Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Jan 31, 2008

Time for an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on Global Warming.

By, Viv Forbes, BScApp, FAusIMM, FSIA
Chairman The Carbon Sense Coalition

A group of Australian and New Zealand organisations and scientists today called on the governments of Australia and New Zealand to set up an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on the Science of Global Warming (to be known as “The ANZIG Royal Commission” – the Australia New Zealand Inquiry into Global Warming).

The chairman of Australia’s Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, said that many groups and individuals in Australia and New Zealand had listened with alarm and disbelief to plans of both governments to saddle their people and industries with the burdens of carbon taxes and the risks of carbon trading which he described as “an open invitation to massive fraud”.

“We also fear the enormous costs of taxing and decimating our backbone industries of farming, mining, power generation, cement making, forestry, mineral processing and tourism and subsidising many expensive and ineffective alternate energy proposals. The very high costs to society of the actions being proposed require that we settle the science before forcing the whole ANZ community into a futile and expensive exercise to solve a problem that may not exist. ‘Do it just in case’ is not an option.

“The Australian Government has set up the Garnaut Review to look into the likely costs of various proposals for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, we need a parallel independent inquiry into the science to determine whether any action at all is required.

“The science is definitely not settled. Hundreds of qualified independent scientists around the world now question whether sufficient attention has been paid to the proven historical influence of natural solar cycles, and many other aspects of climate science. Since the scientific investigations for the IPCC fourth assessment report were completed 18 months ago, new research and new observations have cast serious doubt on many of the IPCC’s conclusions.

"Everyone, from the highest government minister to the lowliest taxpaying consumer, must realise that unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that carbon dioxide causes excessive global warming, there is no justification for imposing restrictions and costs on emitters of carbon dioxide. 

These burdens will pass inevitably on to the whole community, and will fall most heavily on those who can least afford them. No valid, verifiable scientific proof has yet been established. All we have are hypotheses and speculations based on computer models. Governments have a duty to create an opportunity for the full range of scientific evidence to be examined and evaluated. This can best be done by way of a Royal Commission of Inquiry,” Mr Forbes continued.

“Australia and New Zealand are both heavily dependent on primary production and world trade, neither have nuclear power, and both are leaders in science in the southern hemisphere. The whole hemisphere would be very damaged by the global warming extremism of Al Gore and old Europe. Al Gore is more motivated by extreme Green politics than scientific truth while Old Europe believes that their nuclear capacity protects them from the carbon costs they plan to impose on others.”

Mr Forbes said that this proposal is the joint initiative of The Carbon Sense Coalition based in Australia and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and is supported by individual scientists and industry representatives such as:

Leon Ashby (Mt Gambier, SA), Chairman Landholders Institute, President Bushvision, and Centenary medal recipient for services to conservation and the environment.

The Australian Beef Association, via its chairman Brad Bellinger (Ashford, NSW), director John Niven (Grenfell, NSW)and director, John Michelmore BAppSc(Chem), (Eyre, SA).

John Carter (Crookwell NSW), Rural activist and commentator, Founder and Director of the Australian Beef Association.
Professor Bob Carter (QLD), palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist, a research Professor at James Cook University (Qld) and University of Adelaide (SA).
Howard Crozier (NSW), councillor of the NSW Farmers Federation and previously General Manager Finance and Administration of CSIRO.
Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee AO, Former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor, Monash University. Past President, The Institution of Engineers, Australia (1980). Author, “A Voyage of Discovery”, a history of ideas about the earth (2005).
Bryan Leyland MSc, FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, MRSNZ, consulting engineer to the power industry and chairman of the Economics Panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Owen McShane, director of the Centre for Resource Management Studies in New Zealand, and chairman of the policy panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Dr Muriel Newman (NZ), proprietor of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research.

“We are all of the view that CO2 in the atmosphere is a benefit not a threat to humans, and there is no need to launch a massive assault on our lifestyle, industry and prosperity to solve a non problem.

“We have four recommendations:

1. That the Australian and New Zealand governments commission a joint public inquiry to investigate and report on the science underlying the claims that man-made CO2 causes dangerous global warming. This enquiry must consider whether it is likely that human activity has had a significant effect on global warming and the extent to which the policies being proposed to cut man’s greenhouse gas emissions are likely to affect global warming or any other aspects of climate.

