Adam Brickley changes world history.

Image well thats been done.

Few of us ever come up with an idea that will change history.

Fewer of us who do recognize it for what it is.

Very few of those who do take it to the world and get it done.

This is what makes Adam Brickley exceptional, and at only 21 years of age.

About a year ago Adam found himself ‘less than thrilled’ at the proposed choices for Republican VP and decided to do his own research in order to find the best choice and came up with Sarah Palin. To quote Adam: -

“I knew that I had stumbled upon a fantastic candidate for national office, but I kept looking in the hope that I could find other potentially viable choices. However, after looking at every GOP governor, senator, and congressperson, I found that Palin had only become more appealing.”

What followed was a grassroots movement gathering strength until it could no longer be ignored. The efforts of Adam, Steve Maloney and numerous other supporters have created the situation where a VP was selected who would have slipped under the radar completely had it not been for this effort. Who says the internet won’t make a difference.

What follows is the message he sent out to his supporters when it was certain that the nominee would be either Pawlenty, or Romney.

Sarah Palin is an anomaly in American politics. It's not because she's a woman, not because of her blue-collar background, and not because of her ability to juggle the titles of "governor" and "committed mother of five". Forget about all of that stuff for a moment; it's interesting, but if Barack Obama has taught us anything, it's that a compelling biography is not a qualification for leadership. Instead, Palin is unique because she can claim one of the broadest bases of support of any leader in our country. Other than the lunatic fringes of Alaska's kleptocratic political establishment, nobody hates her.

Most politicians rise to power because they represent a certain wing of their party, and even some of their own partisans detest them. Mike Huckabee will never resonate with libertarian republicans, social conservatives cannot support Rudy Giuliani, certain evangelicals will always have a problem with Mitt Romney, and frankly I doubt that hard-core conservatives will ever fully embrace John McCain. That doesn't make them bad candidates; it just means that they face significant opposition within the Republican Party. Sarah Palin does not have that problem.

I have been working to draft Gov. Palin as Vice President since February of 2007, and I can recount first hand how she has united divergent views among Republicans and is now even gaining Democratic support. The key is that she offers a combination of qualities that make her a hero to many, many different groups. For instance, two of our strongest bases of support have been social conservatives and libertarian republicans, who are normally at each other's throats.

However, she offered both groups something that they desperately wanted without compromising any appeal to the other. The SoCons loved her pro-life, pro-family, and pro-gun positions, while the libertarians and fiscal conservatives cheered her on as she vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars of wasteful government spending. Getting those two groups to sing kum-ba-ya was enough of an accomplishment, but now it appears that a third group has found what it wants in Gov. Palin: McCainocrats.

For those Democrats who are considering abandoning the Obama ticket (primarily disillusioned Clinton supporters), Palin represents the final push into the Republican camp.

Not only is she a woman (which, like it or not, is an issue for some voters), but she also puts a fresh, future-oriented face on the McCain campaign. By upending Alaska's corrupt political class, Palin has actually produced the type of change that Barack Obama can only talk about; and her collar is far bluer than Joe Biden's ever was. Furthermore, she is arguably the only candidate who has the necessary expertise to address the single most pressing issue in this election: gas prices. As Governor of Alaska, Chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (America's largest interstate organization), and a former Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Sarah Palin can run rings around almost anyone when it comes to oil.

The last candidate to assemble such a broad coalition of support was a gentleman by the name of Ronald Wilson Reagan. He not only won the presidency in two successive landslides, but went on to become one of the most beloved and effective presidents in recent history. Now, I realize that it is somewhat presumptuous of me to make this comparison, but I personally have no doubt that Sarah Palin has the capability to become the next Reagan. In fact, the only real question that I have heard is whether we should bring her to the forefront now as a VP candidate or save her for later as a full-fledged presidential hopeful in 2012. I personally choose the former, because the latter involves the defeat of John McCain and the election of President Obama and Vice President Biden. 2008 will be a crucial election year, with the winner being handed the responsibility for the Iraq war, the gasoline crisis, the Russo-Georgian conflict, and any number of other issues. The stakes are simply too high to throw McCain under the bus and bide our time. Likewise, Sen. McCain should realize that the stakes are too high for him to select a VP candidate who simply "does no harm" rather than pushing his ticket over the top.

There is one sure fire solution to this problem, one way to guarantee a McCain surge, one way to put Obama on the defensive, and one way to steamroll to victory in November. Her name is Sarah Palin

"Free choice" your joking.

Whoever came up with the name employee ‘free choice act’ must have had a really good sense of irony. Basically it is an act to remove the right of employees not to be unionised.

Red State Oregon 2

Image from Libertarian Republican.

Pat Conlon is a great gatherer and disseminator of information, if it happened or got said it’s at ‘Born Again Redneck’.

Pats own stuff is good and to the point: -

“For the first time I feel that I have a politician who represents the America that I live in - the small-town America of ordinary folks going about their business of working hard, raising kids and cattle and chickens, hunting, fishing, shooting and simply enjoying life. For the first time there will be someone in DC who understands my concerns and is not some angst-ridden metrosexual city-slicker socialist whose ideas of what America is, seem more European than American.

The Dems and the media will all attack Palin mercilessly for being a hick from Mayberry - precisely the thing that I am so happy about.”

On the side bar of his blog I found a link to the Conservative Majority Project: -

The Oregon Republican Party desperately needs new blood and new leadership. The Conservative Majority Project, with your help, will identify and elect this new leadership.

The Party needs people who believe in conservative principles, can articulate them, and defend them. People who believe in the principles of Individual Responsibility, Limited Government, Constitutional Democracy, Property Rights, and The Free Market.

The Republican Party desperately needs skilled and courageous people to step into the arena of ideas and challenge both the "Certified Smart People" and the establishment class who are running this state.

Oregon is drowning in bureaucracy: bureaucracy in our school systems; bureaucracy in our land-use policies; bureaucracy in our transportation systems, and even bureaucracy in how we make decisions. We are awash in task forces, committees, sub-committees, bureaus, agencies, departments, and commissions.

Meanwhile Oregon ranks 38 out of 50 states in lowest per-capita income, while our public employee union members enjoy the most lucrative benefit packages in the country. The unions drive Salem’s political agenda—the public employee unions—and other moneyed special interests hold the greatest sway over our elected officials, simply because they are the folks currently controlling the campaign purse strings.

Now that’s Change I can believe in.

A prediction from the dark side.

Some time ago I stopped visiting Hillbilly White Trash, I disagree totally with his attitude to McCain, not so much in that he disagrees with him, I do on some issues myself. My problem is that the trenchant criticism of McCain by Lemuel in my opinion tends to arm those whom neither of us would wish to win.

The odd sycophant criticized me for my disagreement with McCain’s repudiation of the North Carolina advertisements, but I maintain my position that we do a candidate no favors if we fail to tell him when he is wrong. Such criticism however needs to be reasonably tactful and measured.

Lemuel is however a great articulate critic of the Democrats and a valuable ally. He has come up with a prediction I wasn’t expecting to see but in the light of the type of slimeball tactics we see from the other side is something it would not surprise me to see them use.

Before I post my public apology to Mr. McCain for underestimating him in this matter and give my impressions of Mrs. Palin I want to hear the thing out of McCain's own gob.

But I want to get this prediction in early because I don't think it will take long for the left-wing blogosphere to jump on it. 



