WhackyNation

We’re told that a man who is perfectly trained and experienced for the plan, Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Vickers, is in charge of a massive military program to fight terrorist groups everywhere in the world, with the most important targets being the Muslim extremists in the Middle East, the Far East, and wherever they threaten American interests.

In his vast endeavor, Vickers will have the blessing and approval of the President and most members of Congress — and certainly of most Americans, including this one. According to the Washington Post, “senior Pentagon and military officials regard Vickers as a rarity, a skilled strategist who is creative and pragmatic.”

Included in Vickers’ plan of action are methods of responding to terrorist action wherever it occurs or is expected to occur.  This statement in the Post’s report is specially interesting: “The most critical aspect of the plan, Vickers said in a recent interview, involves Special Operations forces working through foreign partners to uproot and fight terrorist groups.”

Obviously, Vickers’ intention is to join with other countries to ferret out and attack the terrorist groups wherever they may appear. That may involve some new strategies in persuading other nations to join us in the fight, something that may entail foreign strategies the U.S. has never employed.

Vickers apparently has foreseen one major hurdle in the plan. It stems from the fact that his plan will be enormously expensive and could be opposed by the same anti-war protesters and Bush-haters who want our troops our of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, even though they are on the verge of success.

I’m deeply interested in how Vickers will go about countering those objections and win the funds Congress would have to provide for his ambitious plan. However, I also believe Vickers and all those who agree with his plan of action will also consider another potential I believe is even more important than military action against the terrorists.

That potential is a proposal I have been making for several years — and, in fact, one that seems to be on the minds of some of the world’s most important persons, including Pope Benedict XVI. The leader of the Catholic Church has said frequently of late that the world’s various religions should meet to map a permanent peace.

My proposal has been for President Bush and the U.S. to take the lead in creation of a World Council of Religions, an organization that would include the leaders of every religion on the planet. The terrorists who are our enemies are extremist Muslims. In effect, we are in a religious war.

The newly created World Council of Religions would request Islamic countries to rein in their extremists and adopt a version of the Koran that endorses a peaceful world and put an end to the extremists’ calls for jihads and the murder of Jews, Americans, and all others who refuse to join or endorse the jihad-happy extremists.

I don’t believe Vickers’ new plan will work unless he adds a call for a World Council of Religions to his program.

On many occasions in recent years, I have berated and condemned those news-media reporters, columnists, anchors, and others for forgetting the news principles they were supposed to have learned in college classes but have conveniently forgotten and become Liberal or even Socialist propagandists.

But now, after all these years, I’m beginning to feel sorry for them and concerned that, in their lopsided presentation of the news and their blind support of Democratic Liberals, they are primarily to blame for the nation’s dangerous slide toward a welfare state and the same socialism that is corrupting so many European nations.

I single out one of these propagandists because he seems to have targeted me. He is The Seattle Times’ political reporter, David Postman, an apologist for the state’s Democratic governor, Christine Gregoire, and for Democrats in general. He is always ready to praise Gregoire and other Democrats on one hand while being frequently and harshly critical of Republicans.

In one of his latest barbs, he tosses a verbal harpoon at me because I have dared to criticize Governor Gregoire for proposing to set aside a billion and a half dollars of the taxpayers’ money into what is humorously called a “rainy day fund” but is, in reality, a fund for legislators seeking pork dollars for their pet political projects.

Postman has called me “the man behind Dino Rossi’s Idea Bank,” because Rossi was kind enough to adopt my Idea Bank proposal as part of his Forward Washington Foundation. Rossi will try again to win the governorship in 2008 — a job stolen from him by the political machinations of King County Democrats.

At the same time, Postman, clearly playing the role of a Democratic propagandist and a Rossi critic, said I have disagreed with Rossi because the former state senator originated the “rainy day fund” proposal. Postman doesn’t know me very well. I disagree with many Republicans on several issues, but they have my support because they espouse Conservative principles — the principles our forefathers wrote into the Constitution and which the Democrats have ignored or opposed.

If I were Postman’s managing editor, I would have removed him from the job because he has not put aside his personal political prejudices and reported the efforts of both political sides evenly, as a political reporter should. In fact, I wonder why the Blethen family that still runs The Times hasn’t disciplined Postman and other reporters who have shown the same one-sided Democratic prejudice in the past.