2. That the inquiry be under the charge of at least three commissioners including at least one Australian and one New Zealander, preferably well qualified in science and able to take an objective, independent view of the IPCC process. The chairman should be skilled in obtaining and assessing evidence. (To ensure it has full jurisdiction in both countries, each government may appoint its own enquiry with one or two commissioners, and a common chairman, with meetings to be held concurrently, some in each country).

3. That the inquiry have the power and funding to initiate wide ranging scientific inquiries into all aspects of present knowledge on climate and to take and consider evidence on climate change and to analyse the likely effects of currently proposed policies on reducing carbon emissions.

4. That until such an inquiry has reported, no steps be taken to institute an emissions reduction programme of any kind in Australia or New Zealand.

Mr Forbes said that it is clear there is growing concern among the world scientific community about the conclusions being promoted by the IPCC.

“In contrast to the 2000 or so scientists who are claimed to have contributed to the IPCC (many of whom do not support the extremist political conclusions promoted by the IPCC) there are at least 20,000 scientists who have signed their names in public opposition to the IPCC. (See references below).

“In addition, many organisations, think tanks and business leaders have voiced opposition to the radical proposals from the IPCC, and many more are quietly dismayed. There is no consensus about the science, even if scientific questions could be decided by a show of hands. Scientific questions are determined by facts and evidence, and this is what a Royal Commission can discover and make public.

“In further support of this proposal we have appended links to various submissions made recently to the Garnaut Enquiry, and other relevant documents,” Mr Forbes concluded.

Terry Dunleavy, secretary of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition,
comments: “An ANZ approach to this vital issue is a natural flow-on from close co-operation already existing between the two trans-Tasman neighbours. Australia and New Zealand have one of the most open economic and trade relationships of any two countries. This is based on a comprehensive set of trade and economic arrangements, collectively known as Closer Economic Relations (CER), which underpin substantial flows of merchandise trade, services, investment, labour and visitors between the two countries. Implemented in 1983, CER has already seen such joint official bodies as:

• ANZSFA, the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Authority;

• JAS-ANZ covering classifications and standards in official statistics;

• Ensis, a joint venture of forestry R & D.

• Negotiations to form a joint Australia New Zealand Therapeutics Agency.

“In New Zealand, government advocates of a carbon emissions trading regime have referred to the desirability of harmonising with Australia. Surely, it is logical to first establish that there is scientific justification for the imposition of an economically burdensome carbon emissions scheme, before going down that costly track, whether together or separately. Two countries as close together as we are in so many official ways should have no difficulty in sorting out any jurisdictional complexities arising from the creation of a joint ANZAC Royal Commission to look at an issue that is so common to us both," said Mr Dunleavy.

Authorised by:

Viv Forbes, BScApp, FAusIMM, FSIA
The Carbon Sense Coalition

Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
New Zealand

Dr Muriel Newman
New Zealand Centre for Political Research
New Zealand

Brad Bellinger
Australian Beef Association

Howard Crozier
Executive Councilor of NSW Farmers Association


1. Submission by the Carbon Sense Coalition to the Garnaut Review:

2. Submission by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition to the New Zealand Parliament in 2006, calling for a Royal Commission:

3. Submission by The Lavoisier Society to the Garnaut Review:

4. Submission by Prof Bob Carter to the Garnaut Review, calling for a Royal Commission:

5. Submission by Howard Cozier to the Garnaut Review: See Garnaut Review website.

6. Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made global warming:

7. 20,000 scientists sign petition against global warming hysteria:

8. Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is Futile:
In 1997, fully 90% of US State Climatologists did NOT agree with the ADW Hypotheses (Quoted in Singer and Avery, 2007, 65-66)

9. Recent observations show that the world has not warmed since 1998, and 2007 is the coolest year since 2000:

10. Recent research shows the solar cycles, cosmic rays and clouds have a major effect on our climate:
Svensmark, H. and Calder, N., 2007. The Chilling Stars – a new theory of Climate Change, Icon Books. ISBN-10: 1-84046-815-7

11. It is generally agreed that if greenhouse warming was occurring, the strongest warming would be in the upper atmosphere above the tropics. Recent research shows this is not occurring, which indicates that warming is not being caused by greenhouse gases:

Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.

