This morning on the drive in, I was listening to Bill Bennett’s Morning in America. The guest host was named Wall. He was talking about the single payer health system that is proposed by Democrat politicians.

Socialized medicine is practiced in most countries in the world. It sounds good on paper. Everyone is covered. The costs are minimized as everyone pays into the system. In practice it is quite another thing. What happens is rationing of health care. There are only so many doctors to go around. Since they are now government employees, they have no incentive to work overtime. If you are well, the system works pretty well. It is when you have a major illness that socialized medicine breaks down. Since they have an incentive not to cover all your medical costs, they try to put off treating you as long as possible. If they wait long enough, you will die before being treated. In Canada, you may have to wait up to two years to get open heart surgery. Open heart surgery is usually needed because the situation is such that it is an immediate need, not one that can wait two years.

Another problem with socialized medicine is that the government now has an incentive to control your exercise and diet. In the program today, he was talking about San Francisco. They want to start a tax on soft drinks because the children in grades 3, 5 & 7 are overweight and 10% of their calories come from soft drinks. The thought is that if you reduce soft drink intake, you can reduce the calories children take in. If you reduce their calories, you can reduce their weight. That may be all well and good, but I should take the responsibility for my children. The government has no responsibility for my children. If they are involved with my health care, they do have a financial interest in maintaining my children’s health.

Socialized medicine sounds good when talked about by politicians. When you first think of it, it does sound good. But, when you start looking at other places that have it, you see problems. You see long waiting lists for emergency care. You see long waits at the doctor’s office for routine care. Innovation slows down.

In the US, innovation is everywhere. Doctors want to be more efficient at treating patients. By being more efficient, you can treat more patients or you can treat your patients better. That means you will get and keep patients. That means the doctor maintains a good life style by keeping his income up. With socialized medicine, there is no incentive to treat more patients or even trying to keep the patients you have. You will be supplied all the patients you need or want, so why try to do more.

I know this is about dental care. In England, people have to wait a long time to see a dentist. As a result, many of them will perform routine dental care themselves. They will pull teeth on their own rather than wait for a dentist to fix their dental problem. Similar things happen when you have socialized medical care.

There is one other example of socialized medical care not meeting the needs of the public. In western Canada, they had reached their limit for babies last year. So, they sent women down to the US to have babies because they knew that they would receive the medical care they needed. They could not get that care in Canada. The health care system had reached its limit and the public exceeded its capacity. That happens all the time with socialized medicine. It does not happen with the system of health care we have here in the US today.

As for me and my house, keep the government out of my health care. We are happy with the system we have now. Any changes to make the system more socialized, will reduce the quality of health care my family receives. This is also important to me as I am now getting up there in years. It will not be long before I will be a senior citizen. Then my health care would be rationed by the government. That would mean a premature death for me. That is something I would rather not have.

The Mitchell report came out about steroid use in Major League Baseball. That there were some big names on the list came as no surprise. The biggest names were Roger Clemons and Andy Pettite. The biggest surprise was that most of the names were unknown players who never had an impact in the major leagues.

If steroids make so much difference that they are a big problem then the biggest names using steroids would be expected. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons are two of the biggest names in Major League Baseball and they are on the list. But steroids do not help you hit a ball. They only help you hit a ball farther. Steroids do not help you throw a strike. They only help you throw the ball faster.

In order for steroids to have a big impact on a player, that player has to have a lot of talent in the first place. Barry Bonds was probably the best player in baseball before he started using steroids. The steroids just turned him into an all-around good player into a home run hitter. When Barry first started in baseball, he would steal as many bases as he hit home runs. He was a great fielder. He did not have a good arm, but he made up for it by getting to everything. As he started using steroids, he stopped stealing many bases and stopped getting to every ball in the outfield. Instead of hitting .350 and hitting 35-40 home runs and stealing 35-40 bases, he started hitting 55-73 home runs and stealing 10-15 bases. I don’t remember the numbers exactly, but he is the only player to have over 500 steals and 500 home runs. The numbers could be different.

Roger Clemons was a good pitcher before he started using steroids. Using steroids has enabled him to prolong his career into his 40’s and be a dominating pitcher. Had he not used steroids, he probably would have had to end his career about 5 years ago. He also would have had to change from a fastball pitcher to a pitcher that uses other pitches. That is the pattern that other pitchers like him have followed. They start out as dominating power pitchers in their 20’s. In their early to middle 30’s they have to change to throwing curves and sliders if they want to stay in baseball. The fastball that got them to the majors leaves by the early 30’s and they have to learn other pitches.

What is surprising about the report is the number of players that are relatively unknown. That shows that talent is what is important. Steroids may make you bigger and stronger, but they cannot make you hit the ball. You have to be a good hitter in the first place before steroids would have an impact. The same can be said for pitching. Steroids can make you throw the ball harder. But, you have to be able to throw the ball for a strike consistently if you want to be a successful pitcher. So, steroids can enhance a successful pitcher’s career, but will not help a journeyman’s career.

That is the real story of the Mitchell report. That is also the story that is not being reported right now. Right now, the story is that so many people are using steroids in major league baseball. The question to answer now is, what does major league baseball do about this report. What seems to be the first step that major league baseball is taking is that they are removing the 24 hour notification of a drug test. That should make people more honest. I do not know much about steroids and their use, but if I knew 24 hours in advance that I was going to have a drug test, it would give me an advantage. The second thing they are going to do is make the tests more random. That means a drug tester could show up at any time and administer a drug test right there. This would be done without warning. These two things should go a long way towards cleaning up the sport. The other thing to do is to have drug tests that will pick up all the steroids in the test. I understand some of the steroids do not show up on some drug tests.