At the moment, The Times has provided a sign of hope with a new investigative series that is severely criticizing the efforts of Democrats, including Senator Patty Murray and Congressman Norm Dicks, to earmark millions in tax dollars for their political buddies who contribute handsomely to their campaign treasuries.

Perhaps the Blethens will now crack down on the Democratic propaganda and anti-Republican volleys Postman and other reporters and editors have been tossing out in the news columns of the newspaper. In the two decades I worked at The Times, the paper was careful to present both sides of all political issues and candidacies. How “times” have changed!

America’s treaties with Indian tribes should be tossed into the scrap heap of history. I’ve said so before on many occasions, and I’m sure I will say it many more times — until we have sense enough to abolish them and bring all Indians into mainstream America!

No one who calls himself or herself an American citizen should be required or permitted to hold dual citizenship, which is exactly what we have forced upon the tribes through the treaties arrived at so many years ago.

Those who championed the treaties and looked upon them as the fairest way to go in our relations with the Indians didn’t foresee the predicament in which we placed them. Nor, it’s fair to say, did the tribes themselves.

In a TV commentary I delivered 20 years ago, I said: “If I were a member of an Indian tribe, I would be deeply ashamed and angry over the Indian ghettoes we mistakenly call reservations. A few tribes are enjoying the riches of natural resources, but the great majority of them have grown to rely on gambling casinos, fireworks sales, and garbage and nuclear dumps for their existence. What a miserable life!”

There! I said it and I’m glad. Rarely do the conditions of poverty and starvation on Indian reservations make the news pages or the evening TV and radio news. But it’s there for sure. And with the treaties boxing the Indians into the reservations and with their reliance on federal handouts, they are, in truth, unwilling prisoners.

At least, imaginative leadership and compassion in New Hampshire released the Indians from their “captivity” by negotiating with Indian tribes to let them own their own land, thus ending their ghetto status and joining mainstream America. It’s an action that should be copied by all other states with Indian populations — particularly Arizona, New Mexico, California, Oregon, and Washington.

The need for the treaties ran out long ago. It is humane and it makes good sense to give each Indian family the land its forebears lived on, instead of forcing it to be part of a reservation decreed by treaty writers so long ago. Indians, the original Americans, should be granted full American citizenship and should banish the ghetto-like reservations that accorded them dual citizenship.

Probing, ever-present television cameras have revolutionized professional sports in America and turned them into gigantic industries with audiences ranging in the many millions. But is the picture we see on our screens a credit to the players?

Before I answer that question, let me quickly say that I love sports and I’m grateful to the sponsors of the telecasts for bringing all sports into my living room daily. But the closeup view of major league sports all too often leaves a lot to be desired.

What happens when a player puts on the uniform of his trade, whether it be baseball, football, basketball, hockey, or whatever? Many of them get sloppy, unkempt, and, for reasons known only to the pros, start spitting all over the place as if their health depended on it.

Too many of them don’t seem to own a razor or maybe they refuse to use one they may own. A large number of them let their hair grow long and tangled and ugly, as if they were trying to prove Samson was right. And a great many of them, especially in baseball, are way overweight and have a hard time making it down to first base, down the field, or, in other sports, across the court because of an excessive beer-belly.

Now that I’m at it, I must say that a large number of umpires and referees are far overweight, too, and I wonder how they manage to get around the bases and the outfield at the crack of a bat to make a decision. The leagues should demand that umpires, referees, and maybe even coaches and managers should get rid of the balloon tires so many of them carry under their belts.

Some of the errant pro athletes seem to be ignorant of the fact that cameras are watching their every move, so they are prone to scratch themselves in the wrong places at the wrong times.

But nothing bothers me more than the sight of a highly paid athlete chawin’ an enormous wad of tobacco and spewing tobacco juice all over the dugout or on the playing field. These are models for the kids of America?

Come on, you guys. Clean up your act. You certainly can afford it!

For years, insurance companies and their agents have been banned from giving campaign contributions to candidates for State Insurance Commissioner.  The ban is in place presumably so that the insurance industry cannot “buy” influence from the person who might be elected to regulate the industry.