Mrs. Palin has five children and the youngest is only a few months old and has Downs Syndrome. Mrs. Palin is 44 years-old and women in their forties have an elevated chance of having children with Downs Syndrome.

I believe that it will only be a short time before leftist wackjobs start criticizing the Palins for being "selfish" in choosing to have a child when she was so "old". They will imply that it was her "doctrinaire pro-life extremism" which led her to allow the pregnancy to come to term making the baby a "prop" in her "anti-woman fundamentalist agenda of intolerance". 



We will be told about what a low quality of life a child with Downs Syndrome has and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more stupid and thuggish Dim commentators start referring to the baby as a "mongoloid" (this is the kind of thing that Michael Moore does so well). 



Do not doubt me in this.

I may have underestimated McCain but one literally can not have too low an opinion of left-liberal Democrats. There is absolutely no moral depth to which they are not compelled to dive.

Sadly Lemuel is correct, the Democrats are the party who distributed Bush/McCain cartoon porn at their national convention, and Obama with his comments on small town America, along with his constant harping on how ‘they will say he’s different to …..,’ ‘ he’s not like those other Presidents …,’ etc to intimate a racial division has run the most racist campaign since fellow Democrat George Wallace.

There is no depth of reprehensible, unmitigated, bastardry that these far left freaks that now run the Democratic party will not sink to, and this may be in fact mild compared to reality.
We have to be ready for them, and to make sure the widest possible audience gets to know about it when it happens.

The average Democrat is in my opinion a decent person who on seeing what the leadership, especially the intellectual leaders have become will reject them and vote for decency, or at least stay at home on election day.

You run a great site Lemuel.

Palin, an inspired choice.

Last night the rumour mill was in full production. One had a secret service car outside Mitt Romneys house, meaning that he was the VP pick.

Another quoted Redstate as confirming that Pawlenty was definitely the choice.

Another announced that he was removing all of his old posts criticising Mike Huckabee as it seemed that he would be chosen and he didn’t want anything up that the left could use.

Then Steve Maloney came up with: - “I'm getting word from Republican operatives in OK and FL that Gov. Sarah Heath Palin's charter plane from Alaska has just landed in Dayton, Ohio. That almost certainly would indicate she is John McCain's choice for V-P.”…..

Steve has proven himself to be one of the most astute observers in the campaign so I had a feeling of optimism even though for a while I have had the feeling that Palin would not accept the job.

Then I was just posting one calling for more use of the original candidates when regular visitor Alex posted a comment drawing attention to a CNBC report of Palin being the pick, thanks Alex.

Here is her speech: -





The Palin choice is an inspired one in that the old beltway insiders have been sidelined for a relative newcomer who has almost universal acceptance across party lines, an approval rating in the 90s, a reputation as a fiscal conservative, strong attacker of the corrupt, and very much a strong personality, and her own woman.

Put those other candidates to work.

Checking back through some old posts I found this gem from Fred Thompson. Fred ran a fairly short campaign, starting late showing us I believe only a small part of what I think he was capable of and then dropped out. Here’s Fred: -

You know, when I'm asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn't matter…These days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. They’re all NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats. They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.

So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It's time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.

So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven't left the Democratic party so much as their party's national leadership has left them.

Some of those former candidates have a lot to offer the McCain campaign. Each has a fairly substantial group of voters they can bring to the party, and I hope they can find it in themselves to push hard to make sure Obama is not the winner.

I am not pushing for any of them to have the VP spot, the best person for that is Sarah Palin, who I am not sure actually wants the spot, but please oh please let it be her.

But Rudy, Fred, Mitt, and even the Huckster, can do a great deal to get us over the line.

Convention Control.

Some of the choreography that is carried out in the Democrat convention really makes me wonder just what the point of it is.

The Courier Mail reported: -

“The historic but carefully orchestrated moment came during a state-by-state roll call, in which delegates were announcing the carve-up of the votes cast in the primary contests held throughout the first half of this year.

Votes were being cast for Senator Obama and Hillary Clinton, but that was merely symbolic because Senator Obama secured a majority of voting delegates in June.

At the New York delegation was called forward, Senator Clinton stepped to the state to tell the convention - and a global audience - that her home state supported Senator Obama.

She then called for an end to the vote so that Senator Obama could be anointed as the first black presidential candidate for a major US party.”

There seems to be an absolute obsession with unity, or in this case the appearance of it. In the pursuit of the perception of it I feel that they may just have abandoned their best chance of achieving the real thing.

Many delegates present were committed to Hillary, and their voices were snuffed out before they had a chance to meet their obligation to those they represented in what was referred to above as a “carefully orchestrated moment.” Many of the Hillary supporters feel with some justification that their candidate was railroaded by the DNC.

It seems to be the case that the left love things symbolic, I suppose that if you don’t have logic or much else going for you, then symbols are the next best thing.

Obama unfortunately for the party seems to be driven by some sort of feeling of entitlement and can’t bear the idea of any sort of opposition. Disagreements are opportunities to resolve those matters on which we differ if we handle them right. If we do it wrong they can poison relations for years to come.

It would have made a great deal more sense to hold the ballot thus allowing these people to make their point and do their thing, then reach out to them, embrace them and go all out for party unity. That’s the way it is usually done and at the end of the convention all parties work together.

The Clintons may have saved their status (although weakened) within the party by toeing the line, but a deep sense of animosity will be felt by those who have been let down and disenfranchised by their actions for years to come.

The Temple of Barack

Here is some more on that temple of Obama, now known as the “Barackopolis”

"Temple of Obama," the Republican National Committee headlined its memo to reporters, which also includes some media commentary.

"I don't know that I would put Roman columns behind me if I had been accused of having a messianic complex,” Joe Scarborough said on MSNBC today.

UPDATE: And the McCain campaign just issued a memo with helpful images of various toga styles.

More Obama Idiocy, Greek Temple?

A big hat tip to ‘Born Again Redneck’ for this one.

Is this bloody idiot for real? A hell of a lot of politicians are up themselves, but Precious really takes the cake.

DENVER (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple.

The stage, similar to structures used for rock concerts, has been set up at the 50-yard-line, the midpoint of Invesco Field, the stadium where the Denver Broncos' National Football League team plays.

Some 80,000 supporters will see Obama appear from between plywood columns painted off-white, reminiscent of Washington's Capitol building or even the White House, to accept the party's nomination for president.

He will stride out to a raised platform to a podium that can be raised from beneath the floor. ….

Once Obama speaks, confetti will rain down on him and fireworks will be fired off from locations around the stadium wall.

Obama has always struck me as suffering from messianic delusions, but now a Greek god? Has this got something to do with: - “A light will shine down from somewhere. It will light upon you. You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack.”



epiphany |iˈpifənē|
noun ( pl. -nies) (also Epiphany)
the manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles as represented by the Magi (Matthew 2:1–12).
• the festival commemorating this on January 6.
• a manifestation of a divine or supernatural being.
• a moment of sudden revelation or insight.

I would have thought the ridicule he copped over the Obama Presidential seal would have been enough for him. Some people just never learn.

More on Black Republicans.

I am not sure how I first came in contact with the National Black Republican Association, but they have impressed me with their efforts so far. Democrats going into Denver for the coronation of Obama will have the pleasure of encountering 50 of the Martin Luther King was a Republican signs to cheer them on their way.

