Al Gore’s movie is finally getting its just desserts. A judge in England has ruled that before the movie can be shown in England, the students have to be told of 11 falsehoods contained in the movie. To take those 11 items out of the movie would completely gut the content of the movie. There would be almost nothing left. That is so great. Thanks to our friends in England for having the good sense to see the truth.

It looks like Al Gore is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday. It is based in large part on the movie he made. That is just great. He gets the top Nobel Prize and it is all based on lies. How appropriate for what that prize has become in the past few years. It has become more an anti-American prize than a real Peace Prize. The winner has to denounce America or work to destroy America in order to win the prize. Al Gore will win the prize because it is anti-American values, which is the same as anti-American.

One of the facts that Al Gore got wrong and the judge got wrong as well is that Al Gore claims that the seas will rise almost 23 feet, the judge claims they will rise 4 feet. Both are inaccurate. The seas will rise a few inches at most. The rise will only occur if the current slow rise in temperature continues for a long period of time without interruption. That is highly unlikely. Most likely there will be periods of cooling mixed in and that will modify downward the rise in the level of the sea.

Al Gore also claims that Antarctica is shrinking. Almost all experts agree that Antarctica is at least maintaining its ice level and most think that it is growing. The temperature in Antarctica is dropping and so the ice is not melting like Al Gore thinks it is.

Al Gore claims that the rise in carbon dioxide led to the end of the ice age. The data shows that the rise in carbon dioxide occurred 800-2000 years after the rise in temperatures. Al Gore thinks that carbon dioxide is causing the current very mild rise in temperature. He is wrong about that also. Carbon dioxide rises after the rise in temperature, not before the rise in temperature. The current carbon dioxide level is far below historical averages for carbon dioxide levels.

Al Gore claims that the Gulf Stream is disappearing. Nothing could be further from the truth. It seems that the Gulf Stream has seasonal fluctuations. If you take readings at low level periods, you can think it is disappearing. If you then take them during high level periods you know it is not disappearing.

The movie “An Inconvenient Truth” contained very little truth. It contained a lot of scare information and falsehoods. Scientists that contributed to the movie had to know that they were giving false information. Scientists cannot be so stupid as to believe what Al Gore was saying. Unfortunately, I can vouch that some scientists believe Al Gore. Whether someone believes Al Gore or not has more to do with their politics than with science. Socialists and those that lean socialist will believe Al Gore. Those that believe in freedom will not believe Al Gore. It is as simple as that. The science is also simple. There is no evidence that supports Al Gore’s position. There is a lot of information that supports people that do not believe him.

That brings me back to my usual theme when talking about Al Gore or his global climate change advocates; they are not concerned about the environment. They are only concerned with bringing in a socialist workers paradise. The avenue they have chosen is the environmental one. If they can convince people to give up their Constitutional rights because it will “help” the environment, they can then install communism in the US. The environmental movement is just a front for the communist groups. We have to stop them at this stage. If they start instituting communism, we are lost as a country.

Today, Fred Thompson takes center stage at the Republican debate in Michigan. All eyes will be on Fred as he is making his first appearance in a debate. All the others have been in debates before, so we know what to expect. With Fred, you do not know what to expect with him this time out.

If Fred Thompson comes out and blows everyone away, he is the front runner and will most likely be the Republican nominee. If he matches Rudy and Mitt, he will be in the same tier with them. If he acts bored and tired, he will be out of the race before he really got into it much.

Rush Limbaugh was talking about one thing the candidates need to do today. He said the candidates need to put into words the dissatisfaction that Republican voters have with the main stream media. If they get it right, it can jump start a floundering campaign. If they get it wrong, it will mean more of the same for the campaigns. Right now, no campaign has caught the imagination of the Republican voters. One that could put Republican dissatisfaction into words would really catch fire and lap the rest of the field. There are exceptions to this of course; Ron Paul and John McCain are two that could not do it if they tried. I am talking of the top three candidates. If any one of them manages to break into the Republican irritation with the news media and the Democrat party, they would have so much energy they could not contain it.

This is written about the time the debate will start. I expect that the debate will be like all the other debates as far as who does well. Mitt Romney will be considered best by most people as he is usually considered the best. Rudy Giuliani has his ups and downs. When he attacks Mrs. Bill Clinton he does well. When he tries to be like the other candidates, he does poorly. My guess is that he will try to get his digs in about 9/11 to bring his positives up. If Chris Matthews lets him he will get away with it. If Chris Matthews wants him to debate as a Republican, he will do poorly. Fred Thompson will come across as informed and will do well. I expect some will think he won the debate, but most will put him in second or third place.

They are debating in one of the worst off areas of the country. The region was chosen because it has gone Democrat recently and needs to go Republican. Mitt Romney was born in Michigan and is somewhat of a home town hero. One of the questions will be how do you get Michigan out of the doldrums that have stricken it in the past few years. The answer is actually quite simple, get rid of Democrat rule. Democrats raise taxes. Taxes need to be reduced. Welfare needs to be reduced. People need to be encouraged to go back to work, not stay on welfare. The biggest help to Michigan would be for the state of Michigan to cut its tax rates to some of the lowest in the country and the growth rate would go off the charts. The Democrat Governor would have a fit about this and the Democrat legislature would never reduce taxes. The prescription would fall on deaf political ears in Michigan. It may fall on fertile voting ears in Michigan. That would go a long way to make Michigan a Republican state and a state where people would like to live again.