If that’s the case, then why not ban campaign contributions from trial lawyers and their PAC’s?  Don’t they buy similar influence from prospective insurance commissioners?

And while we’re at it, we need to take a look at how trial lawyers get around the law regulating maximum PAC contributions to their Democrat candidates.  The law limits just how much money a political PAC can donate, but it doesn’t limit the number of PAC’s that trial lawyers can give money to nor reconcile that all these different PACs from the same industry all give to the same candidates thus circumventing the intent of the campaign limitation law.

Reform is needed, but unlikely as long as corrupt Democrats hold control of the legislature and governor’s office.  Trial lawyers buy a lot of influence with them.

Perhaps the Republican nominee for Insurance Commissioner, whoever that will be, can challenge his Democrat opponent to refuse money from trial lawyers.  Do you think that will happen?

For me and for many other longtime jazz enthusiasts, the year is closing out on a very sad note. The king of jazz piano, Oscar Peterson, has died, and, for me at least, that means the world will be a much sadder place without the extraordinary talent of a man I earnestly believe was the greatest jazz pianist who ever lived.

Not only that. Oscar, who became a good friend, was one of the humblest musical geniuses I have ever known. Whenever Norm Granz, the producer of the great traveling Jazz at the Philharmonic shows, came to town with his troupe, Oscar was bound to come along, because he and his trio were the undisputed main stars of the show. I’ve told this story many times before, but please permit me to tell it again. Each time Oscar came to town — and once when I saw him in Paris with his trio — I insisted on meeting him backstage for an interview and to hear his latest bon mots concerning the jazz world and other pianists.

On this particular occasion, he had played a matinee at Seattle’s Paramount theater, and, as usual, I went backstage after the performance to greet him. But this time, he sat at the piano, which was at the front of the stage, just inside the curtain. He preferred talking from the piano stool, instead of a chair in the dressing room.

Two other newspaper reporters were with me as we gathered around the piano. Oscar, who never cared about the clock when he was performing, said “Hello,” then launched into one of my favorites, “Body and Soul,” complete with a variety of key changes and that most versatile left hand no other jazz pianist in the world could match.

As we exchanged small talk between tunes, he sat at that piano for close to three hours, clicking off his favorites in the jazz and swing repertoire with only slight pauses. Although he was doing all the work, he seemed to be enjoying himself even more than the three of us onlookers were. Remarkably, no two tunes came out sounding alike. The thematic variations and the gorgeous rhythmic switches and improvisations were rendered without so much as a quarter-tone rest. The man was not only the greatest jazz pianist I’ve ever heard; he was also something of an acrobat on the keys.

At one point, I stopped him to tell him he was most assuredly the King of All Jazz Pianists without question. He shook his head solemnly, looked me in the eye, and said: “Many thanks, Lou, but that title belongs to the blind piano wizard, Art Tatum. Have you ever heard him play?”

It was my turn to shake my head. “You’re too modest, Oscar. Yes, I’ve heard Tatum play, and he was a spectacular pianist, even though he was blind. But, with apologies to Art, I still say nobody has ever played jazz piano with the unbelievably acrobatic left and right hands of Oscar Peterson.”

He laughed and said nothing more. For another hour and a half he went on going through the jazz-piano repertoire. How I wished I had brought along my recorder. This impromptu session after the matinee was even better than the performance he had just played before a packed house.

But that was the nature of the man. He loved that piano and it loved him right back! Nothing was more appealing to him in life than to be able to perform at the keyboard. And I swear he never played a tune the same way twice, so versatile was his talent. Yes, the King of Jazz Piano is gone, and no one will miss him more than this jazz aficionado.

Without naming sources, I learned that the politically savvy in the business community in Washington State have been stunned by an analysis of their political contributions for campaigns in 2006.

According to the analysis, the 20 top political business PAC’s contributed $6.4 million to 132 separate campaigns, some of them Democrats.

By comparison, labor unions contributed the same amount of money to just 16 races, and no Republicans.

Business lobbyists now realize that up until now they have been buying access to elected officials with their political contributions, whereas labor has been buying control of the legislature.