The total impact of this report is yet to be written. I believe that the effect will be minimal. That is because people have known about this for some time. Some of the names on the list were suspected. Some of the names were surprises. But the report highlights the fact that talent is needed for steroids to have their full impact. For that reason, I feel that people will not stay away from games. There will be just as many people go to games this year as there were last year. I know I will go to at least as many as last year, probably more.

The most interesting campaign is the Republican one. The Democrat race is turning out to be something more than anyone anticipated. Mrs. Bill Cliinton is sinking fast and Barak Obama is rising. How could that be happening to the fiercest political machine of our day?

Dick Morris has an idea why Mrs. Bill Clinton is sinking and Obama is rising. Mrs. Clinton and her team decided to highlight her experience in the election. In that way they could also highlight Barak Obama’s lack of experience without really doing so. But, it turns out that Democrat voters seem to be looking for change, not a return to the 1990’s. That is causing her trouble right now. Every time she speaks about her experience in her husband’s White House, Democrat voters glaze over. Every time B arak talks about change, Democrat voters get excited.

Highlighting experience is a problem for the Clinton team. First of all, Mrs. Clinton has no experience doing anything. She only spent a couple of years as a lawyer and that was at the most radical law firm in the country. She also spent a couple of years hiding Clinton fund raising while with the Rose Law firm. She failed at what little Bill Clinton let her do in his White House days. She was elected Senator from New York on false pretenses and has done nothing for New York since. Obama has done more for Illinois in his time than Mrs. Clinton has done for New York in her longer time in the Senate.

Basically Mrs. Clinton’s life has been that of a cypher. She has done nothing of note, except for attack the women that have accused her husband of attacking them. She did that fairly well. But, she did it by the old slash and burn method. That does not work on the campaign level.

Every time she has tried to strike below the belt against Obama, he has turned it around on her and made her look bad. She is leaking campaign staffers at an alarming rate. Pretty soon, she will only have volunteers left on the campaign. That is because every time the campaign makes a major goof, some campaign staffer has to take the fall for the goof.

Two voting blocks that Mrs. Clinton felt she had tied down for her coronation were blacks and women. Recent reports show that those two voting blocks are leaking voters quickly.  If the vote were held today, she might hold her own. But, the election is not until January. At the rate she is losing support, she will be in real trouble. It does not look like she will win Iowa. The other early states are now in play. She is statistically tied in New Hampshire and South Carolina. She could easily lose all three states. If she loses all three to Barak Obama, she is probably toast as far as the nomination is concerned. That would be a great day for America. The day she concedes is the day America can take a big sigh of relief over not being relegated to third world status.

That would mean that Barak Obama would be the Democrat nominee. He will be more difficult to beat in some ways than Mrs. Clinton. She has high negatives. He does not. He also has no ideas and would be easy to befuddle for a quick witted candidate. If we nominate an attack dog like Giuliani, Obama will use Giuliani’s strengths against him and win. If we nominate an empty suit like Huckabee, he is just like Obama and could not stand out. Our only chance against someone like Obama is to nominate someone so talented and new that Obama will look like yesterday’s old news. That person is Mitt Romney. Romney would be the candidate you would create if you were trying to create the perfect candidate. His only weakness is that he sometimes comes across as too perfect. He can beat Obama. No-one else can.

Listening to the Laura Ingraham show on the way to work today, I heard her say that a friend of hers said that voters are moving to Huckabee because he is a reliable social conservative. A couple of her callers made exactly the same point. There is some merit to that opinion. Mike Huckabee has always been pro-life. He has never wavered from that position. Mitt Romney flirted with being pro-choice for a time when he was running for Senate and Governor of Massachusetts. Romney states that he had a conversion and tells how that came to be. He has been reliable in his comments this campaign season.

Using the logic that Huckabee is a reliable social conservative and that makes him a good candidate would also make Jimmy Carter a good candidate. He also is Southern Baptist and was a social conservative governor of a southern state. When he ran for President, he was a reliable social conservative candidate. I think by almost any standard, Jimmy Carter was a lousy President. The reason is that he may have been socially conservative; he was not conservative in other areas. Mike Huckabee is socially conservative. He is liberal when it comes to taxes. He is for bigger government. Bigger government has been the death of religion in Europe. Maybe the socially conservative crowd wants religion to be reduced in America as well.

You have to look at the entire candidate when picking one to back. You cannot look at one part and say that is good, I will support this candidate. You may be getting a pig in a poke. You might get a repeat of Jimmy Carter. You have to make sure that the entire candidate generally agrees with you on the positions. Will you find one that agrees with you on all positions? No. You can only hope to find one that agrees with you most of the time.

There is heartening news out of Florida. Rudy Giuliani is no longer the leading candidate in Florida. That means he will have to start attacking Mike Huckabee, the current front runner. Rudy has given up Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. He cannot afford to lose Florida. If he loses Florida, it is back to being Mr. Giuliani and not Mr. President. For the past few weeks, Rudy has not said anything about Mike Huckabee as Huckabee was hurting Romney more than he was hurting Rudy. Now that is not the case so he better get the knives out if he wants to be President.

Huckabee is already showing that he is not ready for prime time. If Rudy gets his long knives out and carves Huckabee a new one, Huckabee would be finished. Huckabee has a lot of potential negatives. He was indicted on a number of shady financial deals. After he left the Governor’s office in Arkansas, he took over $100,000 in gifts and things. That was illegal under Arkansas law. There was another one for $50,000. All of this comes from the fact that Huckabee is not wealthy and saw that as a chance to increase his wealth. There must be something in the water in Arkansas that has them elect people that are in their hearts, thieves. There are also shady dealings with Rudy and Rudy’s associates. You do not find that sort of thing with Mitt Romney or those he has as friends and associates.