12. Australian Parliamentary Enquiry. Dissenting report on Geo-sequestration:

13. Prof David Henderson: Governments are Mishandling Climate Change Issues:

14. Program for International Climate Change Conference in New York:

15. “Climate Change Re-examined”, Joel Kauffman, 2007:

16. Lance Endersbee reported that temperature readings from 27 rural ground stations in Australia showed no sign of global warming over the 110 years of temperature records (1880 to 1990). (Endersbee, L, 2005 “A Voyage of Discovery”, Fig 142 , page 244). See also his 'Climate Change is nothing new:

Jan 23, 2008

Fred Calls it a Day, What Next?

By Jim Fryar.

Well Fred has ended his run. I guess it was going to happen after South Carolina, I had really hoped he would do better there and I think he left his run too late. Had he done something like his last debate performance earlier in his run, things might have gone better for him.

I am not sure who to recommend now, Rudy is great on fiscal responsibility, some of his actions indicate a reasonably socially tolerant attitude however I am not convinced of this, he seems to just be a guy with very liberal attitudes towards his own behaviour without that necessarily translating to any real commitment to individual liberty. He is certainly no Whig/Lockean/Jeffersonian. He has some attitudes which would not offend a libertarian, but has few libertarian attitudes.

Huckabee is in my opinion a big government addict, and appears to be more of a Democrat than a Republican.

Romney fails to convince me but would be acceptable.

Ron Paul, if anyone takes him seriously tends to be a more mature version of the ‘in your face’, loony fringe candidates the Libertarian party have put up in the past.

This only leaves McCain as a viable candidate. He strikes me as an honest guy, who has a great deal of integrity, aims for lower taxes, plans to cut expenditure and looks to the private sector for solutions. I think he will do.

Jan 16, 2008

Euthanasia: A right may become a responsibility

I started with good intentions of starting something tonight, you know how it goes, “This time I’ll do the one that sets the blogsphere alight.” Then I started looking for some stuff, and found some other stuff, got interested in it and everything went out the window.

But all is not lost, I found something interesting and thought provoking enough to bring it to your attention. I congratulate the people at Astrolobe for this article, the last part of which is ‘borrowed’ and published here.

Advocates of euthanasia frequently talk of a right to die. They frame their arguments along the lines that someone has the right to choose whether or not they should live and that only the individual has the right to make such a decision. Dying with dignity, is another term.

One concern with this — aside from the religious arguments — is that there are very powerful incentives for young people to want the elderly to die. For example, there is that most basic human impulse of greed and a selfish dislike of curtailing one’s own ambitions to care for the old and decrepit. One can see something of this impulse in the phenomena of ‘granny dumping’ where adult children, fed up with caring for an adult relative, decide to dump them at a hospital, shopping centre or other public place.

So even though euthanasia will begin as procedure for only the most extreme of circumstances, human nature may lead assisted suicide down the same path as abortion and caesarian births before it. Just as abortion is now seen by some as a form of contraceptive, and women can make use of caesarians as a means of meeting cutoff dates for exclusive schools or qualifying for government handouts, it is not inconceivable that, given human nature, the bar for euthanasia may be substantially lowered from where we imagine it to be today.

The right to die might then become a responsibility. Is it not possible that were euthanasia legalised, that elderly parents would find themselves under pressure from their children to be “responsible” and “die with dignity” rather than continue to squander their inheritance on the medical and other expenses that often accompany one’s twilight years. Such parents could be seen as selfish and irresponsible in their obstinate refusal to make way for the succeeding generation.

The Effect of Country Music on Suicide

I found this on Questia and thought I would share it.