My prediction is that business contributions will be more highly targetted in 2008.

House Minority Leader Richard DeBoldt would be smart to put his HROC’s campaign contributions into the same races as the business community.

Maybe then, the Republicans can start bouncing back in the legislature.

2008 may be a comeback year for the GOP if these things happen.

No sooner did I criticize President Bush for changing positions and siding with the global warmers than he turned right around and made a decision that merits the applause of every American who dislikes having his or her tax bill increased by federal expenditures! So, it’s a “Bravo!” for the President.

The significant decision he made was to warn congressional lawmakers that, if they didn’t eliminate the billions in pork, which they now call “earmarks,” as if that lessens the load, he would refuse to approve them in the budget bill they sent him before leaving for the Christmas holiday.

As of this writing, he hasn’t yet made good on his threat. But he has until the end of the year to make good on his warning to the lawmakers. The President issued his warning in a message in which chided congressmen for failing to keep their word on the volatile issue of the pork they insist on calling earmarks now. Early in the session, they pledged to cut back on the earmarked billions. But they forgot their pledge.

At the same time, the President recited his victories in the most recent session of Congress. Those victories included winning the funds he needed to continue support of the Iraq war, which has now turned in his favor and is accomplishing what he promised to do there — namely to solidify Iraq’s newly won freedom and democratic government.

Now the question will be just how the President will go about eliminating much of the earmark money from the budget. Of course, he could do it by vetoing the entire budget bill, but that would make it necessary for him to call an emergency special session and bring the vacationing solons back to the capital to re-do the budget.

Another way — and perhaps the best and least expensive way — would be for the President to confront the many pork advocates in both houses of Congress by issuing an executive order that his associates say would cancel virtually all but the most essential earmarked projects.

Why not do so? He can’t be re-elected President again, because the Constitution forbids any President to have more than two terms in office. Undoubtedly, he would be the target of numerous barbs from the lawmakers for striking down the billions in special projects that are actually unnecessary for the feds to be considering.

The members of Congress would lambaste him for the executive order, but the American taxpayers would breathe a sigh of relief and thank him for being brave enough to get rid of the tremendously expensive pork that would put a huge dent in the pocketbooks of the citizens.

Want to know the enormity of the pork in the latest budget? The main organization fighting congressional pork, Taxpayers for Common Sense, reported that the budget sent to the White House contained 8,983 earmarked projects that would require the extra expenditure of $7.4 billion — excluding the extra projects included in Bush’s own budgetary needs to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And other budget critics say the pork total is even higher than that reported by the T.C.S. group. It’s time for a constitutional amendment requiring that each state pay for its own budgetary needs — and that the federal government should no longer be the patron saint of earmark extravagance!

Stop me if you’ve heard me tell or write this story, as I have so many times, but I’m compelled to tell it again at this time of the year and on this very special day. It’s not the usual Santa Claus kind of Christmas story, but it has remained with me for a great many years, as I think it will with you, as well.

I’ll have to admit that it isn’t really a Christmas story, but it’s so closely related to what the Christmas spirit has come to mean to me — and I hope to you — that, once it is told, one will always remember it when December 25^th rolls around at the end of the year.

Quite a few years ago, in the early 1950s, in fact, I had invited Mark Tobey to lunch at a restaurant in downtown Seattle, and I told him beforehand it was for the purpose of interviewing him, a chore he didn’t really like. However, he went along without complaint because we had been good friends for several years.

Tobey, as all art aficionados in the Pacific Northwest know, was the region’s best-known artist and one who was known in arts circles worldwide, as well. Since he, like most artists I have known, was primarily a philosopher, I began by asking him about his views on such things as immortality, religion, and the soul.

I did so, not only because of his celebrated status as a Northwest artist, but also because I knew he was a lifelong member of Bahai, the international organization that celebrates a variety of religious prophets but believes none is supernatural and that a person should not become attached to any religion.

My main question went this way: Are you, as an individual in God’s Country, the Pacific Northwest, opposed to organized religions of any kind? He showed no opposition to being asked the question, took a sip of coffee, then answered:

“Oh, no, not by any measure or means. Like Voltaire, I believe that if there were no God, mankind would have had to invent him.”