This election should be a clear one for voters. You have the socialist plan put forth by the Democrat candidates. You have the freedom loving capitalist plan put forth by the Republican candidates. We are at a crossroads. Will we choose freedom or economic slavery that is socialism? I believe that Americans if given a true choice will pick freedom. We are not so far gone as the liberals think we are to choose the slavery of socialism.

I saw a note on the Drudge Report that said that Mrs. Bill Clinton has the money, but Barak Obama has the crowds. Which brings us to the question, which is better?

On a local scale it is more important to have crowds. Having lived in small towns and rural areas, if people come out they will probably support you. Money in this situation will help, but people will show support with their feet. If Mrs. Bill Clinton cannot draw the crowds that Barak Obama pulls, it spells problems for her. Having money for a big media blitz will not make that much difference in the rural areas.

In urban areas having money is more important than crowds. Urban populations do not show up at events like people in rural areas. You may get larger crowds, but they are a much smaller percentage of the population. Money in an urban situation will trump large crowds as people will get most of their information through the media. The large crowds may translate into votes, but they can be trumped by a big media blitz.

What does this mean in Iowa? I have never been to Iowa. But, I did live in North Dakota and eastern Colorado for a total of around 8 years. Based on my observations in those areas, the crowds will mean Barak Obama will win most of the votes in rural Iowa. Rural Iowa is a major portion of the state. It is not as large a percentage of the state as in North Dakota, but still substantial.

Mrs. Bill Clinton should be able to saturate the airwaves in urban Iowa. That will mean she will take substantial votes in urban Iowa. The fact that Barak Obama is doing well in rural parts of the state will be reported in the newspaper and on the news. Mrs. Bill Clinton cannot do anything about that. At least I don’t think she can. She may be able to institute a news blackout, but I don’t think it would work. That would cut into her leads in the urban parts of the state.

Overall, I believe that Barak Obama will have a great shot at defeating Mrs. Bill Clinton in Iowa. There is a substantial portion of the state that is rural. Even the parts of the state that could be considered urban are not really urban in the east coast meaning of the term. The Iowa urban would almost be considered suburban or even rural in New York or New Jersey. That is why I do not think she can build a big enough lead in the urban areas to counteract the Barak Obama lead in the rural areas. .In other words, she is in trouble in Iowa.

If Mrs. Bill Clinton is in trouble in Iowa, she may have trouble other places. She is genuinely not liked by many people. She is feared by almost every living thing on the planet. She is liked by almost nobody. Her support may be a mile wide, but it is an inch deep. If there is a viable alternative to Mrs. Bill Clinton, people will flock to that person if given a chance. That is particularly true if that person can show that they can beat Mrs. Bill Clinton in an election.

Mrs. Bill Clinton may have a big lead in the polls. I think that it is just Democrats doing what they did with John Kerry in 2004, flocking to someone who they feel can be elected. If any chinks show up in her armor, that huge lead could disappear in a second. The same thing happened to Howard Dean when a chink appeared in his armor. He was on his way to the nomination in 2004 when he tripped in Iowa. Mrs. Bill Clinton may have exactly the same problem. People actually liked Howard Dean. Nobody likes Mrs. Bill Clinton. She has nothing to fall back on. She has no reserves. She either wins out or goes down in flames. For the good of the country, I hope it is down in flames.

The Democrat party is still trying to demonize Rush Limbaugh. The wife of the Breck Girl was interviewed and rehashed the Democrat talking points. She also added that those that support Rush should evaluate their support.

Mrs. Edwards is supposed to be a smart woman. She is supposed to be a lawyer. She obviously does not believe in doing fact checking before making statements. The more I hear from Democrat lawyers, the more I realize that facts have nothing to do with things Democrat lawyers do.

John Edwards is a Trial Lawyer. He made his millions by using junk science to prove that babies with genetic birth defects were the fault of the doctor. Facts were never very high on his list of priorities when he was making his money as a Trial Lawyer. He was able to channel the spirit of these children into what they would say if they were in court. The surprising thing about all of those children he channeled is that they all believed in his case and wanted him to win. Isn’t that a remarkable achievement? You would think that there would be some disagreement among the babies, but not with John Edwards as the seer.

Anita Hill is a lawyer. She did not let facts get in the way of a good accusation when she accused Justice Thomas of sexual harassment. She almost succeeded, but her goal was just out of reach. Her accusation was so out of character for Justice Thomas that it was just not believable by anyone close to him. The committee that reviewed the accusation determined that her charge was baseless. She still stands by it today. To do otherwise would brand her a liar. Of course, she is a liar and everyone knows it except for liberal Democrats.