The Democrats have done a great disservice to Black America in nominating Obama. He isn’t competent to handle the job and if he is elected he will be a disaster to the point that it will be extremely difficult for a black candidate to be taken seriously for a long time in the future if he were to fail as completely as it appears probable.

If their priority was as it seems to have been, to make a black guy President, then surely there was someone better than this on offer.

The Black Republican Pac have come up with a great ad on why Obama is not the sort of change America needs.

Reaching out to Hillary supporters.

A new television ad by Sen. John McCain aims to tap into anger at Sen. Barack Obama among the legions of Hillary Clinton supporters by suggesting that the Democratic nominee dissed his one-time rival.

Erasing any doubt that McCain has his sights set on Clinton voters, the new ad uses Clinton's own words to suggest that Obama passed her over because of the tough campaign she waged. The ad is titled "Passed Over."

"She won millions of votes. But isn't on his ticket," an announcer says. "Why? For speaking the truth."

Disillusioned Hillary supporters are currently like undrilled oil, there are vast untapped reserves out there.

“Renewables a Mirage?”

By Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.

(A personal note from Viv): -
For those interested in getting regular updates on the growing world-wide opposition to Emissions Trading, carbon taxes, green energy and all the paraphernalia of the Global Warming Hysteria we recommend two reports:

1. “CCNet” a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail to: listserver@livjm.ac.uk ("subscribe cambridge-conference").


2. “The Week that Was” a regular report by Professor Fred Singer. Requests for subscriptions to: singer@sepp.org


The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused governments and media of spreading myths on the ability of “renewables” to supply Australia’s future electricity.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense” Mr Viv Forbes said there was no chance that wind, solar, hydro and geothermal could supply 20% of Australia’s electricity by 2020 without massive increases in electricity costs and severe damage to Australia’s industry and standard of living. “The belief that we can go further and eliminate coal from our energy supply is a dangerous delusion.”

Wind and solar suffer three fatal flaws which no amount of research dollars, climate junkets, green papers, government gifts, carbon taxes, ministerial statements or imperial mandates will change.

The first fatal flaw is obvious even to children at school – no wind turbine or solar panel anywhere in the world can supply continuous power.

Power from wind turbines varies with the wind speed, stops when the wind drops and they have to be shut down in strong winds, storms or cyclones.

Solar power stops at night or when it is cloudy, and solar panels only supply maximum power around midday, in summer, in the tropics.

The output of both wind and solar varies or shuts down with little warning; this causes big problems in maintaining stability in large power grids. Thus any power grid with more than 10% supplied by wind and solar will risk sudden blackouts or damaging fluctuations. To maintain stable power requires that every kilowatt of solar or wind is shadowed by standby power (preferably gas or hydro) ready to switch on to full power in a very short time. The capital and operating cost of these standby facilities should be added to the real cost of “green power”.

The second fatal flaw with wind and solar is that the supply of energy is very dilute, so a large area of land is required to collect significant power. This causes extensive environmental and scenic damage and very large transmission and maintenance costs.

The third fatal flaw of wind and sun power is that only a few places are ideally suited to collect significant quantities of energy, and these places are often far from the main centres of population. Solar power is best collected from places like the Tanami Desert in Northern Territory, and wind power is best collected from places in the path of the Roaring Forties, such as King Island and Western Tasmania. It will be a long time before either of these sites is connected by high voltage power lines to Penny Wong’s desk in Canberra or the PM’s Lodge in Sydney.

Wind power is useful for providing stock water and moving sailing ships; using solar hot water heaters makes good sense; and solar energy (combined with harmless carbon dioxide from the air and minerals from the soil) provides the primary resources for all farming, forestry, fishing and grazing industries. But neither wind nor sun will supply economical and reliable base load electricity to big cities or industries.

Hydro power can provide low cost stable energy providing it is backed by a large dam in a reliable rainfall area. Finding such spots where approvals could be obtained in a reasonable time frame is almost impossible in Australia. Hydro will not keep the lights on for a growing population.

Natural gas and coal seam gas are hydro-carbon fuels which produce the same two “greenhouse gases” as coal and oil – water vapour and carbon dioxide. They too will be crippled by Emissions Trading and carbon taxes. When the Luddites realise that gas is also a non-renewable carbon fuel, it too will be taxed and regulated to death. It is not a “renewable” and it is less abundant than coal. It is far too valuable to be mandated for base-load electricity generation or city hot water systems.

This leaves geothermal – a totally unproven technology likely to have very high costs for exploration, development, transmission and water. It is worth investigating by people prepared to speculate their capital, but geothermal will not prevent the power brownouts on the horizon unless someone abandons the misguided “crucify carbon” campaign.

With nuclear power and oil shale banned, and plans to tax coal, oil and gas out of existence, man is headed back to the “green” energy sources of the Dark Ages – muscles, horses, firewood and sunshine.

But without carbon fuels to bring heat, light, food, transport and water to our large cities, many people will not survive the transition to green nirvana, especially if the current global cooling trend continues.

For more comment on the mirage of renewables see: “Sand in the Gears” a submission to the federal enquiry into Mandatory Renewable Energy Schemes.

info@carbon-sense.com www.carbon-sense.com.

Disclosure of Interest:
Viv Forbes has a degree in applied science and has worked as a rouseabout, geologist, mineral economist, public employee, company director, journalist, political gadfly and farmer. He has special interest and training in the improvement of natural pastures and soils by better management of grazing animals. He now earns intermittent income from three carbon dependent industries - coal, cattle and sheep. He also uses cement, steel and electricity, buys diesel for his tractor and petrol for his car. He uses trains and occasionally boards an aeroplane. He eats carbon based foods, pays fuel taxes and uses government services funded by taxes on the carbon industries. His superfund occasionally owns shares. All of these interests will be harmed by carbon taxes or carbon emissions trading. Like the great majority of Australians, he has a big vested interest in the outcome of this historic debate.

Ayres, Obama's terrorist mate.

Eric over at Libertarian Republican came up with this one which once again highlights the type of connections Obama has which should disqualify him from any serious consideration as a Presidential candidate.

The One- Road to Dam Denver.

The McCain campaign have come up with the goods in their advertising just when they really needed to. From the earliest contact I have had with Obamas campaign I have noticed the fetid waft of messianic complex, the scariest type of narcissism, the sufferers of which truly see themselves as correct in whatever they do, after all they are omnipotent.

These adds like the following one truly highlight this serious character flaw. Obamas campaign seems to draw more from the likes of Jimmy Jones and David Koresh than JFK.



Is he ready to lead?

Is he ready to be let out on his own?

ian Macfarlane on GW

There are precious few of our state or federal politicians here who I tend to hold in considerable respect. Few tend to really think far beyond party lines or hold much in the way of original ideas and fewer of those who do tend to talk about it, never mind stand up for anything.

Ian Macfarlane is one who impressed me from the time he first started to make news in agripolitics. He was never another new face pushing the same tired old ideas, but a whole fresh approach.

He was President of the Queensland Graingrowers Association for seven years, President of the Grains Council of Australia for two years and simultaneously held executive positions on the Queensland and National Farmers Federations.

Ian entered federal politics in 1998 taking the seat of Groom and spent most of his time on the front benches until the defeat of the Howard government last year, and is now shadow minister for trade.

The following is from the Julius Kruttschnitt Lecture for 2008 by him to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.

