anything when it is in a perpetual fight for survival?

The inability to criticize Islam under threat of violence is just one more indication of the power of this extremist ideology. I repeat, how could anyone in his right mind not be on the side of Israel?

“Change”; we want change, or do we?

Everyone has something in their life they would like to change. Perhaps that's why politicians preaching "change" are often successful. But what is it in our lives that we want to change and can the politician seeking elected office make those changes?

Too often people don't think about the substance of change they think they want. Right now presidential aspirants Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are telling people to vote for them because change is good and they will give the people change. They will indeed give people change but are the changes they will make good for those that will vote for them? Actually as far as Barack and Hillary are concerned the most important change they want to make is to replace Bush with one of them in the seat of power.

If those enamored with the prospect of change really thought about it, behind the attractive prospect of change is nothing like the sort of things they want to change in their lives. Some people would like to have a house but a change of who is in charge won't give them a house. Others want to punish corporations and business, but punitive actions against business, like raising their taxes, only increases the cost of things they will buy that are made or sold by these higher taxed businesses.

Some people think everyone should have health insurance. Interestingly the demand is actually for universal "insurance" not health care. The truth is that anyone needing health care is able to get it today regardless whether or not they have "health insurance". Requiring everyone to buy health insurance, as Hillary and Obama want to do, will not make health care more available, it will just make it more costly. Another consequence of their misguided health care proposals is that the quality of health care will likely diminish. The clamor to reduce cost of health care usually means reducing the amount paid to providers for their services. This will have the obvious and inescapable result of discouraging providers from treating people and others from entering the medical profession. Another likely result is that medical professionals will withhold services from those insured and offer to treat only those able to pay for services outside of insurance programs. Medicare recipients are already victims of underpayments to physicians because many doctors will not treat Medicare patients.

Perhaps those that want "change" want the government to "tax the rich" more (but not them). Well a vote for Hillary or Obama will surely accomplish that because they want to do away with the Bush tax cuts that expire in 2010. Since about 50% of Americans don't pay any taxes, why should they object to raising the taxes of those that do pay? Well one reason if they thought about it is the golden goose story. Killing the goose that lays golden eggs does not help anybody; in this case it will make some businesses shut down and unemployment will go up. Furthermore, voters may be surprised at who is in the "rich" category for tax purposes; do you think someone making $50,000 to $75,000 a year is rich? Allowing the tax cuts to expire in 2010 will cause a culture shock to many pocket books and family budgets. It is startling that so many supporters of the two candidates for the Democrat presidential nomination are willing to sacrifice their family's welfare for the chance to make a "change". It is even more startling that some wealthy people think a Democrat administration will be good for them, or for the country.

Another reason some want "change" is that they want to exact a penalty for "Bush's war". After all there seemingly were no WMD's in Iraq, many soldiers are killed and the war is lasting too long. Of course we must forget that Hillary and almost all Democrats voted for the war in the first place because to remember that will not enable them to call it "Bush's war". Obama is against the war too and would not have voted for it if he were old enough, excuse me, I mean if he were in congress at the time. We must also forget that more people are killed every year in gun-free Washington D.C. than are killed in Iraq. It is also important to ignore the fact that if either Democrat candidate is elected, it is highly unlikely that all our military will be withdrawn from Iraq because to do so will result in calamities no president, Democrat or Republican wants to be responsible for on their watch.

Yes, change sounds like a good idea but change for the sake of change is nonsensical. Sure we all want change of some sort in our lives, but as the sages say, we should be careful what we wish for, we just might get it.

In a just world America would be cheered (corrected)

In a just world the American successful effort to topple brutish dictator Saddam Hussein and his even more evil sons would have been met with cheers around the world, and especially in Iraq and the United States. But the world does not sensibly react to momentous efforts to secure freedom so what we find is ingratitude in the world, including in Iraq, and domestic political maneuvering for political power.

Five years after defeat of an Iraqi dictatorship famous for rape rooms, unconscionable torture and support of terrorists, the local and foreign press ignore the achievements and focus on the errors, of which there are many. But even an imperfect effort should be praised, not scorned, when the results are measured in lives saved and horrors avoided. The "balance sheet" may not be fair in terms of lost American lives and wounded against the gains brave men and women achieved, but the same critics could also have said the same thing about the effort to destroy the Nazi regime and topple Adolph Hitler. As long as there is a will to do the right thing and people are willing to sacrifice for success, the world will be a safer and better place even if those saved don’t appreciate it.

However, focusing on the losses in Iraq fails to recognize the significant achievements and improvements in the lives of the Iraqi people. True, the followers of Arab Nazism have thwarted every effort to succeed, nonetheless Americans and their few allies have much to be proud of in terms of improvement in daily Iraqi life in addition to the amazing gift of freedom from the horrors of the Saddam reign of terror.