There is a long list of 41 Democrats that signed a letter to Clear Channel Communications about Rush Limbaugh. The letter repeats the false accusation that the Democrat party is trying to use against Rush. Most of those 41 Senators are lawyers. Obviously they did not check their facts before signing on to the letter. By signing on, they have made themselves look like a fool and maybe even worse. Before you sign a letter that accuses someone of something, make sure that the charge is true. Even if the charge is so good that it fits with what you believe, it is always good to check your facts. Obviously Democrat lawyers do not bother to check facts before making accusations.

Harry Reid is trying to make this accusation into some kind of religious action. The speech he gave in the Senate floor has the earmarks of the fatwa’s that Muslims like to issue against people who do not follow the party line. I am not sure if Harry Reid is an attorney, but he obviously does not do fact checking before making accusations. Since he does not check his facts, should we believe him when he says anything?

That brings up a larger point. Democrats in general are jumping all over Rush Limbaugh over something they want him to have said, but did not. If they get all this worked up over a lie, can we believe anything any of these Democrats say? There are 41 Democrats in the Senate, including Mrs. Bill Clinton herself, that have proven that they do not check facts. This is when the facts are easily obtainable. Rush has the discussion in question up on his web site for anyone to check. It is obvious that Rush is referring to people pretending to be soldiers when he calls them phony soldiers. He is not referring to those who have served and disagree with the war on Islamo-Fascism. My point is this; if the 41 Senate Democrats have proven themselves untrustworthy on this minor issue, can they be believed on any other issue? My response would be no, they cannot be trusted. They should not be trusted until they start using facts to back up their statements. Should we believe any of the Democrat candidates running for President? No, all of them except for Edwards signed the letter to Clear Channel. Edwards has stated that he believes the Democrat talking points instead of the truth. All of the Democrat candidates for President have proven themselves untrustworthy. They should not be believed in any campaign statements until they start using facts.

Well, we have a dilemma. Mrs. Bill Clinton says she started Media Matters. Media Matters sent a spokesman out yesterday and said it was started by David Brock. The spokesman said that Mrs. Clinton had no input in starting Media Matters. Now which is it? Did Mrs. Clinton start Media Matters like she said? Or did she have no role in starting Media Matters like Media Matters said?

My personal opinion is that Mrs. Clinton did have the leading role in starting Media Matters and put David Brock as the front person. It would have to be something like that. When you look at who has written articles on the “phony soldiers” situation, it reads like a veritable Clinton White House operation. Either Media Matters coincidentally hired former Clinton White House operatives or they were ordered to Media Matters by the Clinton election team. The latter scenario seems likely as that is the way the Clinton’s operate. They leave nothing to chance. They will want to control all sides of the debate.

Media Matters is a 501C3 operation. That means they are a non-profit organization that cannot have any political operation. I ran 501C3 organizations for about 10 years and know the law. Even lobbying for projects you like can get you in trouble with legislators and then the IRS. The advantage of being a 501C3 is that you can accept donations and the donations are tax deductible for the person that donates. To lose that designation would dramatically reduce their ability to raise funds. They have to be very careful about any official contact with the Mrs. Clinton for President Team.

The spokesman had to say that Mrs. Clinton had no connection with Media Matters. If she had started Media Matters, the IRS would have investigated and most likely pulled their 501C3 designation. They could be a 501C4 organization and have political connections, but then the donations are not tax deductible.

When Mrs. Clinton said that she started Media Matters at the Daily Kos convention on August 4, 2007, she created a problem for Media Matters. Had Media Matters kept to what they had been doing, they probably would have gotten away from the scrutiny. But, when they decided to go after Rush Limbaugh, they came under the microscope. It did not take long to find the quote at the Daily Kos convention and fur started to fly.

We now return to the central question in this post, did Mrs. Clinton start Media Matters or did she have no role at all? Media Matters has to take the position they have taken. They have to say that they were started by David Brock and that Mrs. Clinton had no role in the founding of Media Matters. The paperwork probably would back up this position. If the paperwork had Mrs. Clinton’s fingerprints on it I would be extremely surprised. She does not work that way. She tells other people to do things and they do it.

Here is how I think Media Matters started. Mrs. Clinton said she needed a group to control the media and the message. She also said that this group has to have no connection to the campaign to give it credibility. Her think tank goes to work and comes up with the plan that is Media Matters. They enlist David Brock to be the front person for the organization. They hand him all the completed paperwork, all he has to do is sign. They then fill the organization with operatives that are loyal to the Mrs. Clinton for President Campaign. The campaign then makes sure that Media Matters only responds to issues of importance to the Mrs. Clinton for President Campaign. The control is not overt in that they do not send a fax over to Media Matters. They most likely call someone, who calls someone, who calls Media Matters on what to do. That way the campaign does not have anyone phoning Media Matters directly. There is no paper trail. Everyone is sworn to secrecy so the word will not get out. They cannot have their role in controlling Media Matters get out and spoil this arrangement.