This article assesses the link between country music and metropolitan suicide rates. Country music is hypothesized to nurture a suicidal mood through its concerns with problems common in the suicidal population, such as marital discord, alcohol abuse, and alienation from work. The results of a multiple regression analysis of 49 metropolitan areas show that the greater the airtime devoted to country music, the greater the white suicide rate. The effect is independent of divorce, southernness, poverty, and gun availability. The existence of a country music subculture is thought to reinforce the link between country music and suicide. Our model explains 51% of the variance in urban white suicide rates.

In this article, we explore the link between a particular form of popular music (country music) and metropolitan suicide rates. We contend that the themes found in country music foster a suicidal mood among people already at risk of suicide and that it is thereby associated with a high suicide rate. The effect is buttressed by the country subculture and a link between this subculture and a racial status related to an increased suicide risk.

Jan 14, 2008

Ezra Levant and Freedom of Speech

By bloodypommy ( Bloodypommy posts on Thoughts on Freedom where I found this, and has his own blog, Pommygranate) which is also worth checking out.

Someone quite famous once said that ‘liberty doesn’t defend itself’. It takes people like Ezra Levant to get involved.

Ezra Levant is the publisher of the Western Standard, a Canadian magazine that chose to publish the Mohammed cartoons in 2006. As a consequence of that decision, he is being prosecuted by Alberta’s Human Rights Commission for committing a hate crime.

This is his opening statement to the Commission. It is a simply magnificent defence of the right to free speech.

The case has been brought by Syed Soharwardy, a radical Muslim imam trained at an anti-Semitic Saudi University who advocates Sharia Law for Canada. The Canadian taxpayer is footing the bill for the prosecution, whilst the magazine must pay for its own defence.

When asked why he published cartoons that ‘made life dangerous for Muslims’, he replied that ‘It’s not the cartoons that created hatred, it’s radical Muslims who blow things up. Every time he [Syed] opens his mouth he creates hatred for Islam’.

When asked what his ‘intentions‘ were in publishing the cartoons, Levant upped the ante and rather than apologise or claim he was ‘taken out of context’, he fired back, ‘I will not minimise my reasons so that they are palatable to you. Our intentions were in exercising our inalienable right as free-born Albertans to publish whatever the hell we want no matter what the hell you think.’

Watch the video. It’s creepy. It reminded me of the excellent film ‘The Lives of Others‘ which depicts a writer trying to get a message across to the West of the barbarity of communism in East Germany. Far from presenting the spies as violent torturers, they come across as stupid, lazy and incompetent - ‘the banality of evil‘.

His chances? Slim to zero. In thirty years of trying ‘cases’, the Albertan HRC has never found for the defendant once!

Visit Levant’s website for more information and astonishing videos. And donate to his cause. Because today it’s happening in Alberta, Canada and tomorrow it will be Victoria, Australia.

Jan 13, 2008

More Lionheart.

This picture is from 1212.

The following is from the blogsite of Phylis chesler.

First, they came for the Saudi blogger—alright, he lives in Saudi Arabia, a bastion of barbarism ruled by Shari’a law.

Actually, before the Saudi blogger (and an Egyptian blogger too) were arrested, one Saudi billionaire had already come for American author Rachel Ehrenfeld and he sued her in London where Free Speech or Truth Speech is not protected by any First Amendment rights.

This is why the UK is so well suited for such “libel tourism”— but even so, the UK is not ruled by Shari’a law.

Or is it?

Islamist rule over the UK may, alarmingly, be on its way. Today, the British police want to question and/or arrest the British blogger known as Lionheart. His crime? Turning his life around as a young school dropout and petty drug dealer and emerging as a believing Christian who opposes the drug plague in his hometown of Luton and who views the Pakistani Islamist and al-Qaeda control of the drug trade in Luton as both criminally and politically dangerous.

For this, Lionheart has been charged with “stirring up racial hatred”—which is a crime in the UK.

Yes, Luton—where the 7/7 suicide bombers, Omar Bakri, and the hook-handed Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque all came from. In fact, according to Lionheart, one of his supporters is Glen Jenvey, the man who helped imprison Abu Hamza and aided in the expulsion of Omar Bakri from Great Britain.

And these inspiring words from the man himself: -

The battle for 'Hearts & Minds' across the World Wide Web begun along time ago with those bloggers around the World who are the cornerstone of bringing truth to our supressed world.