When I suggested that his statement seemed to conflict with his longheld Bahai beliefs, he answered: “Not at all. Faith and religion have given the human race moral standards it must have to exist. If nothing else, they have taught humans to be kind, considerate, and polite to each other or perish from the earth.

“Isn’t that the real meaning of Christmas, Christianity, all religions, and, in fact, civilization itself?” He seemed to be perfectly at ease with his pronouncements and expressed no surprise at my questions. I wondered why he had not incorporated his feelings about the real meaning of Christmas, Christianity, religions, and civilization in his famliar “white writing” style that had made him famous.

I loved his response, because it was so typical of the man. “Oh, it’s there, Lou. You’ll find it in virtually all my paintings and drawings if you look for it. Really look hard.” With that, he put down his coffee cup and smiled broadly, as if he had caught this onetime art critic napping.

Tobey’s explanation wasn’t exactly the way I had learned to measure Christmas, religion, faith, and civilization. But I admit that Tobey’s opinion has had a great impact on my own feelings about this holy season of mankind. I wish you the best and most civilized of Christmases.

While her Liberal friends in the news media and elsewhere are heaping praise on Governor Christine Gregoire for her latest budget proposal, Washington State taxpayers will be singing quite another tune when they finally realize that she is once again treading her spend-and-spend political track.

Will these Liberal politicos never learn? Apparently not. One of the major moves in her new budget is to seize a large chunk — $1.2 billion — of the taxpayers’ money and put it into what she calls “reserves for a potential economic downturn,” which is the latest label for the ill-considered “rainy day fund.”

Some of the media people are saying that she has borrowed a favorite Republican formula for running a government. That’s a lot of hooey. If there are any Republicans around who favor the “rainy-day fund” conundrum, they have been sadly misinformed and don’t follow Conservative thinking.

Consider the funding action the governor supports. She wants all that tax money set aside to enable the legislators, most notably those of her own Democratic Party, to dip into the reserves, or “rainy-day money,” whenever they spot a situation they say is an “emergency” or a “vital need.”

In other words, they want to fall back on that reserve fund to suit personal or political needs that you and I would not regard as emergencies. Talk about setting up a piggy bank for the politicians’ “pork” needs! As a longtime taxpayer, I protest, and I say such financial shenanigans should be outlawed.

The legislature meets regularly to determine the needs of the state and its citizens. If a real emergency exists, they can easily and quickly approve the financial help the state should apply. It doesn’t need the billion-and-a-half pork barrel to meet the imaginary emergencies.

It’s just another in the continuing list of gimmes Governor Gregoire and her Democratic friends rely upon to win political favor. For instance, she has said she favors spending $1.4 million to build an 8-foot fence along the two sides of Seattle’s Aurora Bridge to prevent suicides.

The few desperate people who choose to end their lives by jumping off a bridge undoubtedly would find other means to kill themselves if they can’t do it from the Aurora span. Maybe that sounds harsh, but wouldn’t that money be better spent with health services that might help save the lives of would-be suicides?

Also, it should be easy for the fence-builders in the Gregoire camp to realize that there are many other bridges in the area that could also serve the needs of the suicide-prone individuals. Is she also going to set aside a million and a half bucks to build fences on every one of those bridges, as well?

If all this sounds like a comedy routine, I’m sorry. I’m quite serious in my criticism of a governor who has little or no desire to cut down on the extravagances of Big Government and to put money back into the pockets of taxpayers who have been struggling to make ends meet these days.

In an effort to ease the housing-and-mortgage crisis that has threatened to bring on a national recession, the Federal Reserve has proposed a new mortgage-lending program that it says would combat the many cases of fraud and corruption that have been reported across the country.

Some observers have praised the plan as being the right one to end the crisis. But many others, including this writer, say it won’t work and could actually exacerbate the crisis. The main problem is that millions of home owners have found their mortgages to be more than they could handle and have fallen far behind in their payments.<.

The Federal Reserve’s proposal puts the spotlight on the nation’s lenders and suggests a method whereby home owners could take action against loan agencies that “broke the rules.” But what it all amounts to is another involved bureaucratic exercise that will be a hindrance, rather than a solution to the problem.