The link is well worth following but the gist of it is, that while he does not dismiss the possibility of human activity influencing climate warming he seems to be prepared to take on the hysteria that surrounds the subject, making the point that the attacks on those who challenge the sacred cow of GW in any degree is a gross violation of the right of free speech.

To find an equivalent member of federal parliament, I think you would need to go right back to someone like Bill Wentworth, or even Charlie Russell

The Rudd Government is fond of trumpeting that its ETS will be the most comprehensive in the world but, on present form, it will also be the most scant-on-detail scheme in the world.
The potential economic impact of this scheme, not only on the resources and energy sector, but across all facets of our economy, simply cannot be overstated.

The interests of Australia, its businesses, export industries and residents will be best served by a rational and reasonable approach to addressing climate change in Australia and the world's carbon emissions.

That will require the enlisting of tenacious and smart men and women of the resource industry, along with scientists and academics to bring some rationality and natural caution to this debate.

And rationality and caution haven't been to the fore so far.

The climate change/carbon emission debate is a phenomenon of the last 10 years. Until then the environmentalists spent their time attacking de-forestation and pollution - particulates, SO2 and NO2.

Carbon emissions barely raised an eyebrow.

Then came Al Gore, Sir Nicolas Stern and a one in one hundred year drought that brought water shortages into Australia's suburbia - a perfect storm to foster fears and insecurities.
The carbon debate began in earnest and it has been emotional, sometimes irrational and always political.

Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless, non-toxic inert gas that makes up less than 0.05% of the Earth's atmosphere.

Yet according to experts, any significant increase will cause more floods, more droughts, and the end of civilisation in some parts of the world.

Anyone who dares question this prediction is immediately branded a sceptic and subjected to scorn and ridicule by political opponents, sections of the media and self-professed experts of all types and backgrounds.

I know, because the Labor Party was quick to brand me a climate change sceptic.
For the record I'm not a climate sceptic and never have been.

As a former farmer, the son of a farmer and a scientist and the grandson of a geologist I have always followed the evolution of the world's climate very closely.

You don't have to sift through too much information to see a clear pattern of ups and downs in the global temperature over the course of the history of our planet. Our planet's climate is changing and warming and has been doing so since the last ice age more than 10 000 years ago.

And I'm a pragmatist who accepts that based on the weight of scientific evidence combined with the democratic view of the vast majority of Australians, we can't take the risk that CO2 is not causing the Earth to warm more rapidly. ….

In this emotion-charged environment, it seems unless you're prepared to offer full blown acceptance of every single 'new' claim presented by climate change alarmists, you're nothing short of a lunatic or a heretic.

Worse still is the free use of the term climate change "denier".
A recent article in The Age newspaper made the comparison between calls for caution on climate change and the decision by Western leaders in the 1930s to ignore the build up of fascist forces.
(Source: Kenneth Davidson, "Sceptics should face the need to manage risk", The Age, 24.07.08)

This attack on free speech is unscrupulous and deceitful.

Yes, Australians should take the climate change issue seriously - I certainly do, but the question must be asked - whose interests are served by running a ruthless scare campaign that depicts scenarios of doom and destruction and attacks people in such a derogatory and personal way?

Last week, Dennis Shanahan, Political Editor for The Australian newspaper, raised a fundamental point when he wrote:


How can there be an informed public debate and a sensible political dialogue on an emissions trading scheme when 32 per cent of Australians believe "climate change is entirely caused by human activity", according to a Newspoll survey last month? 
That means one in three of those surveyed, and 40 per cent of those surveyed aged 18 to 34, are unaware of climate changes before human existence or of dramatic changes - ice ages - since humans were but a pinprick on the Earth's surface. 
Not even Al Gore suggests that humans are entirely responsible for climate change. Yet the Rudd Government is planning the most momentous reform for the Australian economy with one-third of the voting and tax-paying population completely misinformed. 
(Source: Dennis Shanahan, Political editor, 'FuelWatch flop a blessing for Rudd,' The Australian, 15.08.08)

Long Tan.

 Long Tan, Vietnam. 18 August 1969. Members of the 6th Battalion during the ceremony at which a white cross was erected as a memorial to those who died during the Battle of Long Tan. (courtesy Australian War Museum AWM EKN/69/0081/VN.)

The Australian mercenaries, who are no less husky and beefy than their allies, the U.S. aggressors, have proved as good fresh targets for the South Vietnamese Liberation fighters. ... On 18 August [they] wiped out almost completely one Battalion [1000 men] of Australian mercenaries in an ambush in Long Tan village.  Announcement from Radio Hanoi, 27 August 1966.

While small in the big picture of the Vietnam War, Long Tan was the battle that caught the imagination of the Australian people at the time. It seemed astonishing that such a small force (108 men) could hold out against a force that outnumbered them by at least 25 to 1 without air support, which couldn’t be used owing to weather conditions. The following is a brief account: -

In the late afternoon of 18 August 1966, D Company, 6 RAR, fought for their lives for three hours in pouring rain, amid the mud and shattered trees of the Long Tan rubber plantation in Phuoc Tuy Province, South Vietnam.

Facing an enemy force of some 2500 North Vietnam Army regulars and Vietcong guerrillas, this company of mostly young national servicemen -- led by a few regulars -- called upon all facets of battlefield support for survival. Above all it called heavily on the determination, professionalism and courage of the soldiers on the ground.

The Battle of Long Tan was costly for Australia. Eighteen young Australians -- the youngest was nineteen, the oldest was twenty-two -- lost their lives as a result of this battle. A further twenty-one soldiers were wounded.

The damage inflicted on the enemy was significant. Two hundred and sixty confirmed dead and evidence to suggest that several hundred wounded were carried from the battlefield.

For its ‘extraordinary heroism while engaged in military operations against an opposing armed force’ D Company was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation by the President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson.

Sadly I have on occasions seen efforts by revisionist history types to belittle this effort, claiming that the degree of artillery support they got means that they ‘didn’t really do it on their own’ and other such rubbish. This would have been a disaster had the men on the ground at the time not held together and pretty much done everything right at a critical time.

Obama and race baiting.

You really have to live in a big city for a few years to really make the word ’provincial’ sound like a put down. To make it sound really derogatory you have to be a leftie. While some inhabitants of large centers of population have little in common with their provincial countrymen, only the left consider them to be gun hugging, bible thumping, Cletus clones.

The following was sent to me earlier today.

Senator Barack Obama's sneaky, race-baiting tactics are divisive, negative and wrong, but they are nothing new. The truth is Obama has conducted low road, slice and dice politics aimed at fueling racial tensions from day one of the presidential campaign season.

Clintons4Mccain Founder Cristi Adkins says, "Move over David Duke, there's a new racist going for the oval office. Hillary supporters have seen Obama unfairly play the race card time and time again. In fact, Obama's crypto-ethnic, inflammatory remarks have become the senator's number one method of distracting voters from his lack of qualifications, numerous flip-flops and dangerous associations."

A full-scale flare-up between Senator John McCain and Obama erupted last week when the Democratic presidential candidate, campaigning in Missouri, erroneously charged Republicans and McCain with trying to scare voters about his appearance by suggesting that Obama "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

Obama's camp initially denied the remark referred to the senator's race. However, just one day later Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, admitted on "Good Morning America" that the candidate was in fact referring to his ethnic background.

The race card is no surprise for Clinton supporters. It actually started long before attention was drawn to it. An example was when comments from Michelle Obama like, "Black America will wake up" suggests 'black Americans' should wake up and vote for Obama simply because he is known as a 'black candidate.'