When it all boils down to the basics, you have to choose the whole candidate. Mike Huckabee is a nice guy. He is right on the main social issues, particularly abortion. He also has always has been right about those things. BUT, he is wrong about the size of government. He has some moral problems that will be exposed when he runs against a Democrat. Huckabee is also extremely weak on foreign affairs. Rudy is great on the war. Rudy is wrong on just about all of the other issues that are important to Republicans. Mitt Romney is right on all the issues and is no more than mildly weak on any. Rudy is better on the war than Mitt. But, Mitt would be second in the Republican ranks. Huckabee would probably be first on social issues. Romney would be a very close second, only because he came late to the table. When you put it all together, Mitt Romney is the best candidate to represent the Republican Party in November 2008.

This morning on the way into work, I heard Laura Ingraham interview Mike Huckabee. The interview was very telling. Mike Huckabee did not want to take the responsibility for anything he had said. He also did not want to answer questions that he did not like the answers to.

First, he did not want to take responsibility for his comment about Jesus and Satan. He said that he was with a reporter that knew more about Mormons than he did. Because of that fact, he asked him this question. Now that seems suspicious. If Mike Huckabee has a question about anything, the last place he should get that information is from the press. He should have a campaign staff that should be able to research the topic and report back with their findings. Or, he could have done a little research on the internet himself and found out the answer to his question online. Asking a reporter a question is out of line. You know they will report anything that you say. So to have asked a loaded question like that to a reporter was intentional. He may have apologized for the statement, but he is not taking responsibility for the comment. Until he takes responsibility for the comment, he really has not apologized.

Second, Laura Ingraham asked him about the Mexican Consulate that he invited into Arkansas. After they got there, they started issuing the Mexican Consular cards that illegal aliens use to get services in the United States. He evaded the question every time she asked the question. She even pointed out to him that he was not answering the question and he still evaded the answer. That means to me that he wanted them to issue the Mexican Consular cards and give them to illegal aliens. That would qualify him as being soft on immigration. He may be talking tough now, but his record is one of being very soft on illegal immigration, even encouraging it. I think the tough talk now is just to fool everyone into voting for him. Then, when he gets elected, he will be like President Bush and the Democrats and want to give citizenship to illegal aliens. Most Americans oppose giving citizenship or benefits to illegal aliens.

Mike Huckabee did come across as a nice person in the interview with Laura Ingraham today. He also came across as someone who has something to hide. If he has something to hide, he must have a problem with conservative values. His record tags him as a LIBERAL Republican (Democrat) on most issues. Only on abortion is he a conservative. On almost every other issue, he is a liberal. The Teachers Union even endorsed him in New Hampshire. If that does not label him a liberal, I am not sure what does.

The teachers union endorsed him and cited that he opposed vouchers. When he was asked about that this morning, he did not answer the question. He talked about a lot of things and said that he and the teachers union did not agree on everything. But, he did not say that he supported vouchers. He said that vouchers should be a state issue. The teachers union does not want vouchers to be a state issue. They want vouchers to be a national issue. He also said vouchers would not work in every state. That is true as far as it goes. When I lived in North Dakota, many of those towns could only support one school. There just were not enough students to support two schools. But, even in North Dakota there are cities where vouchers would work. It would not work in the entire state, but in some cities it would. In other states, it would work virtually everywhere.

Overall, Mike Huckabee is turning himself into a slick politician. That is making him sound dishonest. It also makes him sound like the amateur that he is in almost every topic that is discussed. Mike Huckabee is dishonest when he says that he innocently asked the loaded question about Jesus and Satan of a reporter. He knew that the reporter would take those comments and run with them. He just hoped that the comments would not have his fingerprints on them. That they had his fingerprints on them is what he is sorry about. Since he became one of the front runners for the nomination, he has shown that he is not ready for prime time. He has made mistake after mistake. He has shown himself to be either a bigot or a fool. I do not want my next President to be a bigot or a fool. Therefore, I have to cross him off the list of potential Republican candidates. I therefore relegate him to the second tier and will only talk about Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. I might talk about John McCain in New Hampshire. But I no longer consider Mike Huckabee a serious candidate for President.

Right now in the Republican primary season, there is a big flap about being a Christian. The flap is occurring between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee is making the charge that Mormons are not Christians and that he is a Christian Leader. That hints that Mitt Romney is not a Christian or a Christian Leader, I am not sure which.

Who wins in this argument? Rudy Giuliani wins when this argument goes on. He can stand above the fray and say that the argument is childish. The argument is childish as to whether Mormons are Christians. But, it is like throwing red meat to the lions when you talk about Mormons being Christians. Evangelical Christians just cannot abide thinking that Mormons are Christians. They will stop everything else and fight about that.

I think this entire thing is a plan cooked up by Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. Mike Huckabee agreed to get into this fight to let Rudy Giuliani look Presidential by being out of the discussion. Then when the flap dies down and Rudy is selected as the Republican Presidential candidate, he will select Mike Huckabee as his Vice-President. Mike Huckabee covers Rudy’s vulnerable spots. Where Rudy is strong, Huckabee is weak. Where Huckabee is strong, Rudy is weak. They go together quite well. Unfortunately, they also are big government Republicans. We need small government Republicans on our ticket this time around.