To help get defaulting home owners out of their predicament and solve the housing crisis for all time, I strongly urge consideration of a plan I have been urging for some time but for which I haven’t been able to win attention. It would require something of a revolution within the banking and lending industries, but it would do the trick.

My proposal has been for the President and Congress to bring about a major revision in our home-loan practices and laws to make it much easier for persons, particularly newlyweds just starting out, to make the monthly payments necessary in buying a home for the first time — and for others to do so later in life.

Instead of relying on the usual 20-year or 30-year loan period for purchasing a home, I have urged an extension of the loan period to match a “lifetime” — or, to be exact, loans for periods of 40, 50, 60, or even more years. Banks could easily revise their practices to permit such longer loans.

The immediate effect of the longer loan periods would be to cut down the monthly loan payments by half or even more what they are now under the 20-year and 30-year plans. As newlyweds and other young couples progressed and increased their income, they could decide to pay off their homes in just a few years — or they could continue to live in their homes the rest of their lives.

Banks and loan agencies should be happy to approve the longer loan periods. And the young home owners would be able to make ends meet as they enjoy living in their homes as if they were simply paying rent. I am positive such an arrangement could eventually mean the percentage of home owners could rise close to the 100 percent mark!

In the meantime, I believe the extension of home loans could put an end to the thousands upon thousands of cases of fraud and deception the Federal Reserve says have been foisted upon home owners in recent years. Thus, my loan-extension proposal could achieve two important goals — making young home owners solvent and cleaning up the fraud and deception in the lending field.

The public will have at least three months to make its wishes known. Then the Federal Reserve will adopt a new plan. I can only hope the people will demand a plan something like the one I have proposed.

The monstrous “merger mania” is alive and well, unfortunately, and has just ballooned menacingly, thanks to the most recent decision by the Federal Communications Commission to permit the mega-media corporations to swallow up more newspapers in the 20 largest media markets, including Seattle.

Worse still, the new move was made possible by the three Republican members of the commission, with the two Democratic members voting “No.” In addition, President Bush has already indicated that he approves the decision. It is one of the worst mistakes made by Bush and the Republicans and will undoubtedly work to their disadvantage when the American public becomes aware of the “merger mania” danger.

Kevin Martin, the Republican chairman of the commission, was guilty of fractured reasoning when he stated that one of the major concerns of the commission was the “steady decline in revenue for newspaper companies,” as the Associated Press reported. He also said his proposal “strikes a balance between the realities of the changing media marketplace and the preservation of diversity and competition in broacasting.”

What convoluted thinking! Yes, the nation’s newspapers are in trouble because of sinking advertising revenues and severe drops in circulation. But why add to the misery by permitting the mega-corporations to seize the newspapers and, in doing so, sound the death knell for the newspapers and radio stations that have provided local news for thousands of rural towns and small cities?

The Liberty Bell should be sounding the alarm for the F.C.C.’s latest move, which is a direct assault on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That amendment pledges freedom of the press, not the takeover of all elements of the news media by five or six mega-corporations.

The loss of local news reports should alert the American people to take action to remedy this latest assault on their freedom. And their first action should be to demand the abolition of the F.C.C. and creation of a new commission whose members would be elected by the people in each of the ten major regions of the nation.

That action should be incorporated into the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of all 50 states as amendments. It won’t be an easy task, but it’s one that is extremely crucial if the validity of the U.S. Constitution is to be assured — as well as the intentions written into it by the nation’s forefathers.

Secondly, the American people should be given a chance to vote on a proposal I have made so many times. That is the “One to a Customer” concept, which should be written into the Constitution and would provide that no organization or individual could own more than one news medium, whether it be a newspaper, a TV or radio station, or a news magazine.

It’s time for the people to speak out and be heard, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or proponents of any other political party.

A current article by Wright Talley in Human Events Online is so important on the issue of honest elections in America that it should be read by everyone in the U.S. — and it should jump-start a national campaign in every state of the Union to take action to make all elections honest and free of fraud.

With painstaking research and a mountain of statistics and evidence, Talley’s report indicates very clearly that fraudulent elections have taken place in virtually every one of the 50 states and that — this is the most distressing element — the Democrats are the culprits in all but one or two of the cases in which fraud has been proved.