Dr. and Rev. James David Manning, an African American pastor from Harlem who supports Hillary Clinton or John McCain for President, says "Obama's race-baiting tactics are nothing new. He unfairly charged both President Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro of racism during the primary and then worked to spin the story to make himself the victim."

Manning continued, "Obama's statements about race include a subliminal threat branding all white people who oppose him as racists, while at the same time appealing to African Americans' empathy as a victim of racism. These tactics are underhanded and I applaud McCain for exposing the Senator's hypocrisy."

Politico is reporting attempts by liberals to present arguments that the latest McCain ads are some sort of cryptographic racism.

To most, the message was clear, if a little ham-handed: Like Hilton and Spears, Obama is famous for being famous; he's more flash than substance. 

But was there a deeper message? In the past week and a half, the liberal blogosphere has become a virtual Bletchley Park of racial cryptographers teasing out the sinister motives and subtexts of McCain’s campaign advertising. ….

The American Prospect’s Ezra Klein huffed that the McCain campaign is “running crypto-racist ads.” Bill Press, former co-host of CNN's Crossfire, proclaimed that the “Celeb” spot was "deliberately and deceptively racist." Polk Award-winning blogger Josh Marshall wrote that “the McCain campaign is now pushing the caricature of Obama as a uppity young black man whose presumptuousness is displayed not only in taking on airs above his station but also in a taste for young white women." 



The online hyperventilation quickly passed through to the Sunday chat show circuit. If this wasn’t dog-whistle politics, said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," then “why not use Denzel Washington or Bono?” (Brazile is a frequent decoder of subterranean racism, having previously accused former President Bill Clinton of being racially insensitive for calling Obama’s view of the Iraq war a "fairy tale.") MSNBC’s perpetually outraged host Keith Olbermann inveighed against the “almost subliminal racism, a black man with two women.” When the video briefly flashed Berlin’s Victory Column on the screen — where Obama addressed 200,000 adoring fans — New York Times columnist Bob Herbert saw a “phallic symbol.”

What is happening here is that Obama has been trying to harness ‘white guilt,’ after all he really have much going for him other than that. His surrogates have been expecting McCain to come out with at least some derogatory racial epithets, and are now getting impatient to the point of calling everything racist.

Keith Olbermann tends to be a bit like an eternal gutsache, but even he must be stretching whatever imagination he has to suggest that the ‘Celebrity’ advertisement is actually saying, “God damn it Cletus, that uppity N….. is getting ideas about our white women, get your white sheet, your cross, and a rope and meet us in Chicago. And remember this time not to light the cross till you get it out of the car.”

Bill Russell, Better and Better.

I was impressed by an item from Michael Zak, “Barack Jennings Obama.”

A young, inexperienced orator captures the Democratic presidential nomination and squares off against the war hero and senior statesman nominated by the Republicans. Speaking as if from a pulpit, in a style learned from fiery preachers, the magnetic newcomer had the crowds swooning. I'm referring, of course, to the presidential election of 1896.

That year, the Democratic Party was sharply divided between an establishment faction led by President Grover Cleveland and those who wanted even more government control over the economy.

Even further to the left on the political spectrum was the Populist Party, a bastion of the free silver movement. The Populists were socialists, calling for government ownership of the railroads, telephones and telegraphs. Some of their leading agitators would have found themselves comfortable on today's lunatic fringe. …….

A 36-year old former two-term U.S. Representative from Nebraska stood up at the 1896 Democratic National Convention and delivered an eloquent speech in favor of the free coinage of silver. ……

The Republican presidential nominee was 63-year old William McKinley, a former seven-term U.S. Representative and two-term Governor of Ohio. He had risen to the rank of major in the regiment commanded by Rutherford Hayes during the Civil War. ……

Rather than try to match the oratory, McKinley responded with his front porch campaign. With few exceptions, he remained at home looking presidential, speaking to Republican delegations from across the country who came to see him. Accompanying him at many appearances were the officials he said would figure prominently in his administration. …

Early on, Bryan looked like a winner, but his campaign faded in the fall. Rhetoric that had once seemed inspirational came off as pompous and bombastic. Worse, many voters wondered if Bryan really knew what he was talking about. While McKinley presented himself as a seasoned team leader, Bryan proved himself to be a naive, one-man show.

William Jennings Bryan carried the Solid South and other Democrat strongholds, but McKinley won over Middle America and so won the presidency. Republicans retained majorities in both houses of Congress.

Sure and steady won the race for the Republican.

Michaels stuff is always worth a read.

Interestingly the next item was from the Russell Brigade. For those who have come in late Lt. Col. Bill Russell is the GOP candidate against Murtha in PA, who has triumphed in the face of adversity all the way through the campaign. Murtha is so entrenched he seemed unbeatable to start with, then after legal challenges had him dropped off the ballot, he successfully ran a write in campaign to get back on easily.

When he disappeared from the campaign I damn near gave up on him. He was on active service and was prohibited from any association with his own campaign.

While he was away, his enthusiastic supporters ‘The Russell Brigade’ took up the challenge and actually appear to have built on the momentum, to the point where I consider Murtha to be in trouble. Interestingly Russell is holding front porch campaign meetings, as referred to above.

Thanks for your incredible help these past few days! Since Bill’s return from active duty on August 1st, we’ve been overwhelmed by the strong grassroots support we’re receiving from all over Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District and beyond.

Here are a few things you need to know:

First, since the 2nd Quarter FEC filings (the one that showed us beating Jack Murtha by some $500,000), we’ve added an astounding $500,000 more. The bigger news is that the average contribution was $50.

Well, you did it. A few weeks ago, we reported the incredible 2nd Quarter grassroots contributions totaling $637,137 compared to Congressman Murtha’s $113,155.

A fluke? A few months of accidental luck? Well, the July totals tell a different story. Because of your continued vigilance and sacrificial support, we’ve now raised an additional $400,000 in the month of July! That’s right, $400,000 in July alone.
Here’s the quick math.

The first and second quarter totals combined shattered the $900,000 mark. When you add in July’s contributions, the new total is $1.3 million dollars.

Here’s some even bigger news. The majority of the money we’re raising (3/4ths of it) is coming from an average, grassroots contribution of $50. ……

This week, in addition to conservative opinion leaders like Michelle Malkin, we picked up major financial support from some national political stars, Secretary and Mrs. Donald Rumsfeld and Senator Fred Thompson.

More than their big checks, these American patriots are going on the line and on the record for Bill Russell.

Strong local candidates will do a great deal to help John McCain in the Presidential race and I urge you to do what you can to help, whoever your candidate is. Steve Maloney has some excellent candidates from PA listed on his site, and if he gets his way PA will be a red state.

Will Manly's Letter to Barack Obama.

This was printed a while back and has been doing the rounds, so maybe you have seen it before, but living in Australia as I do it has just got to me and I think it is worth passing on. The first reference to it I can find is in Firearms Talk but was referred to me by Steve Maloney.

Dear Barack Obama:

I grew to like you over the last year.

I've always thought of you as dangerously naive at best. Eloquent, gifted, genuine, yes. But dangerously naive at best.

I couldn't vote for you -- but not because of your funny name or your lunatic pastor. I couldn't vote for you because you say we should raise taxes (even on the rich, who I'm convinced already pay too much), and because you say we should abandon Iraq (which I'm convinced would be surrendering a war we must win), and because you don't respect the Second Amendment (which I'm convinced should disqualify any politician from any office).