For example; before the Americans "landed" there were 0.8 million telephone land lines and no cell phones, now there is 1.1 million land lines and 10 million plus cell phones; before there 4 to 8 nationwide hours per day of electricity, now there is 9 to 10; pre war there were 12.9 million people with potable water, now there are 20.4 million; there were 6.2 million with sewage systems, now there are 11.3 million. (Sources: DOD, Brookings Institution, AP News Research Center and Special Inspector general for Iraq.) Huge numbers of schools and hospitals have been built and equipped by America after the war and Iraqi people are free to use them without fear of government selection and oppression. All-in-all this is not a bad track record for the "invaders".

What about the claims of enormous loss of Iraqi and American lives? Well, statistics show that 37,912 Iraqis (as of March 11, 2008) have lost their life, not the hundreds of thousands anti-war zealots allege. There have been 3,987 Americans killed and 29,314 wounded (as of March 14, 2008). There have actually been more U.S. contractors killed, 4,876 (through 2007), than the military (so much for the unfair criticism of Blackwater and other security providers).

And what about the cost of the Iraq war; various estimates by critics range as high as $2 trillion. But according to a recent Chicago Tribune article by Liz Sly, U.S. war costs are said to be, in billions of dollars: $49 in 2003, $88 in 2004, $60 in 2005, $95 in 2006, $122 in 2007 and $113 in 2008, for a total of $527 billion. Now this isn’t chump change but it is a long way from the trillions of dollars anti-war activists would like us to believe.

So what is the situation for the people in Iraq now; many shopping areas have sprung back to life as security has improved, many Iraqi tribal leaders have joined Americans in fighting al-Qaeda and the Iraqi army has been shouldering more of the load against terrorists.

Critics of the war still echo loudly the refrain that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction so the Iraqi war was a bogus enterprise by George Bush for oil, even though little or no Iraqi oil makes its way to the US. Forgotten in the calumny is that the entire world including Democrats now disclaiming the idea and Bill Clinton, were of the belief that Iraqi WMD were a world threat. The United Nations issued numerous resolutions based on the same premise. But when the United States acted on that belief, all hell broke loose; not at the time of course but on Monday morning after the game was ended. Though there is no evidence of nuclear weapons, who can legitimately say that Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons after they were used against Saddam’s own people?

What about the al-Qaeda connection and Saddam Hussein? Forget that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; forget that Saddam financed terror operations against the west; but was there a tie to al-Qaeda?

In a recent column, Ken Timmerman has addressed the claim that there was no connection with al-Qaeda:

"A much-publicized report released by the Pentagon last week details the extensive ties between the regime of Saddam Hussein and a wide variety of international terrorist organizations, including Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

"Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States," the report’s authors at the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) state. But instead of reporting on this conclusion, most of the media accounts have focused on a single sentence that appears in the executive summary, stating that the report’s authors found ‘no smoking gun’ or ‘direct connection’ between Saddam’s Iraq and al-Qaeda."

"Another source involved in the report told Newsmax that one reason some documents were not included in the analysis was because of the sheer mass of material available — more than 600,000 documents, in all."

Unfortunately the American people are not regularly informed about accomplishments in Iraq and when they are, accomplishments are minimized and negative elements wherever found are made part of the story so that the public will not get the idea Iraq war critics are wrong. The goal of the leftist media is not to "report" the news, but to support a political agenda. This may not be the first time that’s happened, but it is a dangerous practice when the lives of courageous men and women are at stake.

In a just world America would be cheered

In a just world the American successful effort to topple brutish dictator Saddam Hussein and his even more evil sons would have been met with cheers around the world, and especially in Iraq and the United States. But the world does not sensibly react to momentous efforts to secure freedom so what we find is ingratitude in the world, including in Iraq, and domestic political maneuvering for political power.

Five years after defeat of an Iraqi dictatorship famous for rape rooms, unconscionable torture and support of terrorists, the local and foreign press ignore the achievements and focus on the errors, of which there are many. But even an imperfect effort should be praised, not scorned, when the results are measured in lives saved and horrors avoided. The “balance sheet” may not be fair in terms of lost American lives and wounded against the gains brave men and women achieved, but the same critics could also have said the same thing about the effort to destroy the Nazi regime and topple Adolph Hitler. As long as there is a will to do the right thing and people are willing to sacrifice for success, the world will be a safer and better place even if those saved don’t appreciate it.

However, focusing on the losses in Iraq fails to recognize the significant achievements and improvements in the lives of the Iraqi people. True, the followers of Arab Nazism have thwarted every effort to succeed, nonetheless Americans and their few allies have much to be proud of in terms of improvement in daily Iraqi life in addition to the amazing gift of freedom from the horrors of the Saddam reign of terror.