Is Media Matters the only Democrat group controlled by the Mrs. Clinton for President Campaign? No, that would be absurd to think that this was the only one. My guess is that 75-90% of the Democrat leaning front groups is, in some way, controlled by the Mrs. Clinton for President Campaign. That is the only way I can explain the coordinated attacks that come from the Democrat media every day. Conservative media is not coordinated in any way. That is obvious in the way they respond to any issue. Democrat media is monolithic. Conservative media is scattered and all over the place.

Democrats always accuse the Republicans of doing things like the Democrats actually do them. The Republicans gape in amazement that anyone could even conceive of doing something so underhanded. Democrats are then convinced that the Republicans are not telling the truth about the Democrat accusation. Republicans are left standing in utter amazement that such thoughts could be applied to politics. Democrats then redouble their efforts to outdo the Republicans in what the Republicans cannot conceive of doing. Republicans work to try to eliminate any possibility that they could ever be accused of such a dastardly thing again. Then the process goes on and on with the Democrats convinced that the Republicans are completely underhanded and the Republicans lost in amazement without a clue. That is the state of American politics today. The Democrat party convinced the Republicans are working night and day to be underhanded, so they work night and day to outdo the underhanded Republicans. The Republicans are confused and bewildered that anyone could accuse them of being underhanded. Republicans then work to eliminate the possibility of any underhandedness in the party.

If the Republicans did half of what the Democrats accused them of doing, the Democrat party would not stand a chance of holding any offices. I am glad to belong to a party that is generally not doing underhanded things. Individuals may be doing things illegal, but as a party we are not. Democrats on the other hand do illegal things until they get caught. They then claim they are just doing what the Republicans are doing and blame the Republicans. Everyone jumps on the Republicans for doing what the Democrats say the Republicans are doing.

Global warming keeps rearing its ugly head. Whenever I think that the last nail has been driven into the coffin of global warming, it keeps coming back. Obviously people that believe in global warming do not read scientific material.

In the past six months almost all the legs that Al Gore used to justify global warming in his movie were chopped out from under him. The temperature data he used to “prove” global warming was found to be deliberately doctored by NASA to make it look like global warming. When the figures were corrected, the hottest years were prior to 1950. The average temperature has not gone up at all in the last 20 years. In fact it is really dropping ever so slowly.

Carbon dioxide was used in Al Gore’s propaganda film as the primary greenhouse gas. He said that the increase in carbon dioxide was so great that the temperatures were going to soar. Looking at the data it is clear that carbon dioxide levels increase after an increase in temperature, not before an increase in temperature.

Carbon dioxide is only 0.03% of the composition of the air. Many times in the past few million years it has climbed up to 9%. At no time during all those times that the carbon dioxide level increases were people involved. In fact, people were not even on the planet during all the dramatic carbon dioxide level increases. Also, plants can efficiently use carbon dioxide up to about 6%. After that level, the plants ability to use carbon dioxide stays about the same. The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is so low, that an increase in carbon dioxide is hardly noticeable.

But, in reality, the talk about global warming is not about science. They talk about science to get people scared. They use scientific terms to fool people into believing that what they say is true. When a real scientist looks at what the global warming nuts say, they just laugh and realize that they are just blowing hot air. Most people do not know anything about science. When people use scientific words and talk like they actually know what they are talking about, they believe them. Science has done so much to make things real nice in this world. It is unfortunate that science is being used in this way to fool people into believing a lie.

When you look at global warming believers, you have to look at what they say they will do to “solve” global warming. They want to institute communism to solve global warming. Of course, they want to be in the ruling class that gets all the privileges. That will not work out that way for almost all of them, but they believe it nonetheless.

The worst of the lot is her royal highness, Mrs. Bill Clinton. What she has in store for the United States is awful. She wants to turn the USA into the USSA (Union of Soviet Socialist America). Every plan that comes out of her mouth shows that she is planning the takeover of the US. If by some chance she gets elected President, we have no hope of retaining freedom in the United States. It will like being in Book of Mormon times and selecting a Gadianton Robber to be a ruler. They take away all of the freedoms that were enjoyed by the people and everyone is unhappy. In order to get rid of a corrupt Gadianton Robber ruler takes a lot of bloodshed and a lot of heroism. Right now, I am not sure we have much of either in the US, except for the military. The military is too disciplined to revolt and overthrow a corrupt ruler. It is getting close to the time where the Constitution hangs by a thread.  This is a time I thought I would never live to see. Unfortunately, I am living to see a Gadianton Robber in the Judgment Seat (Presidency). If that occurs the Constitution would truly hang by a tread.

In the past couple of days, the Democrat party has been slandering Rush Limbaugh. He used the term “Phony Soldiers” to refer to people who pretend to be soldiers. When Rush used the term, he was referring to a specific phony soldier, Jessie Macbeth.  The Democrat party leadership has taken the term to mean any returned soldier who disagrees with the war.