Talley included one special case we already know about too well in Washington State — the 2004 election, in which Senator Dino Rossi won the final count, as well as a recount, only to have the election totals reversed by a third recount, done by hand, in heavily Democratic King County, the most populous county in the state.

When the Rossi forces took the case to court because it rightfully charged something was amiss in King County, a judge refused to approve the request for a new total recount or a new election. Rossi’s opponent, Christine Gregoire, Democrat, won the hand recount by a mere 129 votes.

If only the judge had had the wisdom to wait a few weeks, he would have had to consider the result of an investigation of the vote count in King County which revealed that close to 2,000 votes — and probably many more — had been cast illegally, many of them by felons who did not have the right to vote.

Talley detailed similar skullduggery in many other states, most notably in New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, and California. The indications are, from Talley’s investigation, that no states have escaped the stigma of voter fraud.

A few states have already taken action to halt the fraud with laws that require a photo identification by every voter before permitting him or her to vote. It’s a common-sense idea that has won Talley’s endorsement — and mine, as well. But — hold it! — the Democrats are at it again!

The frauds can be t r aced back to 1993, when the Democratic Congress passed the ill-advised National Voter Registration Act, which created numerous loopholes, as Talley put it, “that have permitted thousands of dead voters and former residents who have long ago moved to remain on the voter roles.”

Early next year, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to pass judgment concerning a case that will approve photo-ID laws or ban them. To clean up the election mess, it is imperative that the American people rally behind the need for such laws — or be hounded by fraudulent elections everywhere thereafter.

And, you guessed it, the Democrats in Congress want no part of the photo-ID idea and want the court to declare them to be invalid.

Although I am a supporter of most of President Bush’s actions and programs, I believe he and his representatives have made a colossal mistake in the climate-change conferences that have been going on in Bali, where 10,000 conferees from 190 nations have ganged up on the U.S. because the President had heretofore refused to swallow the global-warming tripe.

Why the U.S. sent delegates to the conference in the first place is a mystery. It was a rigged affair from the very beginning, with the global warmers calling all the shots. Little wonder that Bush’s representatives were jeered and booed constantly — until, for reasons that don’t make any sense, they reversed course and agreed with the global warmers.

In effect, the sudden reversal in positions may result in catastrophic expenditures by American industries and the federal government to force measures designed to reduce the pollutants the global warmers say is responsible for the warming trend and to combat increased carbon dioxide — all of which is malarkey and is denied by the world’s responsible climatologists.

The reason for the administration’s reversal remains to be heard, because the Bali conference is still going on. Perhaps the President is awaiting a report from his representatives and the details of the conference’s demands that a new worldwide pact be produced to replace the phony Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

It’s hard to understand why the President has changed his mind on the issue — if, indeed, he has. Is it possible that his representatives in Bali have succumbed to the hoots and hollers of the global warmers in the Indonesian conference and decided to “go with the flow” to avoid a severe conflict? If that’s what they have done, they should all be fired.

Global warming remains one of the worst hoaxes foisted upon the world by the misguided persons who call themselves scientists and by the environmental extremists who apparently will support any cause that enhances their hidden desire to assume political power in the U.S. and other nations.

It is vital for President Bush to “quit beating about the Bush,” as it were, and call upon representatives of the great majority of reliable climatologists who have branded the global-warming crusade as a hoax. If he is in doubt about whom to call, all he has to do is ask Dr. Arthur Robinson, a distinguished Oregon scientist, for information.

Dr. Robinson is the fellow who took it upon himself to sponsor a survey of the world’s leading climatologists to ask them their opinions about global warming. At last count, 20,000 of them responded with a resounding opinion that global warming was a farce and a false notion.

Those scientists agreed that the planet has been subjected to warming and cooling, off and on, throughout its existence of at least five billion years. They have also stated that, in the warming periods, mankind has never been responsible for the higher temperatures, as the global warmers insist.

The President should quit sending representatives to these rigged conferences, like the one in Bali, and state once and for all that there is no room in U.S. policy for a ridiculous policy like global warming. If he doesn’t, the result could produce chaos for the American economy.