For example; before the Americans “landed” there were 0.8 million telephone land lines and no cell phones, now there is 1.1 million land lines and 10 million plus cell phones; before there 4 to 8 nationwide hours per day of electricity, now there is 9 to 10; pre war there were 12.9 million people with potable water, now there are 20.4 million; there were 6.2 million with sewage systems, now there are 11.3 million. (Sources: DOD, Brookings Institution, AP News Research Center and Special Inspector general for Iraq.) Huge numbers of schools and hospitals have been built and equipped by America after the war and Iraqi people are free to use them without fear of government selection and oppression. All-in-all this is not a bad track record for the “invaders”.

What about the claims of enormous loss of Iraqi and American lives? Well, statistics show that 37,912 Iraqis (as of March 11, 2008) have lost their life, not the hundreds of thousands anti-war zealots allege. There have been 3,987 Americans killed and 29,314 wounded (as of March 14, 2008). There have actually been more U.S. contractors killed, 4,876 (through 2007), than the military (so much for the unfair criticism of Blackwater and other security providers).

And what about the cost of the Iraq war; various estimates by critics range as high as $2 trillion. But according to a recent Chicago Tribune article by Liz Sly, U.S. war costs are said to be, in billions of dollars: $49 in 2003, $88 in 2004, $60 in 2005, $95 in 2006, $122 in 2007 and $113 in 2008, for a total of $527 billion. Now this isn’t chump change but it is a long way from the trillions of dollars anti-war activists would like us to believe.

So what is the situation for the people in Iraq now; many shopping areas have sprung back to life as security has improved, many Iraqi tribal leaders have joined Americans in fighting al-Qaeda and the Iraqi army has been shouldering more of the load against terrorists.

Critics of the war still echo loudly the refrain that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction so the Iraqi war was a bogus enterprise by George Bush for oil, even though little or no Iraqi oil makes its way to the US. Forgotten in the calumny is that the entire world including Democrats now disclaiming the idea and Bill Clinton, were of the belief that Iraqi WMD were a world threat. The United Nations issued numerous resolutions based on the same premise. But when the United States acted on that belief, all hell broke loose; not at the time of course but on Monday morning after the game was ended. Though there is no evidence of nuclear weapons, who can legitimately say that Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons after they were used against Saddam’s own people?

What about the al-Qaeda connection and Saddam Hussein? Forget that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; forget that Saddam financed terror operations against the west; but was there a tie to al-Qaeda?

In a recent column, Ken Timmerman has addressed the claim that there was no connection with al-Qaeda:

“A much-publicized report released by the Pentagon last week details the extensive ties between the regime of Saddam Hussein and a wide variety of international terrorist organizations, including Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”

“Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States,” the report’s authors at the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) state. But instead of reporting on this conclusion, most of the media accounts have focused on a single sentence that appears in the executive summary, stating that the report’s authors found ‘no smoking gun’ or ‘direct connection’ between Saddam’s Iraq and al-Qaeda.”

“A much-publicized report released by the Pentagon last week details the extensive ties between the regime of Saddam Hussein and a wide variety of international terrorist organizations, including Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States,” the report’s authors at the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) state.”

“But instead of reporting on this conclusion, most of the media accounts have focused on a single sentence that appears in the executive summary, stating that the report’s authors found “no smoking gun” or “direct connection” between Saddam’s Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Another source involved in the report told Newsmax that one reason some documents were not included in the analysis was because of the sheer mass of material available — more than 600,000 documents, in all.”

Unfortunately the American people are not regularly informed about accomplishments in Iraq and when they are, accomplishments are minimized and negative elements wherever found are made part of the story so that the public will not get the idea Iraq war critics are wrong. The goal of the leftist media is not to “report” the news, but to support a political agenda. This may not be the first time that’s happened, but it is a dangerous practice when the lives of courageous men and women are at stake.

“… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments recently in a case concerning a law in the District of Columbia that essentially bans ownership of guns. Dozens of briefs were filed for consideration by the court, including one by the Bush administration that seemed to say "yes, people can own guns, but we (the government) have a right to put restrictions on gun ownership". Well, that's not what the constitution says.

The Second Amendment of the constitution concerns the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The country's founders thought this right so important it is included in the first ten Amendments constituting the Bill of Rights, without which the constitution would not have been ratified by the original thirteen states; the fact that it is the Second Amendment and not the 10th shows how important this right was regarded.