The first group to pick up on the remark was the Mrs. Clinton front group, Media Matters. Mrs. Clinton said on August 6, 2007 that she started Media Matters and other groups. After Media Matters mentioned the term, it was picked up by the Democrat politicians. They then rushed to the floor of the House and Senate and demanded that Rush Limbaugh apologize for his use of the term phony soldiers. Rush even demanded that Harry Reid come on his radio show and put off his legislative immunity and talk to Rush face to face. The silence is deafening coming from the ever brave Harry Reid camp.

Today, it has spread to other Democrat front groups and even to soldiers returned from Iraq that do not believe in the war. One of them is quoted in an ad telling Rush to tell him he is a phony soldier to his face. He has been lied to about the term phony soldier and did not do enough fact checking before making a fool out of himself. What this is showing is how much these groups are front groups for the Democrat party and particularly Mrs. Clinton. It is not showing up Rush, it is demonstrating to everyone how everyone on the left works arm in arm.

The Republicans in the House put forth a resolution calling Rush a hero for supporting the troops. Rush has done more than almost any other civilian to support the troops since the war against Islamo-Fascism began in 2001 and really before that. The Democrat leadership is trying to censure Rush with a resolution. Their resolution talks of apple pie and motherhood until it gets to Rush, then the knives are out.

While Rush is the target du jour of the left today. He is not the real target. The real target is talk radio. If they can silence Rush Limbaugh, they can silence all of talk radio. If they can silence all of talk radio, then the Democrats can return to the age of Democrat dominance of the airwaves. If they return to the age of Democrat dominance of the airwaves, they can end the United States as a free society. They will be able to turn it into a socialist state and then into a communist state. It is just a small baby step from a socialist state to a communist state.

What has to happen is we have to wake up the American people to what the Democrat party is trying to do to the US. Things are looking like it could be Mrs. Clinton for the Democrat party in 2008. That is good as it will energize the base as no other. It is bad as if we cannot persuade enough people to vote for the United States, we will lose the United States. But, you could say that for pretty much any of the leading Democrat candidates. It is important that all of them lose in 2008.

We should call Democrats for what they really are, Phony Americans.

Justice Clarence Thomas has a book out about his rise from poverty in Georgia to the Supreme Court. It is not your usual rags to riches story where the main character does nothing wrong and has no doubts. Justice Thomas puts his story out there, warts and all.

He shows his progression from a hardscrabble poor kid taught to work hard by his Grandfather to a student at Yale and then to the Supreme Court. As a kid, his Grandfather told him that he had “buried can’t”. Justice Thomas took that to heart and worked to prove that can’t was not in his vocabulary.

He got into Yale on his own merits. He did not get in under affirmative action. At that point in his life, he was a liberal. When he saw the hypocrisy in the liberal line of thinking, he started becoming a conservative. He was appointed to positions by Presidents Ronald Reagan and President George H. W. Bush.

When he was appointed to the Supreme Court, the liberals in the Senate knew they had to stop him. Anita Hill was selected to be the person to defame Justice Thomas. Some disgruntled former employees were found to back up Anita Hill’s accusation. That hurt Justice Thomas as he had respect for Anita Hill until this episode, then he lost all respect for her integrity.

The reason liberals thought they had to stop Justice Thomas was Abortion. He says at that time he had not formed an opinion on the issue. By the time the first abortion case came before the court, he had decided that Roe v. Wade had been wrongly decided. He has held that position since that time.

After reading reviews and hearing reviews on the radio, I have had a greater respect for Justice Thomas. I already thought him one of the best Justices on the Supreme Court. He and Anthony Scalia have been the best for a long time. Justices Roberts and Alito are working their way towards being in the Thomas class of Justice.

What we need on the Supreme Court is 3 or 4 more Justice Thomas types. We need thoughtful intelligent people who will interpret the Constitution of the United States as it was written, not as they want it to be written. Too many judges want to change the law to be whatever they want it to be. That is wrong. If the law means what a judge says it means, then nobody knows what the law says. Laws should be understood by nearly everybody. That way people can follow the law. If the law changes with the judge, we have chaos. Liberals want chaos. They want the law to mean whatever is in vogue at the moment in liberal circles. Laws cannot be that way.

The next President of the United States may get to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. We need a person who will pledge to appoint judges in the mold of Justice Thomas. That way we know that the Constitution will return to its meaning and things will return to being understood by the public. If the new President gets to appoint two Justices, that would keep the Supreme Court in the originalist court for the next generation. That would insure the viability of the US for at least that long.

For me, diversity is just not a high priority item when talking about groups of people. Now, I am all for including people from different groups. I am just not into thinking about this diversity as a goal.

I teach at a college and have had to take a couple of training classes in the past few weeks. In each of the classes, diversity was one of the high points of the discussion. For me, quality is much more important than diversity.

When our department has hired people in the past couple of years, I have heard some on the hiring committees that have had diversity as their goal. They wanted to find the best qualified black or Hispanic, not the best qualified candidate. That attitude bothers me. I feel the best qualified person should get the job, not the best black person. When you are only looking in the minority community for your next hire, you have dismissed at least half of the hiring pool. You may be losing out on a person that is so dynamic that your college will be on everyone’s list for best college in the country. You may still find that person in the minority hiring process, but you are severely limiting your chances.