This with me is just one battle in our War on the Web.

Where do you now stand and who do you stand with is the question?

Step forward or step aside so that the real men and women of this generation can be counted and become the new defenders of our civilization for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Little Green Footballs you are a traitor, nothing less than the equivalent of a Second World War Nazi collaborator who would have been shot because of his treason – I am sure there are many who would have obliged!

My personal post for you is coming so I am sure your army of readers will make sure you get me message, my tiny stone for my slingshot - Read your Bible and see the outcome!

This is the start of the battle for free speech on the web and elsewhere, don’t just stand there, do something.

Jan 7, 2008


This is another one I owe to Gayle.

The UK has arrested a blogger for telling the truth about Islam Extremism in the UK. His name is Lionheart, who wrote to Always on Watch:

"Hi AOW,

I just wanted to let you know that I am being arrested by the British police because of my blog."

As Pamela stated in her post on the topic at Atlas Shrugs: [Lionheart] has been a warrior on the war on the jihad in the UK and exposed the drug running that funded Islamic jihad in Britain and posted on the tsunami of sharia enveloping his beloved country. The Brits have submitted to Islam and they mean to shut down anyone who speaks for freedom, justice and liberty. Silencing the daring truth tellers...."Hate speech" legislation is the club the political elites will wield to club us into submission.

From Lionheart's first post on the charges against him:

I am currently out of the Country and on my return home to England I am going to be arrested by British detectives on suspicion of Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material" contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986.

This charge if found guilty carries a lengthy prison sentence, more than what most paedophiles and rapists receive, and all for writing words of truth about the barbarity that is living in the midst of our children, which threatens the very future of our Country.

What has become of my homeland, the land my forefathers fought and died for on the battlefields of the world when one of their children is forced into the position of facing years in prison for standing up for what is right and just within British society.
This arrest and potential imprisonment is what now awaits me at the start of 2008, and this is what now awaits every other blogger in Great Britain who writes the truth about the modern war that is now unfolding against us, our children and the British homeland by the State (Labour government) sanctioned and protected enemy that is living in our midst - The Islamic Kingdom.

Go read it all. And, for as long as Lionheart can continue to post, read the subsequent posts as well by visiting new posts at the top of his
home page.

The British have to resist this or there will be no freedom left by the time the government is finished with them. Politicians of all persuasions appear not to be willing to rest until they oppress the whole of the country, in order to appease extremists of every persuasion that is politically correct.

Stand up now or become the Dhimmi state. Possibly the best way is to highlight this, even if you disagree with him. Publish this and some of his work, There are too many of us for them to stop us now. They are coming for him now, ask yourselves if everything you do will be approved of by the state, and are you sure that they will not come for you in the future.

Remember what Pericles said around 430 BC: - Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.

Father Suspected of Killing Teen Girls

I owe this one to Gayle at the Dragon Ladies Den.

Take a look at these two. I see two attractive great kids who obviously enjoy life to the full, probably a joy to be around, with a streak of crazy (the fun kind of crazy that is) and a joy to any father’s heart.

That is unless the father is a follower of a cult based on the words of a medieval warlord with a messianic complex, and a puritanical control streak based on sexual obsession. This appears to have been the case.

From Fox News;
Authorities announced a $10,000 reward Friday for information leading to the arrest and indictment of a father accused of shooting his teen daughters and leaving them to die in a taxi.

An ongoing manhunt is under way for Yaser Abdel Said, 50, of Lewisville, Texas, wanted for shooting Sarah Yaser Said, 17, and Amina Yaser Said, 18, in his taxi Tuesday night. Police say they don't have a motive for the shootings, but believe a domestic issue may have led to the deaths.

From Mainstream Libertarian;
by Eric Dondero

Two teenage girls were brutally murdered by their Father - Yasir Abdel Said, a Dallas Taxi-cab driver last week. He hunted them down, and reportedly shot both of them execution style.

Their crime? They dressed in Western clothes, listened to Western music and "had boyrfriends."