The time is running short on the primaries. New Hampshire is already starting to vote. Mitt Romney will win there going away. But that will not be announced until after the Iowa Caucus. The issue was diminishing when Mike Huckabee made a comment that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. If you want to get technical, all of us are brothers and sisters. We were all formed in the pre-existence by the Father before we came to this Earth. Jesus is the only begotten of the Father in the flesh. Satan is the exact opposite of what Jesus stands for.

Mike Huckabee made the comment about Jesus and Satan to keep the controversy alive. He wants to make sure there is a wedge driven between Mitt Romney and Evangelical Christians. It does favor him when he does that because Evangelical Christians will tend to favor him when separated from someone that shares their values. He is a former Baptist Preacher. That means a lot of Evangelical Christians are going to say that he will share their values. He does on social issues. He does not share their values on economic or world issues. On economic and world issues, Mike Huckabee is a liberal after the vein of Mrs. Bill Clinton. After all, the Clintons and Mike Huckabee come from the same state. They would share many of the same ideas. It just stands to reason.

If things do not get turned around soon, it could be bad for Mitt Romney. Things were looking good and he was on the inside track for the nomination until Mike Huckabee played the bigot card. Once the bigot card got played, we have been straining at gnats. All the while Rudy Giuliani has been standing off to the side with a grin on his face watching his rivals cut each other up.

Rush Limbaugh says that Mike Huckabee gave Mitt Romney the high ground when he made his Jesus/Satan comment. Mitt Romney came out with a statement that basically said that it was in bad taste to attack someone for their religion. That is a takeoff from his speech of last week. Huckabee does seem willing to sink to any depth to disparage Mitt Romney and his religion.

When will those that support him see that he is not running for President of the United States? They have to see that he is only trying to destroy one candidate, not trying to become the nominee for President, himself. He is poorly prepared for most things. He constantly has to defend some stupid thing he said in the past. He is not a serious candidate for President. He is just a side show that is there to embarrass other candidates and maybe get a Vice-Presidential pick out of it.

Dennis Prager wrote an article about why Evangelicals do not like Mormons. In the article, he wrote that the main reason that Evangelicals do not like Mormons is that they object to Mormons claiming they are Christians. I always thought that Evangelicals were bigots, now I am sure they are bigots.

My opinion on whether a person is a Christian or not is whether that person professes a belief in Jesus Christ and that they live according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. If both criteria are met, the person is a Christian. Evangelicals have a different definition of Christian.  They believe that anyone that does not subscribe to the Nicene Creed is not a Christian.

A little history is in order at this point. At the time of Christ and for the next almost 300 years there was no disagreement on the nature of Jesus Christ. He was separate from his father and separate from the Holy Ghost. Because he was resurrected he was known to have a physical body. Around 300 AD Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire wanted to be a Christian. He had a vision which helped him win his victory that made him Emperor. As a result, he wanted to recognize the church. He called together leaders of the various Christian churches to Nice and asked them to come up with what made someone a Christian. He also wanted something that meant as little change for him to make as possible. At Nice, the various Christian leaders discussed the nature of God and the Godhead. The ones closest to Constantine’s view of God won and wrote the Nicene Creed.  The Nicene Creed was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church at that time and has continued to this day. Protestant Churches broke off from the Catholic Church and had nothing to go on except for what the Catholic Church believed. They then adopted positions that were in line with that of the Nicene Creed.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not a Protestant Church. We did not break off from any other church. We were started after God the Father and Jesus Christ visited Joseph Smith in 1820. Since the Church is not a Protestant Church nor is it a Catholic Church, we do not believe the Nicene Creed. We believe in Jesus Christ as he was understood before Emperor Constantine called the Christian leaders together in Nice. That is why we call ourselves Christians. We believe in Jesus Christ as he was understood by the Christians from the time of Jesus Christ until the death of the Apostles almost 100 years later.

Evangelicals believe in Jesus Christ as understood after the Nicene Creed was written around the year 300 AD. We must still be fighting the battles that were fought during the great conference in Nice. Some of the leaders wanted the traditional Jesus with a body of flesh and bones. The winners followed Constantine’s lead in wanting a Jesus that was without form. It is easier to worship something that is not understood and more mysterious. Evangelicals are just jealous that they do not understand who they worship. We know who we worship and that makes our love grow stronger. They do not know who they worship and that lack of knowledge is what makes them insecure around those that do. I am not saying that they do not love Jesus. I am just saying that Evangelicals just do not know who Jesus is. They say he is the Son of God, yet he is also God. How is that possible? They will say that with God all things are possible. We say he is the Son of God. He has a Father who is God.

In a report in Newsweek, their columnist Brennan, reports that a study has been completed that disprove man are causing global warming. Now, that is not news to me or to anyone who has read what I have written in these columns. But, it is confirmation that man caused global warming is a hoax.

Al Gore has been promoting man caused global warming in his propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth”. In England, a father challenged the showing of this propaganda movie to his children. The court found in his favor. The court ordered that whenever the movie is shown to schoolchildren in England, the teachers have to read the list of errors that the court found. The court then listed 9 significant errors in the film. If anyone is even half serious, the 9 errors completely debunk the thrust of the movie. There would be no need to show the movie after reading the 9 errors. Anyone would understand that the movie was pure propaganda and not worth watching.

Here in the United States, no-one has taken the time to challenge Al Gore and his propaganda film. Of course, not every school has shown the film to their students. My school has shown it as part of a series of films. It has also shown the movie, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Anyone that compares the two can see that one uses science properly and the other only cherry picks what it wants. None of my children or grandchildren has been shown the propaganda film, yet. I would be inclined to challenge the film based on its propaganda value. Now, American courts are different from British courts. What someone can win in England, that same person might not win in the United States. The reverse is also true. But, both courts are an attempt to get at the truth. If the film is propaganda in England it is probably propaganda in the United States as well.