In the 1,700's Americans were under the rule of a despotic government that displayed its power in many ways including imposing unreasonable taxes on its "colonialists". Many Americans of the time either came to this land to escape government persecution or were children of those that did. Those brave men having successfully fought a war against all odds to form a new free country were not about to leave posterity in the same situation from which they escaped or lived under during their time as subjects of a king. The only way they succeeded in the war was by defending themselves against a tyrannical government through the force of arms. For this reason the Second Amendment was deemed essential to freedom then and in the future.

As our country drifted away from the values held dear by our founders, all sorts of government controls have been effectively imposed upon its citizens. The limitations the constitution set upon the federal government have been consistently and continually expanded by congress itself, the executive branch and most despicably by the judicial branch of the tripartite government having supposedly equal powers established by the constitution. The pity is that this was done not in the dark of night but in the light of day, and was accepted by the people because it was cleverly done incrementally; one small intrusion after another sanctioned by the courts and especially by the U.S. Supreme Court, the final arbiter from whom there is no appeal.

This then is the background for a decision expected this spring as to whether the constitution means what it says or what constitution revisionists want it to say to increase the power of the federal government. Interestingly, these same people will readily find some basis for legal concepts they want to create but are unwilling to accept the constitutional language as it is when it is applied to a right they do not wish us to have. The Second Amendment establishing the right of the people to own guns is just one example of the latter.

The language of the Second Amendment is simple enough.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Some gun control socialists wishing to disarm the people ignore the word "shall" and instead focus on the preamble reference to a "militia". They would have us believe that the amendment only applies to those in the military and not to all individuals. How absurd is that! If this was the intention surely those writing the constitution were capable of so expressing the provision. The brief filed by the Gun Owners of America in this case says it best:

"Thus, the amendment's "well regulated Militia" encompasses all citizens who constitute the polity of the nation with the right to form their own government. The amendment's "keep and bear Arms" secures the right to possess firearms such as fully-automatic rifles, which are both the "lineal descendant(s) of … founding-era weapon(s)" (applying a 2007 court of appeals' test), and "ordinary military equipment" (applying a 1939 Supreme Court standard).

No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain."

On this point Chief Justice Roberts made a cogent comment during questioning of counsel: "If it [the Second Amendment] was limited to state militias, why would (the drafters) say 'the right of the people?' In other words, why wouldn't they say 'state militias' have the right to keep arms?"

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote in the divided court, also said he believed the Second Amendment covered a "general right to bear arms" and that the Amendment was rooted in the concern for people to have the right to defend themselves.

The "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is unequivocal; federal, state and local governments should not be able to chip away at this right with restrictions or limitations of any sort for any reason.

The NAFTA Superhighway - a link in the chain

Without public notice the Bush administration is proceeding with construction of a vast superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada. The “highway” is four football fields wide and will have multi-lane roadways, room for a pipeline and a railroad. The main beneficiaries of this project will be the mega-businesses that will move merchandise of all sorts across the continent at lower costs than presently and add to profits at the expense of our private property, security and landscape.

Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement later approved by congress in 1994. At the time the debate about NAFTA focused primarily on whether or not it would assist our economy and whether American jobs would be lost. Little attention was called to the provision in the treaty to build a massive corridor that would allow goods from all over the world to enter Mexican ports and flow through the United States on fast track lanes. The only scrutiny would be that vehicles would be checked by an electronic security system at a “custom center” located in Kansas City, Missouri; about 1,000 miles from either border. This border check will also be under construction soon.

From the custom center in Kansas City trucks will be able to cross the country on a system of roads and rails totaling about 4,000 miles in Texas alone. These roads will begin with the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC-35) and include new roadways and improvement of existing roads; however this is only the beginning of the continental highway system. The cross-continent highway will go through the west from Mexico to Canada through Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Montana. A branch will go from Houston, Texas to Memphis, Tennessee, to Port Huron, Michigan, and onto Toronto, Canada.

Under the authority of a Supreme Court decision expanding the use of eminent domain, privately owned land will be seized to build the roadway and for private corporations to build a gas pipeline which also will be part of the superhighway system. The expectation is that the NAFTA Superhighway will be expanded into a system of about 80 corridors crisscrossing the United States and will likely eliminate any north and south border of our country. The present authorization by the president, over the objection of congress, to allow Mexican trucks to enter and cross America are just the first step of the process and serves as an example of the what may be expected in the future.

The vast scope of NAFTA Superhighway calls for the confiscation of hundreds of thousands of homes, farms, businesses and entire communities for its construction. Tolls will be required to pay for the roadways and tax payers will also likely pay for the construction of the Mexican portion because the corrupt Mexican government will be unable to do so.