From the Dallas Morning News, 01/06/08:

Gail Gartrell, the sisters' great-aunt, said Saturday that Mr. Said had physically abused the two girls for years. Around Christmas, the girls' mother – Ms. Gartrell's niece – had fled because of Mr. Said's threats to kill the girls after he learned they had boyfriends, she said.

"She ran with them because she knew he would carry out the threat," Ms. Gartrell said. "This was an honor killing."

She said her niece returned after Mr. Said told her that he would move out so they could reconcile. Within a few days, she said, the girls were dead.

On the night they were found slain, one of the sisters called 911 from a cellphone and said she was dying. Police soon found the two dead of multiple gunshot wounds in a taxi at a service entrance of an Irving hotel.

The real enemy of islamofascism is western culture. Do these two look like they wish to don burkas and be submissive? No way, they loved the western lifestyle or appeared to. This is the real threat we offer to Islam, if we have the guts to stand up for our own way of life. Those who gain a taste of liberty, will hold on to it, and resist the oppression advocated by extreme Islam, face it, they will kill their own children to fight us.

The global jihad is based on bigotry, not blowback.

Jan 6, 2008

The trouble with Islam

Pat Condell, someone called him Menken with a british accent. I found this after following a link in the Tundra Tabloid.

W.A.R. on Huckabee and Obama.

It is a little ironic that when I linked the Root for America website to last nights post I just clicked it up swiped the URL and pasted it without checking it out. On going back I found the following blog post from WAR, which indicates that he is thinking the same way.

These for the GOP “are the times which try men’s souls.” I believe one of the major obstacles in the way of winning is the defeatism that has crept into the psyche of many members, owing to an apparent belief that the liberal media are reporting fact. They are not; they are in fact ignoring the positives, and spinning the negatives.

How do you compete with that? Well go out and do some good old campaigning, that’s how. Hold meetings get those flyers out, talk to the people around you, and hey the people at the top may start to realize what the basic Republican is on about from you, instead of from market research prior to an election.

Don’t fall into the trap however of putting up the sort of candidate you will get from the other side, or one who isn’t what you really want but ‘gee he could compete with the Dems on their own ground’. Your party is not about big government nanny staters spending like drunken sailors.

Select a good solid Republican, preferably a federalist, not one who will try to centralize power so he can have it all, one with a good political record but not obsessed with politics, one who maybe has got out and done other stuff and now has a sense of duty which makes him step forward again.

There are excellent Congressional and Senate candidates working in serious and credible campaigns to unseat well entrenched Democrats, a factor which will tie those seat warmers down and pull them back to protecting their incumbency. These people can and will boost the vote for your Presidential nominee, don’t let them down by either giving up, or selecting an unacceptable candidate to head the ticket. Imagine getting rid of Murtha.

Heres part of what Wayne Root had to say: -


Iowa's primary results were amazing, interesting, and surprising to the national media. But they were thrilling to me- the frontrunner for the Libertarian Presidential nomination. As a matter of fact, I'd call them a "dream come true." Will they carry over to New Hampshire (where I'll be campaigning this weekend) and other early primary states? That I don't know- and neither does the media or political pundits. But I sure hope so.

With Huckabee and Obama as the candidates of the 2 major political parties- anyone who desires a smaller (and more limited) federal government, lower spending, lower taxes, a balanced budget and more rights for the individual can no longer rationalize voting for the "lesser of 2 evils." That excuse is out the window.

Obama is perhaps the worst big-government, soak the rich, tax and spend Democrat ever to run for President in modern times (yes that includes George McGovern and Ted Kennedy). He'll give you nothing but big...bigger...or super-sized government. He'll tax America into bankruptcy.

But Republican Mike Huckabee provides no alternative. On the fiscal side, he too is a big-government, tax and spender. As Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee received a grade of "D" from the Cato Institute (a small government, fiscally conservative Libertarian research group)- lower than most liberal Democrat Governors. But worst of all, on the social side, Huckabee makes Obama look like a small government Libertarian. Huckabee is a big government, Nanny State religious zealot (a former Minister) who wants "Big Brother" to enforce his views on the rest of us. What a choice.

Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian Presidential candidate. For more about Wayne and his bold stands on important political issues, go to:

Huckabee will Wreck the GOP

During my work on my post on Internet censorship I had occasion to ring a woman who is one of those people who lives her Christian faith and is probably defined by it. I wanted to find out her views on the subject, as she runs a program called ‘Drug Proof your Kids’ which I attended when my child was approaching high school.

The whole thing is based on sensible hands on parenting, and talking to kids with factual information before they meet drugs head on. As such I wanted to find out her views on censorship, and found out she is against it as it tends to lull parents into a false sense of security.

One of the things she said though was that there were Christians, and other Christians, and that the other Christians used it to gain advantage and were not to be trusted.

At no stage of my contact with her over the years has she pushed her religion at me, and didn’t bring it into her program, concentrating instead on responsibility, family values, good citizenship, and doing the right thing. These are things that the majority of the secular community identify with, and which are contained in the Christian faith, however throwing the bible at us would have switched most of us off.

Mike Huckabee has not learned this, and while he must seem like a gift from God to the evangelical community many decent upright Republicans will be offended by what they tend to see as a ‘holier than thou’ attitude. If this happens many will either not vote at all, or will look for an alternative to support.

This is where it gets dangerous for the party. This time the Libertarian Party looks like having a viable candidate, acceptable to the American people if the party has any sense (the jury is still out on that). This is particularly relevant for the Republican Party, as the candidate is Wayne Allyn Root, who could already appeal to socially tolerant Republicans, having good Republican credentials himself.

This is not a moonbat, in your face, ratbag druggie like they normally stand, this is a good solid successful family man, who is articulate, popular, and a great communicator. Many who choose him will stay, then you face the prospect of a more mainstream, more acceptable Libertarian Party, long term. As a libertarian myself I should welcome this, however the US electoral system is not designed for third parties.

It would mean the wilderness long term for the GOP.

There is also currently the spectre of a third party candidate standing with some speculation centering on Bloomberg at present: -

On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Bloomberg delivered his critique in language that was both sharp and coy, and likely to draw more attention as he prepares to head to Oklahoma for a conference that is widely viewed as a possible launching pad for a third-party presidential bid.

I call on the religious right to settle for a good solid man with reasonable Christian credentials, who can unite the party and I refer in particular to Fred Thompson, he may not be everything you ask for, but is a damn good compromise. The alternative is a Democrat.

Jan 4, 2008

Fred Thompson for President.

Well, I have just bitten the bullet and joined the Bloggers for Thompson blogroll. I know I have left it a bit late but I have been quietly supporting him for a while.

I try to stay away from having too great an involvement in US politics, its your country after all, but as most of my readers come from there (you outnumber Australians by about 50%) I sort of  feel welcome.

My main reason for taking sides is the results today, which indicate that your worst possible candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul (and I am not totally sure about that) won the primary.

Huckabee seems to be totally contrived. Fred is a self made man, coming from humble beginnings, and others have done it themselves but the Huckster likes to play po-folks or at least one generation away from po-folks. As Timothy Egan pointed out in his opinion piece in the New York Times: -

“Huckabee revels in the class war. He’s Two-Buck Huck, and darn proud of it. He likes nothing better than playing the Hick from Hope. He and his wife lived in a trailer for a while, he points out. His son killed a dog one summer, “a mangy dog” at that, as Huckabee explained to the befuddled national press corps. He said he used to eat squirrels, cooking them up in his popcorn popper.”

Most concerning to me is that he appears to be one of the old style religious shysters, using faith to sell his product, and being judgmental about it while he is at it. Who but a fraud would hold a press conference outside a church with several pastors present to draw attention to the fact that: - He went, and: - Fred didn’t and was therefore not the sort of person who should be President.

Why hell Huck, Fred may just be comfortable enough in his own faith not to feel the need to go, or didn’t feel the need to be seen there with a host of reporters. While we are at it Huck, what other positions should you be disqualified from if you are not conspicuously seen in church every Sunday? Quite a few million Americans might just be interested.

Is, or is not, the USA still a secular state?

Romney; Well he isn’t totally unacceptable, but really if the GOP wish to vote for a liberal, why not a Democrat?