Global warming types are ignoring the fact that Antarctica is experiencing record low temperatures. It has grown by 12,000 sq. kilometers in the past couple of years. The Arctic is also starting to experience record low temperatures for this time of year. Winter is not for another few weeks and the Arctic is experiencing temperatures in excess of 50 degrees below zero.  As a result of these low temperatures in the Arctic, we are experiencing bad weather in the northern parts of Canada and the United States.  Record lows in the Arctic will translate into bad weather in Canada and the northern part of the US in any year.

New scientific reports keep coming out pointing out the fallacy of believing in man-caused global warming. No scientific reports are coming out in support of man-caused global warming. Yet, the believers in man-caused global warming say that the issue is closed and they are correct. How can that be when no science supports their position? I think they are like the Ostrich with the head in the sand. They do not want to see what they do not want to see. Eventually they will be forced to see. When that happens they will be embarrassed and shown to be ignorant. They are trying to stave off that time as long as possible. They could avoid the stigma if they acknowledged that they were wrong right now. But, to do so now would mean that they would have a short term embarrassment. They could not afford that. They would rather have the more permanent embarrassment later. They just hope that it is much later, hopefully after they have passed on. Right now, they are living the life of Riley. They are raking in the millions without having to do anything. They just crank out a new prediction that is more stupendous than the last prediction and they get more millions. Boy that is the racket to be in. No wonder it has been called the greatest hoax ever put over on anyone in the history of the world.

Right now, those of us who know the truth are hounded into silence by the believers. Believers think that if we are silenced the science will not show them to be fools. They are wrong. Science is showing them to be fools now. The only reason they are not branded fools and charlatans right now, is the news media has fallen for the hoax hook, line and sinker.

I just read a report on HughHewitt.com. He talked to Larry Kudlow about the interview that Larry Kudlow did with Mike Huckabee. Kudlow was struck with how Huckabee does not see the general good shape the economy is in. Kudlow thinks that Huckabee looks at the economy like a Democrat.

Some other troubling things about Huckabee are emerging. He has zero foreign policy experience. He wants to shut down foreign trade with China. He was for letting illegal aliens into the country and giving them benefits. He now wants them to voluntarily go home, like that will happen with Democrats giving them handouts all of the time.

Huckabee is a Democrat running as a Republican. His only claim to be a Republican is that he is a former Baptist preacher. Bill Clinton was only a Baptist, not a Baptist preacher. That is why Huckabee is a Republican and Clinton is a Democrat. I am not sure that I even understand the distinction between the two. Huckabee is sounding more and more like Bill Clinton all of the time. The biggest difference politically is that Bill Clinton was for killing babies and Huckabee is not.

Huckabee sounds to me like a Democrat in sheep’s clothing. He says he is a Republican. Yet, when you scratch the surface, you get Democrat ideas. Larry Kudlow said that the more people find out about Mike Huckabee in the Republican primaries, the less they will like him. That I believe because the more I hear about him, the less I like him.

He seems to have Republican primary caucus voters fooled. Huckabee has a sizeable lead over Romney in Iowa after a new poll was released today. The poll only asked 275 people. That is an incredibly small sample size. The margin for error has to be something like 50-60%. In other words, the poll is not worth much except for Huckabee to say he has a sizeable lead. And for Romney to use, when he wins Iowa, to show that he pulled victory from the jaws of defeat. It does not really show what is going on except to illustrate that Huckabee is the candidate to defeat in the Iowa Caucus in January. I am sure that Team Romney will have an answer to Huckabee by the beginning of January.

One good thing about Huckabee being in the lead in Iowa is that all of the bad things about him are appearing from nowhere. By the time the people of Iowa go to their Caucus place on January 5, any Iowan that votes for Huckabee will know that he is not a real Republican. That should be enough to derail his ability to pull in votes.

Huckabee has been shown to be a bigot. The speech by Romney highlighted inclusion of all faiths in America. Huckabee excludes all faiths except for Evangelical Christians in his America. If that is not a bigot, I do not know the meaning of the word. Evangelical Christians are known as the most bigoted of the Christian religious groups. They are tolerant of any religion as long as the religion is an Evangelical Christian one. If the group is not Evangelical Christian, they think terrible things about them and usually will say them as well. In my time here on the Earth, I have found it easier to work with Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists or any group except for Evangelical Christians. They only believe that one group should have religious freedom, Evangelical Christians. All other groups should modify their religious teachings to make them in line with Evangelical Christian teachings. Of course, that would make them Evangelical Christian churches so they would be ok. I can say this because my sister-in-law is an Evangelical Christian and thinks just like I have described.

In my opinion, a vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for Rudy Giuliani. Evangelical Christians will not agree as they think they are backing a winner. They do not realize that their guy can only bring in the Evangelical Christian vote. That is about 30-40% of the Republican vote. That is not enough to win the nomination. Rudy will stomp Huckabee everywhere except for the states where Evangelical Christians dominate the nominating process. Romney can defeat Rudy in every state, except for New York and maybe New Jersey.

If you want Rudy Giuliani to be the nominee but cannot vote for him directly, vote for Mike Huckabee. That will accomplish your goal. If you do not want Rudy Giuliani as your nominee, vote for Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has a 50 state machine built up. Huckabee has maybe a 2-3 state machine. Rudy Giuliani has a 45 state machine. Let your conscience be your guide. I will vote for Mitt Romney and against Rudy Giuliani.