In case you think I am just saying this because I am white, I have a Black son, a Hispanic daughter and a Native American daughter. My sister-in-law is Asian. That just about covers most of the world’s racial groups. If there is a person that is less likely to discriminate because of race, it is me. My objection above is not that they are not hiring the best white, but that they are limiting their hiring pool to less than one that would include the best candidate.

Now, I must say, most of the time, the department has overcome the bias for a minority hire and selected the best person. Sometimes I did not agree with the hire and it took a year or two for the person to show they really had it in them. But, for the most part, the department has gotten it pretty much right. There is one rotten egg we cannot get rid of. We even eliminated his position to get rid of him and one member of the faculty managed to get him hired as an adjunct. That person is totally incompetent. I do not know how that person ever got hired in the first place or rehired when the college had a chance to rid it self of that person. That person only knows how to do one thing, so the students get that one thing and its variations for the semester. I have heard that person substitute in biology classes and know that he does not know anything about biology.

Liberals like diversity. It makes them feel good about themselves when they can point to diversity and say look at what I have done. They do not care what damage they may have done in creating this diversity, but they are proud of creating diversity. One year on our campus, the Biology faculty was chided because all of our hires that year were white. The Chemistry faculty was praised because they had hired minorities. After a couple of years it became painfully clear, the Biology faculty was competent and will be here for a long time. The Chemistry faculty was incompetent and is almost all gone. Diversity was chemistry’s goal and they got it. Their students suffered and the chemistry program on campus has suffered severe damage. The biology program is growing wildly. We have expanded into one new room and need at least one more room. We are growing at the seams. Chemistry is bouncing along where they were 5 years ago. We have more than doubled our program. They went for diversity, we went for quality. Both got what they wanted. I hope they are happy with their flat growth rate.

Politicians like to tell the crowd what they want to hear. It makes for greater applause and approval from the group you talk to. Mrs. Clinton is particularly adept at doing this. Unfortunately for her, there is the internet and the new media. What she told one group at one time will come back to haunt her in another time. All politicians do it to some extent, just not to the extent that Mrs. Clinton does it.

Take the part of the war on Terror that is in Iraq, she has said that if President Bush will not bring the troops home, she will. That sounds like a definite statement that the troops will come home soon after she becomes President. She is now saying that the troops could be in Iraq until 2013. That means she is saying now that there will be a troop presence in Iraq until at least the end of her first term. That is not what her supporters from Moveon.org want to hear. They were fine with the statement that she would bring the troops home, they do not like this new statement.

Mrs. Clinton has said that she supports the troops. She praised General Petraeus when he was selected as the general to lead the Army in Iraq. After Moveon.org put that ad in the paper to slander General Petraeus, she did not denounce it right away. She also voted against a sense of the Senate resolution condemning the ad as slanderous. Now she says that she supports the troops again. This woman does not know where she stands from one moment to the next. Her words may say she supports the troops, her actions definitely show that she holds them in contempt.

At the Democrat debate last night, Tim Russert got the best of her with a question. The question was if there was a bomb planted somewhere in the United States and we had the #3 man in al Qaeda in custody, would you authorize torture? She tried to dance around the question and not answer it. Come to find out that her husband former President Bill Clinton had posed and answered the question to Tim Russert a few months ago. He had said he would authorize torture. She said she would have to talk to him when she got home. This woman is something else. She does not know where she stands and does not care for American lives. In this scenario, thousands if not millions of Americans are going to die if we do not get the information. We have a source to get the information and a short time to get it. Torture works to get people to do things and say things. Just ask former prisoners like John McCain. He cracked under torture conditions. Everyone will crack given enough torture of the right type. Her answer was basically to let millions of Americans die to make her feel good.

She was asked if her medical plan covered illegal aliens in the debate. She answered that it would not cover those in the country illegally. She is running ads on Spanish language stations that are saying that her plan would cover everyone including those in the country illegally. Which is it Mrs. Clinton, are illegal aliens covered or not? Just tell us the truth and let us decide if we trust you after you tell us the truth.

What I expect from a politician is that he/she tell the truth. I expect that he/she will do what they say they will do. I do not expect them to be perfect. I do not expect them to “bring home the bacon”. I expect them to handle the money raised by taxes wisely. They need to remember that tax money is not the property of the federal government. It is money taken from citizens in the United States that have earned it. The citizens deserve to keep as much of that money as possible. The politician should also try to be a wise steward of the Constitution. Any federal program that is not authorized by the Constitution should not be part of any federal budget. That would pare down the budget and save many tax dollars. The economy would boom and everyone would be happy except for the politicians.

There has been a flurry of articles on global climate change the past couple of days. It all started with a scare tactic article that all seaboard cities will be under water in the future. They even named some of the most vulnerable.