Ron Paul; You just have to admit that this guy has a different approach, especially to sources of information. All of those other silly buggers standing think that terrorism is something to do with a wish to harm people of the free world, but not Ron. Ron just knows that it is because of American involvement in the Middle East, after all the terrorists said so, and heavens above, Osama wouldn’t lie about a thing like that.

None of those other candidates realize that the war in Afghanistan is about oil pipelines like Ron does. I have to admit that the total absence of oil pipelines in that country had me a bit confused there for a while too, but Ron said so didn’t he? I mean, this guy is standing for the highest office in the land, so you can hardly regard him as an eccentric.

In Australia, (were a bit behind the times here) we still tend to believe that the war in Afghanistan was caused by an incident where terrorists flew aircraft into tall buildings, killing around 3,000 people, and the subsequent refusal of that government to hand over those responsible.

Nup, I want to see Fred in the White house.

Jan 2, 2008

ALP online Censorship

Welcome to the nanny state, or should I say Labors new even more regressive version of the old one. The federal Government plans to protect the little children by censoring what we can access on the Internet. Little warning was given of this prior to the election, presumably because Howard didn’t say it so Kevvy didn’t have to say “Me too.”

I also imagine as such a move would be unpopular, it was decided to keep us in the dark. Always remember that while politicians are always forthcoming about what they will do for you when seeking your vote, they are usually reticent about what they will do to you after they get it.

Well I suppose we have to catch up with the rest of the world and following the examples of the great liberal democracies like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Burma is a promising start.

Dr Roger Clarke, chair of the Australian Privacy Foundation, Quoted in Australian IT bluntly described the proposal as "stupid and inappropriate".

He said not only was it unworkable, but it was a sinister blow to an individual's rights to use the internet without censorship.

"Not only will it not work, it is quite dangerous to let the Government censor the net and take control out of the hands of parents," Clarke said.

"It is an inappropriate thing for them to be doing. Mr. Conroy is like a schoolmaster playing god with the Australian population, all because of the dominance of a moral minority."

Conroy's view is that the legislation - compared by critics to Chinese-style internet censorship - will only render unseen the most vile and extreme sites.

"Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation on the internet is like going down the Chinese road," Conroy said.

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree."

One problem for the Government is that blocking child porn may unintentionally block acceptable sites.

The history of the internet is full of such examples; one blogger found that, due to spamware set to block ads for sex drug Cialis, he was unable to publish the word "socialist".

Prior to the election Labor did a great deal of posing about how they would guarantee ultra fast speed on the internet for all users, claiming that this was essential to Australia’s growth. This proposal is according to some sources likely to slow it down by up to 70%. As such they will need to speed it up by a hell of a lot just to stay where we are.

Under the proposal customers can contact their ISP and opt out of the filtering, so unless the government is claiming that only ‘responsible’ parents who will supervise their children’s access to the net will do this, then the whole thing is a waste of time. If as has been suggested, the speed is slowed down, then few people will stay in.

As well as this any site finding itself blocked will probably start another, which is not on the list thus bypassing the system.

By far the worst aspect of it however is the possibility, (more likely probability) that the filtering will be extended to any type of site that the government deems that we should not see. Racial vilification sites, followed by anything not politically correct will be next, then well who knows.

Before the PC brigade start getting on my hammer about the desirability of this, I would point out that the banning of offensive material is counter productive, as if it is not accessible it really can’t be refuted. As I said in my previous post: -

I meet plenty of views that I disagree with, some offensive to me but when that happens I argue, not demand the right to have those people holding such views silenced by force of law. What I think is reasonable, will not be to a person who is so narrow minded that he can peer through a keyhole with both eyes, so should such a person demand 'reasonable' be interpreted in such a way to have my opinions banned?

Free speech is free speech, any limitation to it means it no longer exists. As such no country claiming to be free should be forming bodies that are designed to enforce rules that can only be justified in political correctness.

The views of hate and other unlovely groups should be left out where they can be seen and accessed. If their views are disagreeable, they will be disagreed with. If they are ridiculous they will be ridiculed, all the Warmans of the world do is to unite them under a justifiable feeling of victimhood.

We do not need laws to protect us against such views, we have that protection built in. It is called common sense.