The fallout from Romney’s speech is still being felt today. That marks it as a superior speech and one that is groundbreaking in its impact. Most political speeches are forgotten within minutes or hours of their being given. Missteps are remembered for a few hours or a few days. Entire speeches are not remembered except in extraordinary circumstances. This is one of those.

Hugh Hewitt, in his column today, makes that argument. He says that there have been a lot of missteps that are remembered and he lists many. But there are few that are positive and he only lists about four. That is how different this speech was. It has entirely changed the dynamics of the campaign. No longer can Mike Huckabee play the religion card without being seen as the bigot that he is. No longer can the religious bigots on the left play the religion card and be believed. No, Mitt Romney took all of that out of the equation for this election. That does not mean that some will try to use religion as a weapon, but they will be seen as the bigots that they are.

What does this mean for the other candidates in the Republican primary race? They have been drowned out by Mitt Romney and his speech on religion in America. Mike Huckabee has been exposed as a bigot. Mitt Romney drew a big distinction between himself and all of the others except for Mike Huckabee. The other candidates have down played their religious affiliation. This talk has put them on the outside looking in. Had they been talking about their faith as part of their being, they would have been included in the speech. Mike Huckabee was included and excluded at the same time. He was included because he also talks about his faith. Huckabee’s faith is a part of his being and a part of his candidacy. But, he has been running a campaign commercial that indirectly hints that Mitt Romney is not a Christian. After this speech, that commercial has been exposed as endorsing bigotry. So, Mike Huckabee has encouraged people to indulge in bigotry in picking a Presidential candidate. That will probably not sit well with the honest folk in Iowa.

The Democrats were completely outclassed in the talk. Not one of them could give a talk like that. Not one of them could look at America and talk about freedom and then talk about the reduction in freedom that they will propose. They will all try to emulate Mitt Romney. All will ultimately fail because they do not have the right material to choose from. Mitt Romney chose freedom as the basis of his talk on the greatness of America. All the Democrats are proposing less freedom for Americans. They could not talk about freedom and be believed. They are unable to give a talk of this magnitude. One will try at the Democrat Convention, and fail.

What does this do to the Republican primary? Since almost all of the talk will be about Mitt Romney in the few days before New Hampshire starts voting, he will win there handily. The question is how this will play to the crowd in Iowa that it was aimed at. I feel that those that support Huckabee will start to see that the Emperor has no clothes. The polls will start to tend towards Romney in the next few days and weeks. It should be enough for him to claim a victory in Iowa. After he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he should be able to pull in South Carolina, then Michigan, Nevada and Wyoming. With all those wins, he will be hard to beat in the primary February 5. He will not win all of the states on February 5, but enough to stop Rudy from claiming victory. Then the coup-de-gras will occur in the early March primary.

With Romney emerging victorious, the Democrats will realize that they could lose. That will spell doom for Mrs. Bill Clinton’s campaign. She can only win if everyone thinks that it is inevitable that she will win the Presidency. Once people realize that she could lose, she is finished. That opens the door for the empty suit, Barak Obama. Romney beats him for the Presidency.

Mitt Romney gave “The Speech” today in Texas. From the sketchy news reports about the speech, it was a hit. He discussed the role of religion in the public square and specifically the role that his religion plays in his life.

On the Laura Ingraham show, I heard her interview a Rabbi and a prominent Evangelical Minister. They were both supportive of the speech that Mitt Romney gave. They both said that Evangelical Christians and people of all faiths will look at this speech as something they can build on. They foresee a movement toward Mitt Romney of people of faith that had been holding back because of doubts about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

She also had some people call in after her discussion with the Rabbi and the Minister. All of those that called in were moved by the speech. The general consensus was that the speech was a Home Run or better. One person said that Mitt Romney took upon himself the mantle of Ronald Reagan after the speech. He said that because the speech was so good and moving. What made the speech special to these people was the intensity of his emotions. Sometimes Mitt Romney comes across as a robot. He really put himself into this speech and rode the wave of emotion right to the end.

We shall see in the coming days and weeks if the speech had any lasting impression. The initial impression was excellent. The secondary reflection is what is important. Will that remain strong or will it diminish? Mike Huckabee’s comments before the speech showed how shallow he really is. He refused to acknowledge that Mitt Romney is a Christian. In my opinion, if someone says they are a Christian, I will believe them until their actions show otherwise. Mitt Romney’s actions show that he firmly believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. He may argue points of doctrine with you, but overall he shows that he follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. That would show to me that he says he is a Christian and lives a Christian life. That would make him a Christian in my book. There are people that say they are Christians that I disagree with, but until they show they do not believe, I will still call them a Christian.

I think what this speech did is give people of faith a place to go. People of faith generally do not want Rudy Giuliani to be the nominee for the Republican Party. Right now, they are split among many candidates. This speech will allow many of them to say that Mitt Romney is someone they can trust to do the right thing.

The interesting thing is that many in Romney’s campaign did not want him to give the speech at all, especially at this time. That he did and with such success shows the great instincts that mark him as a remarkable person.

His opponents have to be worried at this time. For him to give such a dynamic speech in such a high risk situation marks him as someone to worry about. Mike Huckabee is not handling the limelight very well. He was not briefed on the NIE report when it came out and looked stupid in the process. He also looked mean spirited and vindictive to Romney about his religion. That is not a way to show that you want to be a leader of the entire United States. If you only want to be the leader of the Evangelical Christians, maybe you can act like that. Even then, I doubt that many would allow you to be so shallow and mean. Rudy has to worry that the values voters will now get behind Romney. Huckabee is fumbling the ball and Romney looks Presidential. In the Republican primary season, Evangelical voters make up a large portion of the voters. The other candidates might just as well send in their resignations. They have no chance. They had no chance before, but there was a small glimmer of hope that one of the front runners would stumble. Romney clearly did not stumble and took a giant leap forward.

