Sunday, April 23, 2006

The Global Warming Myth!

“Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions.” Washington Post & Beltway Blitz

As Americans ignored the passage of Earth Day this past week, some scientists are finally beginning to question much of the dramatic predictions make by the “Global Warming alarmists. A new study recently completed at Duke University concluded that much of the hype surrounding the environmentalist fears of climate change are greatly exaggerated.

For years the world has been subjected to the claims of scientists and politicians who insist that Global Warming is a real threat to the planet. On note were a University of Toronto scientist who predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures. Other geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases. Oregon State University research linked future "societal disruptions" with global warming, while the Carnegie Institution reported that the insulating influence of northern forests alone would raise the Earth's temperature by 6 degrees. In 2004, Harvard University scientists informed Congress that warming had doomed the planet to climatic "shocks and surprises." Of course in the minds of these people the United States is to blame for this potential calamity.

These environmentalist extremists argue that the Earth’s temperature could raise as much as sixteen degrees due to the depletion of ozone from pollution causing disaster. The Duke study however concluded that there is only a five percent chance that temperature could increase even eleven degrees. The Duke study found patterns of temperature increases and decreases throughout the history of the planet. "Ancient and modern evidence suggest limits to future global warming," the study concluded.

The humanist arrogance of those who buy into junk science puzzles me. These environmental liberals fail to recognize and respect the power of the Earth. Humans are insignificant in the face of earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, etc. Logically, the idea that humans could alter the natural God given power of the planet is presumptuous at best.

For example, thirty thousand years ago Neanderthal man thrived in the ice cold regions of what is now Western Europe. However one day the ice melted and Neanderthal died out. To my knowledge these primitive people did not own SUV’s or pollute the air yet the Earth got dramatically warmer.

To form public and economic policy around unproven junk science is folly. For more of Manifest Destiny’s views on the environment please check out this week’s podcast!

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Duke Rape Case Worthy of Local, Collegiate Coverage

By W.T. Dixon III

I work for a living, as does my wife. We are new parents to a beautiful 15 week old girl. If we can catch a breath between re-heating leftovers and bottles and watching re-runs of Everybody Loves Raymond, we occasionally tune into the broadcast and cable news channels to see what’s going on outside our little world of spit-up and paychecks.

Last night, I was appalled by what was considered newsworthy by most every talking head out there (conservative or liberal, it didn’t matter). The Duke rape case is hardly worthy of the national attention it’s received. This is a case that deserves some local and campus level coverage, and that’s it.

Bill Bennett was even devoting airtime to the event this morning on his radio show. Pardon me, but why does this merit national attention?

Every rape allegation is tragic, either because it’s true, or because it’s not. But rape allegations are routine, like house fires and murders.

Recently in our hometown, there was a fire that killed some children (tragic, of course). We are a big media market (16th largest in the country), and I was arguing last week that this story belonged in the local section of the paper(instead of on page one, above the fold). How does it look to out-of-towners traveling to our beloved city that we devote such coverage to a flipping fire?

I’m a little old school when it comes to all of this touchy feely local interest stuff in our media. I was a journalism major in college. We were trained to follow an “inverted pyramid” when it came to writing news articles (important details first, less relevant details last). If only the editors of our newspapers and news programming would follow such rules, especially when it comes to deciding which stories are relevant. One friend of mine, who is apolitical, jokes that the local news is all bad news except for the final story which, he jokes (not entirely inaccurately), “is always about some a-hole petting a duck.”

Do these national guys get all their cues from Drudge or “News of the Weird?”

Can we talk about terror? Iraq? Iran? North Korea? Rumsfeld? Bush? Something relevant? But let’s focus our attention on what really concerns America. This Duke rape case is simple. Either these guys did it, or they didn’t. Why do we care? Same with Kobe and Natalie Holloway.