Still, I've liked your message of unity and your ability to inspire. And, since your rise I've hunted, quite frantically, for young conservative leaders with your talent. (To my relief, I found Bobby Jindal.)

And I've long said if you beat Hillary Clinton, you will have done your country a tremendous service. But anymore I'm having a harder and harder time rooting for you.

First came your wife's comment about being proud of America for the first time -- conveniently, right after you started winning primaries. Then came your own words about your grandmother, who is just a "typical white person" -- a racist, or at least someone with racist tendencies. (I'm a "typical white person," I suppose, and I'm no racist. In fact, little makes me angrier than when it's insinuated I am.)

Sometimes people say things they don't really mean. But this is a pattern.

Last week, we heard your comments about small-town America. Someone at a San Francisco fundraiser asked you why it's so hard for Democrats to win in rural areas. You said:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them ... So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them ..."

Is that a minority? HEY CLETUS, GET THE GUN! (If only we had a job to go to, some time in the last 25 years ...)

Here's a thought: Maybe gun rights voters know gun control laws kill people and steal freedom.

Here's a thought: Maybe some of us have moral objections to an immigration system that forces rule-followers to wait decades for legal status, and rewards border-violators with amnesty.

Here's a thought: Maybe some Americans cling to their church because their pastor is a nice person, because they find love there, because there they have something they can believe in.

Here's a thought: Maybe, just maybe, us simpletons in small towns find it harder to be bigoted than all o' y'all cityfolk. Maybe, in small towns, where everybody knows your name -- and how hard you work, if you pay your taxes, how well you treat your neighbors, how often you volunteer in the community, and whether or not you're a good parent -- people see the content of your character, so they don't give a hoot about the color of your skin. (But I grew up in a small town where about a third of the population is of a different race than me. What do I know?)

And here's my favorite thought of all: Maybe small-town folks are -- really -- capable of thinking. All on our own.

You're wrong about why small-town Americans don't vote for Democrats.

We don't vote for Democrats because we're self-reliant so we don't like the government trying to "solve" everything for us. And because you tell your rich friends in San Francisco that we're dumb. And because, each election, whichever one of you is running for president traipses all over the country telling us you have all the answers, that you're the one on our side, that you understand and respect our way of life.

But each time, a little bit here and there slips out -- and by the end of the campaign, we can tell what you think about us. And we manage to learn who you really are.

And we see you're just a horse's ***.

Will Manly is a reporter for The Hays Daily News and The Stir. will@thestironline.comhttp://www.hdnews.net/Story/manly041408

Attack on GOP donors

The Democrats seem to be able to act like an unprincipled pack of bastards (well they are one) with impunity. If the GOP were to pull the sort of stunts the liberals are the press would be calling for them to be ridden out of town on a rail.

Two recent articles highlight organized attacks on freedom of speech by the deniable surrogates of the Democratic Party. I found the first at Newsmax.

A new left-wing organization that wants to help elect Barack Obama president is sending letters to nearly 10,000 major donors who contribute to Republican causes, threatening them with potential legal problems if they finance conservative groups.

The nonprofit organization, Accountable America, is even offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to the criminal conviction or fines of at least $10,000 for violations of campaign finance laws or other statutes by a conservative group, according to The New York Times. ….

The warning letter being sent to potential donors “is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives,” The Times reports.

If a conservative group do run ads attacking Obama, Matzzie says his group plans to run ads countering it exposing the donors behind the anti-Obama message.

Threats legal or otherwise towards supporters of rival political parties should not be countenanced under any circumstances; this is a direct threat to constitutional rights.

Just when I was feeling really pissed off at that news, I find another being made by Move on who are threatening those Reps who defied Pelosi’s antics in blocking the off shore drilling vote by calling the house into recess. A group of Republicans remained and continued debating the issue even with the lights, microphones, and cameras turned off.

The effort is to continue on Monday, good on them.

A visit to Jeremiah Films turned up the following: -

MoveOn.org in their support of Nanny Pelosi’s decision to not allow a yes or no vote on the matter of domestic, off-shore oil drilling released a series of radio attack ads Thursday targeting six Republicans who support off-shore drilling and are currently active in the phantom session that is in protest of Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to do anything to help America gain energy independence. An article released by the Politico suggests that there is a good possibility that these ads will backfire. In fact, it is very likely that these ads will backfire.

If these mongrels are an indication of the absolute intolerance of the liberals to any opposition at all, the idea of an Obama presidency should scare even the non extreme Democrats.

John Edwards and Press self censorship.

As a libertarian I am not going to be judgemental about what Edwards has been doing, I don’t know the circumstances, (there can be mitigating aspects) only to say that as a personal conservative it is not the way I would choose to conduct myself. All of us have flaws somewhere, some of us try to rise above them, some succeed, some don’t.

Probably the worst aspect is as was the case with Bill Clinton, the lying about it, although it was in both cases none of anybody’s business except for those involved and their families. Reporting on these matters is however a matter of freedom of speech, and I argue that the risk of exposure is one way of promoting the mores of society.

It seems however that there seems to be a bias on the part of some of the press as to who they will report on. Looking back a bit we can all remember the smear job called ‘McCain Affair’ broken as a ‘Scoop’ by the NYT, which turned out to be wishful thinking on their part.

Now ironically they are being sanctimonious about the failure of the mainstream press to follow up on reports in the National Enquirer about the Edwards affair. In an article “Reticence of Mainstream Media Becomes a Story Itself,” they launch into a diatribe on how the matter did not get attention before this: -

For almost 10 months, the story of John Edwards’s affair remained the nearly exclusive province of the National Enquirer — through reports, denials, news of a pregnancy, questions about paternity and, finally, a slapstick chase through a hotel in Beverly Hills.

Political blogs, some cable networks and a few newspapers reported on it — or, more accurately, reported on The Enquirer reporting on it. Jay Leno and David Letterman made Mr. Edwards the butt of jokes on their late-night shows, but their own networks declined to report on the rumors surrounding him on the evening news. Why?

A number of news organizations with resources far greater than The Enquirer’s, like The New York Times, say they looked into the Edwards matter and found nothing solid enough to report, while others did not look at all.

Some of their comments point to a lack of interest in a story about the private conduct of an also-ran presidential candidate, and a distaste for following the lead of a publication they hold in low esteem. Only in Mr. Edwards’s home state, North Carolina, did newspapers aggressively chase the story in the last few weeks.

On Friday, Phil Bronstein, the former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle, in his blog on that paper’s Web site, poked fun at the reticence of the mainstream media, “picking at it with their noses held, as if looking for something valuable in a moldy dumpster.”

“On journalism sites, the finger-pointing, self-loathing, self-righteousness and tut-tutting was massive,” he wrote. “Does anyone really think that a story splashed in the tabs and debated on blogs like a powerful fire backdraft is somehow not part of the public discourse?”

This should be no surprise really, except that the NYT, with its record has the audacity to publish something of which they themselves are guilty.

On July 22, the Enquirer said that one of its reporters had caught Mr. Edwards visiting the mother and child at the Beverly Hilton, and chased him through the hotel. The general media’s resistance started to crack then, and it began crumbling after The Enquirer, on Wednesday, published what it said were pictures of that hotel rendezvous, including a grainy photo showing what looked to be Mr. Edwards holding a baby.