The report takes inaccurate information and projects it out into the future as if nothing will change the curve. The result is that the temperature is warming and all the ice in the world melts. Now this is a ridiculous article on its face. First of all, no projection is ever accurate when taking things out on a straight line basis. You cannot go back over any 10 or more year period and make any backward projections that are even remotely accurate. So, to run this projection out 100 years is scientifically dishonest. It does allow them to scare people with a false scare and that is the point. That is the only reason the study was even done.

Humans account for 3.4% of the carbon dioxide emissions every year. That means that 96.4% of the emissions come from natural sources that we have no control over. There is no connection with carbon dioxide levels going up and the resulting rise in temperature. The carbon dioxide levels always follow the curve, not lead the curve.

During the Jurassic period there was about 9 times more carbon dioxide in the air than we have now. Plants are designed to operate efficiently at carbon dioxide levels much higher than we have right now. That the carbon dioxide levels are rising is no problem for the natural system. It will take care of it and bring the levels down before long.

Politicians like this global climate change hysteria. When everyone is afraid of climate change, they can impose new taxes and regulations in the name of climate change and people will accept them. There is talk of taxing all houses that are in excess of 3000 square feet. Politicians are trying to tack on new energy taxes.

What are the politicians doing with all these new taxes? They are trying to buy votes in their districts. They are funding boondoggle projects in their districts to help buy votes. Buying votes with your money is a time honored tradition of almost all politicians. There are a few that know that the money they get in taxes is really your money they have taken. Most politicians feel that all money is theirs and they allow you to keep the money they do not get as taxes.

What it all boils down to is this; politicians have figured out that global climate change is a perfect way to get people to accept taxes and restrictions on their freedoms they would not otherwise accept. If they couch the tax or restriction as being to save the planet, who can object? They then can impose the communist ideology that they truly want to impose on us. The reason they want to impose communist ideology on us is that it keeps them in power and out of the way of all the restrictions. Even though communism and socialism has failed every time it has been tried, these politicians believe they can do it. They are better people than all those older attempts at imposing communism.

Communism will fail here as well as everywhere else it is tried. It runs counter to what human instincts are. People do not want to be told what to do all the time. They do not want control over everything they see and hear. People want to be able to choose what to do. They want freedom to choose. Communism takes that away from them. For that reason, communism will fail. The imposition of communism will destroy America and all it has stood for these 230+ years. We cannot let that happen. We cannot let it start with the imposition of these “save the planet” taxes and restrictions. It will mean a lower standard of living for everyone in the country and the world. This lower standard of living will be for now and far into the future.

We need to reform the tax system. The Fair Tax is the way to go. The Fair Tax will tax everyone equally based on what they spend. If you do not want to pay taxes, do not spend. The Fair Tax puts a 23% tax on everything we buy. It is an imbedded tax. That means it is put there before you purchase the item. Just like we have imbedded taxes in things we purchase today. It is estimated that the Fair Tax, when implemented, would have little or no impact on what we actually pay for items.

Another advantage of the Fair Tax is that you pay the tax right now. There is no waiting to pay the tax at the end of the year. When you buy an item, you pay a tax on the item. There is no bookkeeping requirement to find out if you made money or not. You pay the tax as determined on the item before it was purchased.

Our current tax system has many problems. Everyone has to rely on the US Postal Service to get all their W-2 statements to their homes by January 31 of each year. That can cause some people problems if the US Postal Service does not deliver the W-2’s on time. We ran into that problem this year. In 2005, we had some debt forgiven. It is counted as income by the IRS, but you never actually see the money as income in your bank account. The US Postal Service never delivered a notice to us that we had “earned” the money that was forgiven. Since we never actually had the “income” come in, we forgot we had received it. We of course never reported it as income as we were never notified that we had “earned” this income. Fast forward to 2007 and the IRS sends us a bill with a penalty saying we did not pay taxes on this “income” we did not know about and did not report.

I protested to the IRS saying we were never notified of the “income” during that tax cycle or ever. The IRS responded by requesting all my records on why I excluded that income from paying taxes. I told them we were never notified that we had that income and the transaction in question had finalized after the beginning of 2006.  They said since we did not document why we did not pay the tax at the time we were stuck with paying the tax and the penalty.

This kind of abuse from the IRS would never occur with the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is paid at the time and there is no reporting to the IRS of anything. The other good part about the Fair Tax is that they give you a pre-payment of what you could expect to pay in taxes on food and other essential services. This is great. It allows low income people to avoid the hit on the tax.

There are so many advantages to the Fair Tax; I cannot enumerate them all at this time. The only disadvantage is that the politicians would have to vote it into law. They would be unlikely to do that because it would take power away from them. Right now, they can have the power to tweak the tax system and gain more power. With the Fair Tax that would be impossible. The Fair Tax would be to get money to pay for the government and nothing more. Politicians are unlikely to like such a power draining idea. In my mind, the less power the politicians have the better I like it.

After implementing the Fair Tax, it would be great to have something to pare down the federal government to what it is supposed to actually do. We have the Constitution that says what the federal government can do. Our current politicians are playing around and ignoring what the Constitution says in relation to what they can and cannot do. The politicians would not like this idea any more than they like the idea of the Fair Tax.