When I was in college (1992-1996), there was an alleged rape that took place my freshman year. It made the college newspaper, but there was no hint of it in the local press. Let’s stop obsessing about Duke when we should be obsessing about things that affect our lives, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Namely terror and the economy.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Time to Feed the Government Sow - Tax Time!

As conservative Americans cringed this week after filing their taxes, liberals everywhere jumped for joy as 75% of your money went to their socialist utopia. then they have the nerve to say that we are spending too much on the war. Hard working Americans feed the “sow” which is the bloated federal government meant redistribute your wealth. More Adam Smith Lassie Fair would further bolster the economy.

Today’s tax system flies in the face of the Founding Fathers and American values. The idea that the government takes your hard earned money and gives it to someone else has proven historically to be in error. If you’re a liberal please see USSR, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietman, North Korea, etc. These places are all economic failures. Western European socialism is on the verge of failure because of too many social programs and to high of a tax rate. There freebies like medial care are poor and not worth the money. They would be better off without the safety net and a private care system.

Liberal Social Programs are like a giant SOW! You pay - they suckle

The United States cannot fall into this liberal trap. We need to move in the other direction. The nation must simplify the tax code, lower the tax rate, and stop spending money on worthless social programs like LBJ “Great Society” or “Welfare Entitlement Society.”

Liberals cry and whine about the rich! I am not rich. I work hard for my money and want to keep it. I do not recent the rich. They work hard to and create jobs, supply products and services, and make our country strong. How many jobs has a poor person on welfare created? Why is it then that our economic policy is to punish the rich?

Dick Cheney, a man liberals love to hate for being successful in life, gave seventy five percent of his income away to charity this past year. How many bleeding heart liberals can claim that? He of course also shelled out five hundred thousand dollars in tax! If liberals like taxes so much why do they not pay more? Why do they accept their tax cuts?

**For more ranting on taxes and a historical perspective check out this week’s Bully Pulpit Podcast!**

Friday, April 14, 2006

McCain's Primary Plan - Historical & Political Perspective!

“ CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - Republican Sen. John McCain, reaching out to wary conservatives, delivered some bad news to the party's core constituency on Thursday, warning that the midterm elections will be hard for the GOP.” Yahoo News

In recent weeks, Senator John McCain has been touring conservative gatherings across the country. If you live in a red state the “McCain Conservative Express” may be visiting you too in an effort to mend fences with the conservative base. His apparent goal is the further self promotion of his bid for the 2008 Republican nomination.

On April 11th in Ohio, a key electoral battle ground state, McCain attended a $1,500 a plate Ken Blackwell fundraiser. Blackwell, a strong contender in the Ohio gubernatorial race and a staunch conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, is hardly the type of conservative one would expect to find in the arms of Senator McCain. However politics make strange bed fellows. The Bully Pulpit believes that McCain is hoping that by appearing with staunch conservatives that he will be able to garner more support from the Republican base during the primary season. McCain is also auditioning potential traditional conservative running mates such as Ken Blackwell to further his appeal to the base and balance a potential ticket.

The “McCain Conservative Express” continued on April 13th as it thundered into Iowa, the first stop on the way to Pennsylvania Ave. a stop he did not make in 2000. McCain spoke to a group of Iowa conservatives and delivered what will become part of his campaign message “the Republican Party is in trouble.” "We Republicans are going to have a tough race in 2006 because the country is not happy with us . . . We have a 25 percent approval rating in Congress" McCain said. He also strongly supported President Bush’s policies in the War on Terror and take a tough stance on the Mullahs in Tehran. However, McCain has not changed his position on other issues such as gay marriage and immigration. He also opposes ethanol production which is near and dear to Iowa conservatives.

McCain is going to make a strong bid for the Republican nomination in 2008. Considered a renegade by many conservatives, ironically McCain will have to play to Republican weakness in order to obtain the party’s endorsement. McCain’s primary campaign will be based on strong national security, fiscal conservativism, and a new face who can appeal to a broad range of Americans.