At the risk of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist”, it is plausible to me that the NAFTA Superhighway is only one link in the chain to draw Canada, Mexico and the United States together. If that is the intention, imagine what it will mean to have one entity that includes the corruption and poverty of Mexico and the socialist-inclined Canada. If you disagree with this description of Canada, consider that Canada has:

Banned the death penalty,
Imposed draconian restrictions on gun rights,
Adopted a national socialized medicine program,
Received military deserters and provided a safe haven for them, and
Legalized homosexual marriage.

If the Security and Prosperity Partnership program (SPP) and the NAFTA Superhighway come to pass, we will see multi-national corporations with government support seize large portions of American property, adversely affect our national security and damage our environment, all for the purpose of making their businesses more efficient and to enhance profits.

Do you wonder as I do why the president and so many members of congress, the media and business seem to be unconcerned about this unpublicized effort toward harmonization of infrastructure, laws and regulations of Canada, Mexico and the United States? Is the failure to protect our borders by the administration and members of congress a reflection of the expectation that one day we won’t have either borders or “illegal immigration” because anyone crossing our borders will be authorized to do so and borders will become unnecessary?

Without opposition, only time will tell.

The secret life of SPP

The term "Sub Rosa" (literally "under the rose") was coined to indicate discussions that were to be secret; not to be disclosed to anyone outside the Sub Rosa group. Today we can substitute "SPP" (Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement) for Sub Rosa because all discussions and agreements reached by government and business representatives of Canada, Mexico and the United States are too important to share with the public for whom they are acting. In the case of the United States, discussions and agreements are too important to also share with congress.

Thanks to Jerome Corsi and WorldNet Daily we now know an unreported meeting was held recently at the State Department for the purpose of discussing "integration of the U.S., Mexico and Canada in concert with a move toward a transatlantic union, linking a North American community with the European Union". The Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, or ACIEP, conducted the meeting under what are called "Chatham House" rules that prohibit reporters from attributing specific comments to individual participants. "Present at the meeting were about 25 ACIEP members; among them being U.S. corporations involved in international trade, prominent U.S. business trade groups, law firms involved with international business law, international investment firms and other international trade consultants", but no members of Congress attended the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting was stated in the agenda: review the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, another name for SPP, and the previously virtually unreported "U.S.-EU Transatlantic Economic Council", or TEC. The trilateral SPP originated by declaration of government leaders in 2005 and has about 20 working groups of bureaucrats that seek to "integrate and harmonize" administrative rules and regulations of the three countries on a continental basis. Participants are said by Corsi to have based discussions on the premise that the purpose of SPP "is to create a North American business platform to benefit North America-based multi-national companies the way the European Union benefits its own". Others indicated further that the premise of the Transatlantic Economic council is to create a convergence of administrative rules and regulations between Europe and North America, anticipating the creation of a "Transatlantic Economic Union" between the European Union and North America.

An objective observer becoming knowledgeable about these important aims of the discussions would conclude that congress and the public should be kept informed of such momentous concepts which affect the lives of all American citizens but apparently our government leaders believe more can be accomplished "Sub Rosa" without the interference of public discourse or congress.

A list of participants seeking de facto, but not de jure, agreement by Canada, Mexico and the United States of SPP reads like a "who's who" of mega industry, their legal representatives and the government. A complete membership list of the current 60-person Advisory Committee on International Policy is published on the State Department website. But, for example, just a few of those present at this meeting were labor leaders, corporate officers from General Electric, Exxon Mobil, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Archer Daniels Midland, United Parcel Service, Citibank, Proctor & Gamble, Hunt Oil, CMS Energy, Boeing, 3M, Goldman Sachs and Cargill; and corporate legal advisors such as Theodore W. Kassinger, Partner at O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, (who serves as Chairman), Nancy Zucker Boswell, Managing Director of Transparency International, and Thea Lee, Policy Director of the AFL-CIO, (serving as Vice Chairmen).

It is not rocket science to realize why leaders of large (really large) businesses are interested in having SPP implemented - in a few words - bigger business and profits. However what is surprising is that our president is so fervently on board with this enormous undertaking to benefit business, and in an unpublicized way. Considering the motivation for SPP, it is perhaps easier to now understand the foot-dragging on closing out borders and stemming illegal immigration by this administration.

Currently transatlantic trade is 40 percent of all world trade. Mega business wants trade and non-trade barriers further reduced to maintain and expand their market share and this can be best achieved if a framework of SPP is put in place to advance transatlantic economic integration. Looking beyond mere transatlantic business integration to enhance business and profits, some corporations in North America have already moved beyond the continent and have focused attention on adopting a global perspective that transcends even the transatlantic market.

Corsi reports participants at the meeting as saying "Supply chains and markets are everywhere". "What's to stop global corporations from going after the cheapest labor available globally, wherever they can find it, provided the cost of transporting goods globally can be managed economically?"