Today, the madman from Iran talks to the UN and at Columbia University. I am upset that he is even on US soil at all. He is responsible for killing US servicemen and women in Iraq. He is responsible for capturing and holding hostage many civilians from many countries. He is the very definition of terrorist.

I agree with Mitt Romney, he should have been arrested when he stepped foot on US soil. Unfortunately, that is not possible. With diplomatic passports, you cannot go arresting them for any little thing. If you do, our diplomats can be arrested for even less. I do understand that there has to be international diplomacy. It just hurts to see a terrorist strut his stuff on US soil and we cannot do a thing to stop it.

The nut job was invited to speak at Columbia University. It has a reputation as one of the leading universities in the country. With this invitation, they have lowered their standards so far, it is now below Podunk College. I cannot believe that the President of Columbia University wants to sponsor terrorism. By inviting a terrorist to speak at his University, he is doing just that. Any Columbia University student that is not brain dead should boycott the event. It would be great to see the President of Iran talking to empty seats.

Maybe the invitation is a quid pro quo. There was an alumnus of Columbia University who was being held hostage. He had been a hostage for quite some time. When the Iranian plane touched down in New York, the Columbia University grad was released. Now it was probably just a coincidence that these two events happened at the same time. But nothing is a coincidence when you are talking to or about terrorists.

To make everyone feel better about inviting this known terrorist, the powers that be at Columbia University said they would invite Adolph Hitler if he was still alive. That was supposed to make us feel better about having this terrorist wander about New York.

The nut job even wanted to see ground zero. He probably wanted to honor the dead terrorists that made that massive hole in the ground. The New York authorities said no, but it was at too low of a level. The Mayor of New York should have said no. Instead it got passed on down to the police department for them to say no.

It is obvious to me in Arizona that people in New York are liberals. Liberals have a difficult time making up their minds over important issues. When they make up their minds they have a tendency to make correct decisions at too low of a level. The wrong decisions are always made at the highest levels.

The Columbia President’s justification for the invitation was freedom of speech. A foreign national does not have freedom of speech in the United States. Freedom of speech covers political speech by Americans. We generally give others our freedom, but it is not required. Also, freedom of speech does not mean that the person has a right to be heard. I have the freedom to say what I want in political speech. I do not have to be allowed to talk to a University class to have my freedom of speech. The Columbia President is inferring that in order for the terrorist from Iran to have freedom of speech, he needs to be invited to speak to the University. That is a completely false statement. Liberals will say what a wonderful thing that we have given this person his freedom of speech. That is a bunch of baloney.

There is an article in the Arizona Republic today that says that states are trying to fight global warming. If there is anything more stupid, I would be hard pressed to think of it. If global warming were truly happening, one state could do nothing to stop it. It would take all of one continent to have even a minimal effect. So, the states that are combating global warming are just trying out communism on their residents to see if it will fly.

Since there has not been a big outcry after the imposition of communist doctrine on the states that are “fighting” global warming, Americans must not understand the Constitution of the United States. We are supposed to be a free people. We are not communist. Laws that “fight” global warming would restrict an American’s way of life. Communism restricts the way of life in the countries it is practiced in. Laws that “fight” global warming would have no impact at all on global warming if it was man-caused. Since, any warming is completely natural and outside of the work of man the laws will have no effect on global warming. They will, however, have a great impact on the way of life in those states.

Here in Arizona, our Governor, bless her heart, is trying to join the communist stampede. She wants so much to join those states that are imposing communism. Our state legislature is still in control of Republicans and they will not allow her to do it. That is really frustrating to her. She wants to be able to show off to her Democrat buddies that she could fool Republicans into imposing communism. But, for now, the Republicans have resisted the pressure to follow suit and cease to be Americans.

Some of the states that are imposing communism are led by Republican governors. One of them is California. California has a very left wing legislature that would do almost anything to create the Union of Soviet Socialist California. Their governor is not strong enough to resist all of the siren songs to play along. Since there are 32 states imposing communism, more have to be led by Republicans and some even have to have Republican legislatures. Unfortunately, being Republican does not mean that you have any brains in your head. You can be led around by the left wing media, if you care about what they say about you in the papers and on TV.

With state legislatures imposing communism light on the many states, it will be difficult to resist the siren song of communism at the national level. Mrs. Clinton is touting her health care plan which is nothing more than communism 101. It is the same health care plan used in the old Soviet Union, China and Cuba. It doesn’t work for them. It won’t work for us, but once we get it, we will be unable to get rid of it.

Communism sounds good on paper. It is the practice of communism that is so bad. When people realize that they will get theirs regardless of their output, they will cease to do extra. When that happens, the entire communist system collapses. The capitalist system we have now encourages us to work extra to get extra. Under communism, you get the same whether you produce 100% or 75% of your quota. If that is the case, why produce your quota. It takes more work to produce 100% than it does to produce less.

That is why the American system has been the envy of the world. Our system encourages us to do more. We are encouraged to innovate. All that will stop if Mrs. Clinton and her group get into power for very long.