Democrats have to be worried also. Romney put himself head and shoulders above his opponents in the Republican primaries and also the Democrats. He makes all the others look petty and small. When Romney talks about freedom and light, he makes people proud. When the Democrats talk about removing people’s choices, they remind us of why we won the cold war. It was not to embrace what the Russians had; it was to put it in the dustbin of history. Romney has to be considered the front runner for the nomination and the Presidency at this time. He will not be considered the front runner by the main stream press because they are liberals and they cannot see the truth.

In the news today, there is a report that Bill Clinton is saying that the news media is not reporting on his wife’s experience properly. In his mind, that means that she would be given a lot of bonus points and be ahead. In my mind, that means that her criminal activity would be reported and she would be at least facing life in prison if not already be in prison.

The news media has underreported Mrs. Clinton’s funding raising activities since she first ran for public office in 2000. In that election, she committed fraud with Peter Paul and should have been indicted. Her head campaign finance person went to prison over that one. Peter Paul is trying to get the courts to acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton knew about the crime as it was being committed. He even has tapes of her committing the crime on tape. The court is trying to figure out how they can throw the case out of court and clear Mrs. Clinton.  Mrs. Clinton denies any knowledge of this transaction.

In her husband’s campaigns in the 1990’s and before, she was closely involved with fundraising. Illegal funds were obtained from foreign nationals and spent in an effort to elect someone to office in the United States. This is illegal. She was closely involved with those fund raising scandals. Mrs. Clinton cannot recall any involvement with these campaign violations.

There is also the Rose Law firm billing records that disappeared for years. When they were found, the only fingerprints on them were Mrs. Clinton’s and the person that found them. Mrs. Clinton cannot recall how the billing records got into her office in the White House with her fingerprints on them.

In the current election, her campaign is involved in numerous campaign finance violations with foreign nationals. Of course, she says that she cannot remember anything about being involved in any of these affairs. She would attend a fund raiser that invited low paid Chinese workers. At the event, the low paid Chinese workers would donate the maximum possible to her campaign. After the event was over, the Chinese workers would deny giving money to the campaign or say they were given their money back. That is if they could even be found. Most of the names on the list were never heard of at their places of employment or residence. She has also had her picture taken with Norman Hsu. He has just been indicted for a ponzi scheme that netted him millions. He bundled campaign donations worth $850,000 to the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign says they have never heard of Norman Hsu. Mrs. Clinton had her picture taken with Norman Hsu earlier this year.

I agree with Bill Clinton, a first, that his wife’s record has not had enough reporting by the main stream media. If they investigated the Clinton machine half as much as they investigate Mitt Romney, Mrs. Clinton would have polling numbers in the single digits or less. If the press investigated her half as much as they investigate Rudy Giuliani, she would be indicted for crimes many times over. She would be looking at doing some long prison terms. Of course, her husband would also be party to those indictments as many occurred during his terms as Governor of Arkansas and President.

Bill Clinton should be doing time in prison for Rape. Instead, he is raking in outrageous speaking fees and creating problems for everyone. By everyone, I do include his wife. He is not only making it with any female that breathes in his vicinity, he also is making up stories that even the main stream press cannot believe. His latest is that he was against invading Iraq before we invaded in 2003. If he was against it, he said nothing about that at the time. He also spoke about the need to invade Iraq since the mid 1990’s. The good news is that this is showing people that the Clinton’s will say anything in an effort to get elected.

The sleaze that is the Clinton machine is something the US can do without. I want her defeated so bad I do not care who does it. If Mrs. Clinton is defeated in her attempt at destroying the United States in the primaries, so much the better, we have to stop her some time. But lose she must or the United States is in real trouble of not making it as a representative Republic to 2012.

One item that has been in the news lately that I have not commented on is the teacher in the Sudan. She got a Teddy Bear and asked the class what they wanted to name it. A 7 year old boy in the class suggested the name Muhammad, his name for the bear. It was agreed that the bear would be named Muhammad.

When word of the bear’s name got home to the parents, the fur hit the fan. Muslim extremist groups were calling for her to be killed. She was arrested for her own protection, but put on trial for naming the bear Muhammad.

She was convicted of naming the bear Muhammad and committing blasphemy. She was sentenced to 15 days in jail and expulsion from the country. There was a lot of outcry from non-muslim countries over the injustice of the case. The 7 year old boy even came out and stated that the bear was named after him, not the prophet Muhammad. Finally, the President of the Sudan either saw the light or was pressured into doing the right thing. He pardoned the teacher. She still had to leave the Sudan. If I was her, I would be none to happy to leave.

This incident illustrates the problem with Muslims. They take everything the wrong way. If there is a way to blow it out of proportion, they will do it every time. Also, for small offenses, they like to impose the death penalty. It seems like the death penalty is imposed for breathing in some cases, like you are Jewish.

Since this happens with regularity in Muslim circles, there must be something about being a Muslim that would cause someone to act this way. Either the Muslims are so ignorant that they believe anything or they are taught to react violently to any perceived slight. Since this also happens in countries where Muslims are supposed to attend school and learn things, I can probably rule this out as a cause. The only other possible explanation is that Muslims are taught to act violently whenever they have a perceived slight.