This is the sort of thing I find difficult to tolerate, - the chasing of people through buildings, and I find the part about the holding of the baby to be a good point, a bit of fatherly responsibility is indicated by it.

Many years ago it was rumored that a Catholic priest in our town a long time before had fathered a child, to whom he left everything in his will. The bequest was real, and no explanation was ever given, hence the speculation. When I was told of it by someone who was disapproving I reacted with, ”Well it’s a good thing he left her provided for.”

Some time ago, I don’t remember how it came up, an old relative (Protestant therefore not a justifier) told me a different story.
Apparently the priest owned a property in the area and used to stay there sometimes. A family who lived nearby were concerned about him, as he was getting old and sent their daughter over with meals and to do some housework. This was the girl who was left the estate as a gesture of gratitude.

But I digress.

The reason that the affair was not reported on is undoubtedly that Edwards is a Democrat and the hunting season was therefore closed and was not opened until irrefutable evidence was presented so that it could not be ignored anymore.

There is too much self censorship of stories against the left, especially given the blatant publication of wildly speculative smear campaigns against the right.

Some good resources from the left.

Y’know (I’ve just got to stop listening to Obama) lefties do have a sense of humour, (fair go, I am serious). The only problem with it is that they tend to dislike other people having one that pokes fun at them or their causes. I don’t envy shrinks who have to get into those minds and tiptoe around among the sort of ideas found there, it must be stressful.

My regular readers will be aware by now that I like to illustrate with cartoons, a well selected one can really bring out a point or several. The ideal is often impossible and I often have to settle for less, or even just put in something that I find amusing.

I have been fortunate in finding the most wonderful source of images, ironically from a leftie but you don’t look s gift horse in the mouth. Blue Herald’ has its ‘Right wing cartoon watch’, with great selections of cartoons close to my heart along with a commentary on just what they don’t like about them.

My feelings towards leftie angst is generally one of amusement. This is something similar to something I found on Bovination some time ago in a post called “ Letters from the Intelligensia”: -

One of the rewarding things about running a blog is the Lefty hate-mail that trickles through the series of tubes comprising the internet and end up in the InBox. The feeling that somewhere, somehow, a whining, bleeding-heart Lefty is annoyed at you is a bit like taking a good dump: a sort of satisfied, contented feeling that something good (however small and insignificant on a global scale) has been achieved. The Lefties call it 'thinking globally and acting locally'.
These little morsels of hate are normally flushed from the InBox in a single satisfying button press. Occasionally though, a real gem arrives, and just has to be reproduced on the site in its full, unedited, (and un-corrected) glory: ….

Bovination is a great site which is fairly irregulally posted on by ‘Strawman’, who makes up for some long waits with really great stuff. One of his best was his take on the second round of London bombings: - "Dry run for 72 virgins"

McCain vs. Obama on Taxes

This information came to my attention via an Email from Steve Maloney with the figures from Americans for tax reform.

Steve says; Did you ever wonder how "President" Obama is going to provide a $7,000 tax credit to buyers of hybrid vehicles (and a tax credit of zilch to us poor non-hybrid buyers)? If you read below, you'll see that Obama is going to raise your taxes -- big time. If you pay at the lowest tax rate (10%) your taxes will go up by half (50%).

In short, Obama's willing to spend big money to buy your votes, but it turns out it's your money he's using. Please read the material below comparing current tax law, McCain's proposals, and Obama's proposals. The material is from Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, and there's a link to the entire piece. Please use this material if you have a blog, and if you don't have one, disseminate it in as many ways as you can. Pocketbook issues will determine this election, and Obama is pointing all of us in the direction of the poorhouse. He's inexperienced, unqualified, untrustworthy, and dangerous. He's also a terrible bowler.


Which April 15 would you rather have?

Current Law
McCain
Obama

Top Tax Rate
Current: 35%
McCain: 35%
Obama: 39.6%

McCain would keep the top tax rate on earned income at the current 35%. Obama would raise it to 39.6%.


Lowest Tax Rate
Current: 10%
McCain: 10%
Obama: 15%

Currently -- and under a McCain Administration -- the lowest tax rate on earned income would remain at 10%. Under Obama, the lowest rate would increase by half -- 50%. Clearly, people at this tax level are not the much-maligned "rich people."


Capital Gains Rate
Current: 15%
McCain: 15%
Obama: 20%

For taxes on capital gains from the sale of a house or your other assets, McCain would keep the rate the same. Obama would raise it from 15% to 20%.


Dividends Rate
Current: 15%
McCain: 15%
Obama: 39.6%

On dividends from stocks or mutual funds you own, McCain would keep the tax rate the same. Obama would more than double it.

Death Tax
Currnet: 0% by 2010 (Repealed)
McCain: 15%/$10 million
Obama: 55%/$1 million

Under McCain, the first $5 million ($10 million for a surviving spouse) of Inheritance (Death) tax on an estate would be death tax-exempt McCain would tax at a rate of 15% on estates worth over $10 million. Obama would tax at a whopping 55% on estates over just ONE million dollars.


Marriage Penalty
Current: None Under $150,000
McCain: None Under $150,000
Obama: Full Penalty from Dollar One

The “marriage penalty” refers to a married couple paying a higher amount of combined income tax than if they each filed taxes as single. McCain wants no marriage penalty for couple making less than $150,000. Obama wants the penalty to start with the first dollar they earn.


Child Tax Credit
Current: $1000
McCain: $1000
Obama: $500

Basically, Obama would cut the current child tax credit in half. McCain would let it remain the same.


AMT Rate [Alternative Minimum Tax]
Current: 28%
McCain: 0% (Repealed)
Obama: 28%

The “alternative minimum tax” (AMT) requires taxpayers to calculate their taxes two ways, and pay whichever method results in a higher tax owed. McCain would do away with the ATM


Self-Employment Rate
Curreent: 37.9%
McCain: 37.9%
Obama: 54.9%

Self-employed taxpayers pay both ordinary income tax and self-employment tax (Social Security and Medicare). Under Obama, the rate would rise from 37.9% to 54.9%. Under McCain, it would stay the same.


Corporate Income Tax
Current: 35%
McCain: 25%
Obama: 35%

The U.S. corporate income tax is currently the second-highest in the developed world. The average European corporate income tax rate is about 25%


Business Infrastructure
Current: Long and Complex Depreciation
McCain: Full Expensing
Obama: Long and Complex Depreciation

Depreciation/Expensing: It takes larger businesses several years to deduct machinery and equipment, even though they purchase the business asset in year one (e.g. a computer must be slowly-deducted over six calendar years)

Fox Cameraman Rescues Wounded Marine.

Al Czervic posted this one on the Catskill Commentator, Al himself having been a Navy Journalist attached to the First Marine Division in Vietnam in l970.

Well those guys put it all on the line for every one else, its nice to see someone return the favor.

Obama too.

The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them.

Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting ‘A’ to satisfy ‘B’. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods." H.L.Mencken.

Kevvy Rudd won the last Australian Election by watching for Howard to come up with viable policies, and saying “Me too.” He became a sort of echo; “We will cut taxes.” “Me too.” And on it went.

The Labor environment spokesman, Peter Garret admitted during the campaign that when they formed a government they would change it all. Unfortunately he was dismissed as an idiot, admittedly true, but ignoring the fact that idiots can tell the truth.