Regional alliances like NAFTA, SPP and the European Union are important, if only to put in place the institutional bases that ultimately would lead to global governance on uniform global administrative regulations favorable to multi-national corporations.

Again according to Corsi, - "North America should be a premiere platform to establish continental institutions," a participant said. "That's why we need to move the security perimeters to include the whole continent, especially as we open the borders between North American countries for expanding free trade."

There are several reasons why administrative rules and regulations need to be integrated by SPP in North America and by the Transatlantic Economic Council, bridging together European Union and North American market to enhance international business:

o "Standardization - to keep prices low and productivity high;

o Investment - for every $1 traded, $4 is invested; right now 75 percent of investment in the U.S. comes from the EU, and 52 percent of the investment in the EU comes from the U.S.;


o Productivity Improvements - to lower production costs and stimulate trade; and


o Open Borders - to facilitate the free movement of labor to markets where employment opportunities are available. The discussion pointed out the SPP trilateral working groups and the Transatlantic Economic Council was being supported by top-level Cabinet officers and the heads of state in both the EU and in North America".

Those seeking advancement of SPP have some concern that the next president may not have the same sympathies and loyalties to mega business that George Bush has. Clinton, Obama and McCain have indicated some protectionist tendencies despite the Democrat's reliance on support from unions. In particular, participants at the ACIEP meeting are worried that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have mentioned renegotiating NAFTA, for example. Furthermore, political candidates could be expected to argue "protectionist themes opposed to global economic integration" and are not, at least at this point, committed to take what they regard as "aggressive steps once in office" as has George Bush.

However, at least a few union leaders are part of the insider group of SPP supporters. It appears that their long term vision is to increase union membership by forming global worker unions, with them in charge of course. One can imagine the economic havoc such international unions can reek under threat of global strikes. Therefore, it is certainly a realistic possibility union leaders will be able to convince the Democrat candidate, and a future Democrat president, to follow in the Bush footsteps and support the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement and its implementation on a global basis after successful achievement of the North American Union SPP envisages.

Success of SPP hinges on convincing the people in the three countries of North America to subvert nationalism to regionalism. This may be more difficult in the United States perhaps than in the other countries but we cannot underestimate the power of the SPP supporters in and out of government. There are concerns that national regulators in North America and Europe may be too reluctant to abandon "provincial regulatory advantages". As Corsi has noted regarding one participant's comments, "Regulators by nature are advocates, and they are hard to move," one participant grumbled. "What we need is more diplomats and negotiators to identify solutions, otherwise the bureaucrats will bog down the progress we need to see coming out of the SPP and TEC"; more "diplomats" indeed, that's just what we need, say I sarcastically.

If this isn't bad enough, also said at the meeting again according to Corsi, "North America is already an integrated continental economy and a continental-wide business platform," and "What we need now is more regulatory convergence. Harmonized mean that once approved the same set of administrative regulations and procedures ought to be ready throughout NAFTA, SPP and the TEC". If we start with "regulations and procedures", can harmonizing laws be far behind - and what happens to our constitutional rights?

Do you see where this is heading and what these people have in mind? Should this be something to be developed in secret apart from congressional oversight and public knowledge, or do you agree with me that this has become the secret life of SPP?

Global warming is big business

Have you noticed that those concerned about "global warming" and man's contribution to it, no longer use that term; now we are striving for "climate control". The reason for the Orwellian word change is that evidence is mounting that any current warming is not due to what you and I do, it happens, if at all, because of what we euphemistically call "mother nature" does. Why the sudden change; because the objective of leftists masquerading as environmentalists is to bring down high living capitalistic societies.

And "climate control" can be very profitable for some; just consider the so-called "cap and trade" system advocated by "climate control" advocates. Some Northeastern states, like Massachusetts, are going to conduct an auction of greenhouse gas emissions permits, and all presidential contenders also want to implement the cap and trade system on a national level. The states that want to do this are members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and will raise hundreds of millions of dollars annually by requiring greenhouse gas emitters to purchase emission credits; businesses that don't "pollute" will also reap millions of dollars by selling their "credits" to others such as by state live auctions held to sell greenhouse gas emission permits. But imagine how much more money such auctions could raise if they were conducted by the federal government. By setting a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions and running state and national auctions for emissions permits under the cap, the governments at all levels could accrue tens of billions of dollars annually (and Democrats know how to spend this windfall).

About 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions reputedly come from electricity-generating power plants so electric utilities are natural customers for "credits". Of course, as utilities they are guaranteed to make a specified profit by public utility regulation. The profit to which they are entitled is generally a percentage of their cost of producing electricity and this number is used in setting electric rates for consumers, i.e. their customers, you and I. Therefore how is this additional cost to be made up, why by increasing our cost of electricity?