Since I am a Christian, I find that hard to believe. I cannot conceive of a Church that teaches people to hate other people. I find it hard to believe that people can hate other people because of their religion. Unfortunately, we see it so often throughtout the world. Not just in the Muslim world, but also in the Christian world. In the Christian world, there is much less violence associated with the discrimination and hate.

Right now, Evangelical Christians are venting their spleens about “Mormons”. They are afraid that “Mormons” are going to become the dominant church in the United States. They see Mitt Romney’s Presidential run as an attempt to legitimize the “Mormon” Church. As a result, they are having a difficult time seeing the true candidate. They see something that is not there and are afraid of it. Their ministers are pushing this hatred because they are afraid of losing their jobs as freeloaders. If Evangelicals were Muslims, Mormons would have to worry about mass killings. Fortunately, they have some Christian teaching to fall back on and refrain from committing murder. Muslims have no Christian teaching so have no problem with committing murder to get what they want.

Muslims have to make sure that whoever they deamonize is not a “Muslim” like they are. They go out of their way to misidentify people to put them in the “other” box. That way they can kill them and receive a reward in heaven. If they kill a fellow Muslim, that is a crime. But, it is OK to kill a fellow Muslim if you also kill infidels in the same killing.  So logical these Muslims in figuring out who they can kill without a problem.

Last Friday, a man went into a Mrs. Bill Clinton for President Campaign office in New Hampshire and claimed he had a bomb strapped to his chest. His “bomb” happened to be a couple of highway flares.

While in the campaign office, he phoned CNN a few times to ask them to call Mrs. Clinton. He also asked CNN for some other things, which they did not do.

The police talked him out of the office after three or four hours. No-one was hurt in the incident. The three hostages were released one at a time over a couple of hour span. After all the hostages were released, the “bomber” gave himself up.

The bomber is a man that wants help for some mental health problems. He felt that this would be a way of obtaining the help without having to pay for it.

After the event was over, the press fell all over themselves complementing Mrs. Clinton on how Presidential she was. They said she made 8 phone calls and was involved in the incident throughout the entire time. They also said that she allowed the local authorities the freedom to complete the negotiations with the bomber. That seems contradictory to me.

For Mrs. Clinton, the situation was timed just too perfectly. Since she is a Clinton you have to look at all the angles. She is in trouble in Iowa and New Hampshire. She needed something to give her a boost in the polls. This would be the perfect thing to do that. Since her group has dealt with similar situations in the past, they would know what to do to make her look her best. If her campaign staff put this guy up to faking the bomb attack, it would be a perfect time to do it for Mrs. Clinton. She would get a boost in the polls by acting “Presidential” (doing nothing). Everyone would feel sorry for her and her campaign for being attacked like that. I am not saying they did put this guy up to faking the bomb, but the timing was too perfect for her to not ask the question.

One great thing is that Mrs. Clinton could not fly into Iowa because of weather. She appeared at a fund raiser by phone. When she was asked about illegal immigration, she received boo’s. That is good news. That means that she has not kept her eyes on the polls in Iowa and did not have the correct response down. There is hope for this country yet.

With global warming called, “The Greatest Hoax, ever”, you would think that the arguments would be over. Unfortunately, the people that should hear that it is a hoax will not listen. Those that know it is a hoax will hear that it is a hoax and believe it.

I was talking to another faculty member yesterday and was surprised, not, that he believed in man caused global warming. When I told him that man only put about 3% of the pollutants in the atmosphere, he was taken aback. He had never heard that argument. When I told him of the study that showed that it was warmer 1000 years ago, he had a hard time believing it. He said he believed that it was warmer now than it had been for 150,000 years. That is complete baloney. 150,000 ago was during the age of the mammals and was extremely warm compared to today. When people theorize that man first started about 50-60,000 years ago, it was warmer than today.

I told him of the Vikings living in Greenland from 850-1150 AD and that they could not live there today. He said they just lived in subsistence housing and villages. When I told him that there was at least one town of at least 20,000 people, he was impressed. He had not known that there were so many people living in Greenland during that time period.

He also acknowledged that the little ice age occurred and ended in the early to mid 1800’s. Some have the little ice age ending as late as 1860. He did not acknowledge the medieval warm period where temperatures were warmer than today, but we did not talk much about that.

His thought is that we should study ways to reduce our impact on the environment. That is an admirable goal. But, which impacts are we talking about. Which chemical that we produce, is the problem?

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas. There is nothing we can do to eliminate it from the environment.  We should not want to eliminate that impact. Carbon dioxide is at 0.03% of the atmosphere. It can go much higher before it becomes a problem. Natural forces will take over to reduce the impact of carbon dioxide way before it becomes a problem. Our work to reduce our production of carbon dioxide is an exercise in futility.

I did tell my friend that global warming has more to do with sun spots than with carbon dioxide. When you compare the charts of carbon dioxide and temperature, you see two completely independent charts. When you see the charts of sun spots and temperature, you see two closely related charts. I told him about the forecaster in England that is using sun spots to predict future weather. He is more accurate than the weather bureau in forecasting future weather in England. The same would hold true of sun spots, if anyone would take the time to look.

It never ceases to amaze me about the ignorance on global warming of people who are supposed to teach this stuff. We should be informed and up to date with the latest information. Most of my fellow teachers have no information, other than what they hear on the news media, on global warming. That is not good science. They should look at the latest scientific studies and see what they are showing. They are showing that global warming is a hoax. It is as clear as the nose on your face. Unfortunately, too many “science” teachers do not take the time to look. How sad!