Obama seems to have learned how to do this. Remember his original energy policy: -



He seems to assume that all of those fools out there are driving around on low tires, and if they just pump them up the US will be self sufficient in oil, hundreds of billions of barrels worth.

But wait, there’s more. President Bush has lifted the Executive Order banning energy exploration off America’s coasts. McCain is pushing for more exploration and as result of the potential for more oil the price has started to fall.

Obama has responded with the possibility of ‘limited offshore drilling,’ utterances of the ‘addiction’ to oil, help to turn more food into ethanol, taxpayer funding to auto companies, and deplete the strategic oil reserve.



Instead of getting out of the way and letting free enterprise do what it is renowned for, supplying products to the market at the best rate possible, he only wants government to find solutions at taxpayer expense.

Obama gets another celebrity endorsement.

Will this guy endorse Obama.

You have to hand it to Obama, no other Presidential candidate has managed to get quite the standard of endorsements that he has.

I guess you have to discount Odinga, the leader of the murderous post election rampage in Kenya in which a thousand people were killed, after all as his cousin he could be expected to endorse him.

But you have to admit even Reagan couldn't get the endorsement of guys like Chavez, Castro, Hamas, urban terrorist Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, racist Reverend Wright, et al.

He definitely didn't get this guy.

Herd Instinct and Obama

My post “Mind control and Obama” seems to have achieved a great deal more attention than I expected when it was given prominence by the Nobama Network, which consists of huge numbers of interlocking blogs and groups sharing a disgust at the way the DNC set out to ensure that only Obama could be the nominee.

On reflection I feel I should have raised a previous post, “The Herd Instinct, and crowds,” which was a guest post from Ron Kitching which is very relevant to the content.

Ron is one of the legends of the exploration industry founding Glinderman and Kitching and in so doing stood at the cutting edge of innovation in the industry for many years, and remains a highly respected man in the field.

Ron, for as long as I have known him has been a wealth of information on free enterprise economics, having studied the classical texts on the subject and is the author of one of the best books I have seen in the field, “Understanding Personal and Economic Liberty.”

The following is part of that post, Obama seems to have this stuff down pat: -

The point of this essay is to draw to your attention, a book titled: "The Crowd" by Gustave Le Bon.

Le Bon emphasizes the various areas of modern life where crowd behavior holds sway, particular political upheavals. He focuses on electoral campaigns, parliaments, juries, labour agitation and street demonstrations. His treatment of crowds is far from complimentary.

Although I have not been able to find any hard evidence, there are some who believe that the book was closely studied by both Hitler and Mussolini. Both were great readers and both knew how to manipulate and influence crowds. It is arguable that the fascist theories of leadership that emerged in the 1920s owed much to his theories of crowd psychology. Indeed, Hitler's Mien Kampf largely drew on the propaganda techniques proposed in Le Bon's 1895 book.

Hitler certainly had all of the essential characteristics of a successful crowd leader. "That is an unshakeable belief in himself, and an iron will. More of a man of action than a great thinker, not gifted with great foresight as this quality generally conduces to doubt and inactivity. Morbidly nervous excitable, and half deranged, bordering on madness, but an unshakeable faith in himself and his cause, with convictions so strong that all reasoning was lost on him."

Written in 1895, the above description fitted the German Fuhrer to a T, written when Hitler was only four years old.

The description also fits Napoleon and Mussolini and Chairman Mao. Likewise, General Franco of Spain, and Peron, the Argentinean Dictator. And, likewise, Pol Pot. Other outstanding examples were Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, especially Lenin.

Not all great leaders have the unique gifts of say, The German Fuhrer. Quoting Le Bon:
“The men of ardent convictions who have stirred to souls of crowds have been the Peter the Hermits, the Luthers, the Savonarolas, the men of the French Revolution, [we can add all of the above, including Gandhi and others], have only exercised their fascination after having themselves been fascinated first of all by a creed. They are able to call up in the souls of their fellows that formidable force known as faith, which renders a man the absolute slave of his dream. To endow a man with faith is to multiply his strength by ten.”

“It is not by the aid of the learned or of philosophers and still less skeptics, that have been built up the great religions which have swayed the world, or the vast empires which have spread from one hemisphere to the other.”

In the cases just cited, we are dealing with great leaders, and they are so few in number that history can easily reckon them up. The book though mainly deals with the crowd.

On page 864 of his “Human Action” Mises says:

“The masses, the hosts of common men, do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines nothing can prevent disaster...The [Classical] Liberals gave the world Capitalism, a higher standard of living for a steadily increasing number of people. But the pioneers and supporters of capitalism overlooked one essential point; a social system, however beneficial, cannot work if it is not supported by public opinion...”

H. L. Mencken wrote, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. Crowds, properly worked up by skilful demagogues, are ready to believe anything, and to do anything.”

Press Hit Job on NBRA.

A New York Times Company newspaper, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune (SHT), has struck again and published a second a hit piece on Frances Rice, this time with her grassroots organization, the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) also in the crosshairs. ….

Rice;

“As one pundit said: "Dogs don't bark at parked cars". In this most recent assault on me by the SHT, the reporters had the temerity to demonstrate that the real motivation for trying to denigrate me and the NBRA is a fear that our efforts will "foil the nomination of the first black presidential candidate, Barack Obama…" By their fawning coverage of Obama, the liberal press is functioning as a de facto 527 organization for Obama.”

SHT, (needs an I there somewhere): “Not only is she black, she is also a Republican, a member of a party to which fewer than 10 percent of black voters in Florida belong.”

Given that most people don’t tend to actually join the parties that they support, it sounds like they are not doing too badly.

SHT; “Her messages have brought condemnation from Democrats. But they have also sparked a backlash among many Republicans.”

This is hardly a surprise Democrats regard anything short of paying homage on bended knee to their candidate as controversial at least, and probably racially motivated. Some of the weaker Republicans are so cowed by PC that they are afraid of their own shadows. One Francis Rice is worth twenty of them, our side have to take the Democrats on.

SHT;

“When hearing that the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, Jim Greer, had expressed disappointment in her magazine, The Black Republican, which Greer had secured party money to publish, Rice dismissed it with a wave of her hand.
The magazine featured a picture of Ku Klux Klan members burning a cross, with the caption "Every person in this photograph was a Democrat.”

Lets face it, the KKK were formed as the military wing of the southern Democrats, Dixiecrats still are the party of George Wallace.

Rice shows no intention of backing down. Her personal history of growing up in poverty under segregation is her fuel.

"This is the first time in my life that I have felt I am actually doing something about what the Democrats have done in the past and are doing now to black people," Rice said. "If the Democrats had left us alone after the Republicans freed us from slavery we wouldn't be having this discussion today. They are keeping blacks in virtual slavery." ……

“In July she launched three radio ads on WLSS, a talk radio station reaching from southern St. Petersburg to Venice, and more are scheduled to run in Charlotte County. One urges listeners to "Look beyond Barack Obama's skin color and soaring rhetoric and see an arrogant, elitist millionaire." Another refers to Obama's friends as "unrepentant terrorists." Another begins with the statement "The Democratic Party is a racist party.”

These statements demonstrate the value of this organization, it can attack in areas that the remainder of the party cannot without accusations of racism, and in a campaign where the candidate is using the suggestion that those opposing him can’t handle the fact that he is different to what they are used to (black) they are invaluable.

The response by Rice can be seen at the above link.