Proponents of the cap and trade system including some governors as well as federal legislators say they are trying to create a new electricity marketplace where energy efficiency competes directly with power generation to meet growing demand at the lowest cost. But will this actually lower cost? How can costs be lowered if a new expense is added to the cost of producing electricity which is then passed onto the customer? They say that the present system rewards utilities for selling as much electricity as possible and this incentive is at odds with curbing greenhouse gas emissions. That may be true but it supposes two things: first that greenhouse gas emissions are to be avoided because of their alleged impact on global warming, excuse me "climate control", but ample evidence shows that is not correct and, second, total cost can be reduced by adding another expense to the cost of doing business (does this make sense to anyone?).

When you add what utilities will have to pay for credits to legislated limitations on where and from whom they can buy power to fill the needs of the public (California for example has a new law that will limit utilities in the near future to buying power only from power plants that do not use coal to generate power), it is clear it is electricity users on a local level and businesses that depend on electrical energy who will bear the entire cost for the climate control boondoggle.

Then of course lets not forget that the inventor of global warming, Al Gore, stands to make millions through his newly formed company that will buy and sell greenhouse emission credits, and that the academics who came up with the "evidence" of global warming get millions in research grants for helping to sell this lie.

Obama wants to end world poverty on your nickel and surrender the United States to the United Nations

Overlooked in the fervor to select a Democrat nominee is what Obama really stands for; we can only hope this will not be the case in the national election if Obama is chosen. There are many ideas proposed by Obama to criticize him about but one that stands out and has great implications is the Global Poverty Act Obama supports.

The Global Poverty Act (S.2433) would require the United States to spend $845 billion ($845,000,000,000.00) on welfare to third-world countries. This amounts to a tax of over $2,000 on each man, woman and child in the United States. The foreign aid budget now stands at $300 billion; the Act would add the additional expenditure to the already huge amount allocated to assist the world.

As Phyllis Schlafly wrote recently:

"Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts..."

WorldNetDaily.com quotes Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media as saying:

"[T]he legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years... would amount to $845 billion 'over and above what the U.S. already spends. "The plan passed the House in 2007 'because most members didn't realize what was in it.' Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require." (Emphasis added to show the seriousness of the chance this horrendous bill may become law.)

The cost in money of Obama’s Global Poverty Act is not the only problem. The bill requires the President: "acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the United States Government, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further... the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal".

The "international organizations" and "international nongovernmental organizations" and "other appropriate entities" are of course the United Nations; the same institution that has a record of corruption, bad judgment and anti-Americanism.

In 2000 the United Nations established a “Millennium Development Goal” (referred to in the Global Poverty Act) having among its provisions: a "currency transfer tax," (a tax imposed on companies and individuals who must exchange dollars for foreign currency); a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources"; "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection -- oil, natural gas, coal"; "fees for the commercial use of the oceans and fees for airplane use of the skies", fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum", "fees on foreign exchange transactions", and a "tax on the carbon content of fuels".

The Millennium Development Goal also includes: a "standing peace force," (that is, a United Nations army); a "UN arms register of all small arms and light weapons," (which would enable guns to be regulated or confiscated in contradiction to the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution); "peace education," to be offered "at all levels from preschool through university"; and "political control of the global economy." All this would be done by the UN General Assembly because in addition to all else, the Goal includes "strengthening the United Nations for the 21st century" by "eliminating" the veto and permanent membership in the Security Council. (Note: the third world holds a majority in the UN General Assembly.)

The Millennium Development Goal also proposes: "eradication of poverty" by the "redistribution [of] wealth and land," cancellation of "the debts of developing countries, and "fair distribution of the earth's resources."

The United Nations Millennium Development Goal resembles the goals developed and implemented by the totalitarian Nazi regime in Germany under Adolph Hitler.

Many in the Senate have already announced support for Obama’s Global Poverty Act; among them; Senators Richard Lugar, Joseph Biden, Maria Cantwell, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, Tim Johnson, Tom Harkin and Robert Mendez. (President Bill Clinton also endorsed the Global Poverty Act.)

I suggest we do as Phyllis Schafley recommends:

"The Global Poverty Act would be a giant step toward the Millennium Goals of global governance and international taxes on Americans. Tell your Senators to kill this un-American bill."

We should also remember what Barack Obama stands for when we vote in the presidential election if he is on the Democrat ticket. Election of Obama would mean a loss of the independence our soldiers have fought and died for us to maintain.

Ho hum; so Governor Spitzer is another Democrat male skank – what else is new?