Republicans are going to face the prospect of President Hillary in 2008 and will need to nominate someone who can beat her. McCain, who leads Hillary in every poll, will try and position himself as the only Republican stop impending doom.

McCain will first rely on his voting record on the War on Terror and his support for President Bush to help bring leery but hawkish conservatives into his column. He may even receive convert assistance from the Bush team as payback for not agreeing to join Kerry’s proposed “unity ticket.”

McCain will then try and seal the deal with a strong conservative fiscal agenda. "Many of our Republican supporters are not happy because we are spending money like a drunken sailor . . . We risk not our base voting Democratic, but what I worry about is there being disillusions with us and (voters) staying home" McCain said in Iowa. Most conservatives feel that the administration and the GOP Congress have not lived up to their fiscal conservative creed.

What can History tell us?

McCain is the enigma of American politics these days. He is in a sense a modern day Henry Clay or Steven Douglas trying to play all sides of the spectrum in order to obtain the Oval Office. Neither of them achieved that objective. Will McCain? To some extent McCain is also somewhat like Teddy Roosevelt in that he is strong on defense yet a progressive. TR was too a maverick. Republicans are going to have to find a real conservative to beat Hillary or settle for what Marcus Hannah described after President McKinley had been assassinated when he said “that God Damn Cowboy is in the White House!” Even worst like TR if McCain does not get the nomination he will run as a third party candidate. Have you ever heard of TR’s Bull Moose Party that allowed Wilson to become president? A battle for the Republican party has begun.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Bush Will Use Nukes on Iran!

“The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.” News Telegraph

A senior pentagon source has reveled that intense military planning is underway for a possible confrontation with Iran over its nuclear weapons program. "The Bush team is looking at the viability of airstrikes simply because many think airstrikes are the only real option ahead" said Kurt Campbell, a former Pentagon policy official. At this juncture the planning is most likely meant to pressure Iran at the diplomatic table as military action is not yet imminent.

While the source claims that a ground invasion of Iran is not being considered at this time other military options available to the president are being explored such as a sustained air campaign, submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM’s), and even the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Possible targets might include the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. The British press especially is concerned that President Bush is considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons to spite some objections within the Pentagon. One possible contingency entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites like those around Natanz.

President Bush is said to believe that he must definativly deal with the Iranian menace before the end of his presidency. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy". According to Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, Bush is said to describe Iranian hard line President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as "the new Hitler” that “will get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war." In the eyes of President Bush this would be an unacceptable outcome and regime change may be the only option to prevent such a conflict.

Evil requires force to stop its spread

If these reports are true than the president clearly understands the threat to world peace posed by Iran. While idealistic liberals cry for “world peace” and “diplomacy” the sad reality is that mankind has always been historically confronted with evil. Such evil cannot be reasoned or negotiated with in order to keep the peace. History has taught us that the very nature of evil requires force to stop its spread. Would Hitler or Imperial Japan have come around to diplomacy? If you are a liberal and still confused just ask former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who returned from a 1938 meeting in Munich with Hitler with an agreement for “Peace in our Time.” After words Chamberlain said "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep." It was that type of weak naiveté that doomed mankind to World War II.

History has taught us that the only answer to evil like that posed by Iran is to confront it with decisive military force. While regime change in Iran is ideal, it is not likely to happen soon enough. Therefore the sooner we deal with Iran militarily the better the world will be. While war is never anyone’s first option, sometimes it is the only way to save lives.

When President Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, over 170,000 Japanese were killed in the fireball. Thousands more were injured. While liberals are still crying about those causalities and injuries today imagine if the U.S. would have instead invaded Japan. The entire country would have been destroyed, millions of Japanese would have been killed, and at least one million Americans would have died. Therefore the horrific power of the bombs actually saved lives and stopped evil on the march.

Iran must be dealt with today so the world does not regret its inaction tomorrow as Chamberlain must have. A smaller war now, that even included nukes, is much more preferable to a larger conflict later when Iran also has the bomb. President Bush understands this concept and with that I “go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”