It comes as no surprise to most people keeping up with current events that the news media displays a bias for Democrats and against Republicans. However, the latest media behavior regarding New York Governor Spitzer's dalliance with $5,000 hookers and comments by "pundits" (if you can call Alan Jerkowitz a pundit), needs some comment.

First of all, Spitzer's transgressions are more than just thinking with the wrong head. According to the New York Times:

"...in the Hauppauge offices of the Internal Revenue Service, investigators conducting a routine examination of suspicious financial transactions reported to them by banks found several unusual movements of cash involving the governor of New York... ... this was not typical: transactions by a governor who appeared to be trying to conceal the source, destination or purpose of the movement of thousands of dollars in cash, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The money ended up in the bank accounts of what appeared to be shell companies, corporations that essentially had no real business. The transactions, officials said, suggested possible financial crimes -- maybe bribery, political corruption, or something inappropriate involving campaign finance. Prostitution, they said, was the furthest thing from the minds of the investigators."

News reports say Spitzer was involved "with a prostitution ring" (that's the first time I read that a "John" was involved with a prostitution ring), However the truth is that his purchase of "services" was just the tip of the iceberg, Spitzer is not a good man, as the Times reports.

Republicans have been the target of numerous reports of "scandals", most of which made headlines ad nauseam until the Republican target was either driven out of office or at least the butt of Washington and David Letterman jokes.

Even the Washington Post, no voice for the vast right wing conspiracy, was driven to acknowledge the disproportionate treatment given to such matters:

"Sex scandals involving politicians are as old as Thomas Jefferson, but the outcome seems to depend on which party you represent. In recent years, for the most part, Democrats have been able to survive their sordid escapades while Republicans have paid with their political lives."

A modest Google search reveals examples too numerous to mention but here are a few:

Speaker Newt Gingrich and Republican whip Tom Delay were too effective to suit the Democrats and their brethren in the press so they had to go; Democrats can't have the opposition being more effective then they.

Bob Livingston was to replace Newt but he got into trouble over a dalliance much milder than Spitzer's (he had an extramarital affair, without charge). Nonetheless Livingston was likely to be an effective successor to Newt so he had to go too.

That's the usual outcome for Republican. If you don't believe me, just ask Bob Packwood, Thomas Evans, Jack Ryan, Dan Crane, for example; they fell on the basis of salacious accusations which don't compare to the likes of Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy, all of whom kept their office and have been hailed by their supporters rather than condemned. Bill Clinton stained the oval office, Barney Frank permitted a homosexual prostitution business in his home conducted by his sweetheart and Ted Kennedy was responsible for the death of a young woman working for him after a drinking party.

Compare the cases of Republican Senator Bob Packwood and Democrat Representative Jim Bates; both were accused of sexual harassment by female staff workers; Packwood resigned under Republican, Democrat and media pressure while Bates actions were excused by his Democrat colleagues and the press and he won reelection.

And then there is a Republican Representative Tom Evans rejected by voters following a newspaper "exposé" of his association with a lobbyist who was the subject of a Playboy magazine pictorial; whereas Democrat Senator Charles Robb had an affair with a "Miss Virginia" to no political detriment. (Robb claimed that Ms. Virginia had only given him a back rub in a hotel room.)

Media interest in Republican, but not Democrat scandals, was highlighted by publication of Joseph Minton Amann and Tom Breuer's book "The Brotherhood of the Disappearing Pants: A Field Guide to Conservative Sex Scandals". For some reason only conservative sex scandals are of interest. When asked "why", Amann said, "Liberal scandals aren't as fun. And, honestly, it doesn't look like there are as many"; of course he didn't look very hard for the other side's indiscretions. The authors' political impartiality is seen from a previous book they published - "Fox News, Fair and balanced my ass".

Clearly Democrats seem to get away with more. Apparently everyone expects Democrats to be slugs. Republicans are considered more respectable so they are held to a higher standard of conduct. The news media delights in "exposing" immorality of Republicans but it's no big deal to point out just another Democrat's walk on the dark side since so many do.

For the record, and so Democrats don't get a pass on this issue, here is an item referenced in the Drudge Report that puts into balance what the news media won't:

"Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress (plus 1 from the White House)"

"Information compiled from the Washington Post, "Congressional Sex Scandals in History," and other sources."

"11. William Jefferson Clinton, (D-Ark) President 1992-2000 - Multiple accusations of rape and other sexual assault. Served two terms as president. With the full aid and consent of the Senate, he was allowed to stay in office after being impeached by the House. Remember, many of the current RINO senators were in office for this and decided to not decide!

10. Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.

9. Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

8. Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank's residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

7. Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.

6. Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election-before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

5. Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

4. Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.

3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991."

If you want to see a longer list of largely unreported Democrat follies, e-mail me and I will send it to you.