WhackyNation

History has a terrible penchant for repeating itself, and the United States is on the brink of another shameful repeat, thanks to the Democrats and the possible election of Barack Obama as President. The beginning of the final chapter of that repeat probably began two years ago with a supposedly “bi-partisan” congressional committee that called itself the “Iraq Study Group.”

The Republicans in the study group bowed down to the Democrats, probably because they are still in full retreat after the 2004 elections. Instead of supporting their President, George W. Bush, they are now part and parcel on that sad repetition. In other words, the war to free the people of Iraq will soon be called “Vietnam Chapter II.”

The Vietnam War, a war the U.S. should have and could have won, was lost here at home, not on the battlefields of the Southeast Asian peninsula. When the peaceniks and anti-war protesters bore down on the weaklings in Congress and the rest of the country, aided and abetted by the Liberal news media, the U.S. military in Vietnam was deprived of the weaponry, the support, and the cash it needed to finish the job.

As a result, the Tet Offensive, which should have been an American victory, turned into a retreat, and, for the first time in our history, the United States retreated and lost a war its air, ground, and sea forces should have won. Instead of holding his ground — as President Bush has been trying to do today — President Lyndon Johnson turned a victory into defeat and resigned. Now, once again, in Vietnam Chapter II, the peaceniks and anti-war protesters, who have given aid and comfort to our enemy in Iraq, are once again beating the drums for a full retreat from that Middle Eastern nation and repeating history by once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, so to speak.

If the Democratic Liberals and their peacenik cohorts had not deserted the President in a war they had fully supported five years ago, the insurgents in Iraq would have been subdued some time ago and the war would have ended. But, the Muslim extremists in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and other Arab countries saw that they had “friends” in the U.S. and they stepped up their rebellious effort. Those countries sent thousands of Muslim insurgents into Iraq to undermine the nation’s new, democratic government.

In addition, the Iraq Study Group, with the Democrats smiling in the background because they won another hollow political victory, has paved the way for another retreat. And a retreat in Iraq will undoubtedly mean that the new democratic government there will soon disintegrate and give way to another Saddam Hussein or a theocracy controlled by a mullah.

The worst probability will be the emergence of a Middle East controlled by the forces of its budding nuclear power, Iran, whose Hitlerian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has borrowed enough expertise and nuclear materials from other countries to build atomic bombs.

Although the Iranians are pretending they want to befriend Iraq, history tells us the longtime enmity between the Iranians and the Iraqis will undoubtedly mean that Tehran will go all out to conquer the Iraqis once the U.S. military is out of the picture. Then, having finally conquered Iraq, other nations in the Middle East will have to join the Iranian sphere of influence — or else. Then what? Then what I have been forecasting all along will happen: Nuclear-capable Israel will have to hurl its nuclear weaponry at Iran to save itself from extinction as a Middle Eastern nation.

President Bush came out swinging today and urged Congress to relax the bans on offshore, Rocky Mountain and ANWR oil drilling:

In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil. And that means we need to increase supply, especially here at home. So my administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal — and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction. Congress must face a hard reality: Unless Members are willing to accept gas prices at today’s painful levels — or even higher — our nation must produce more oil. And we must start now..

Of course, the Democrats, including presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama, immediately rejected the proposal.  Said Obama:

This is not something that’s going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular.

But Bush did not say there are any quick fixes to increasing the domestic oil supply.

According to the Associated Press:

Bush said offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start. Bush also said offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time.

Meantime Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, who yesterday called for more drilling, today called for the construction of 45 new nuclear plants:

Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years.

What’s Obama going to say to that?  So far his rhetoric on energy and oil has been anything but slick.

Republicans have finally found a national issue that can strick it to the Democrats.  High-price gasoline is making the great middle class wake up to energy and environmental politics.

I am waiting for the next bumper sticker:

Don’t blame me for high gas prices.  I voted Republican.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq has once again handed President Bush the opportunity he needs to resolve the complicated mess Iraq has become — and to solve the problem before the Democrats use their newfound majority in Congress to foul up the Middle Eastern stalemate so that it can never be resolved. That opportunity came with the announcement from al-Maliki that he wants the U.S. command to hand security affairs in Iraq turned over to the newly formed Iraqi army and, in effect, to begin the American withdrawal from Iraq. The prime minister said the Iraqi military could crush the violence in his country in six months.

In reporting the announcement, the Associated Press said the U.S. commander in Iraq doubted that the Iraqi army was capable of accomplishing the cleanup feat in such a short time. But, so what, I say! The crisis in Iraq has become so serious, thanks to the squabbling between Muslim factions, that the prime minister should be given a chance to prove his boast is legitimate.

It has become almost impossible to tell the “good guys” from the “bad guys” in the Iraqi struggle. The deposed tyrant, Saddam Hussein, was a Sunni and the Sunnis ruled the roost in the nation. When American forces captured Saddam, the rival Shiites took control and led the movement to establish the democratic government and to become the leading faction in the new nation.

However, many of the Shiites seem to have joined the insurgency and they are killing Sunnis, as well as American soldiers, in raids, ambushes, and even suicide bombings. It is more an internal religious war than the “civil war” some observers insist on calling it.

The question President Bush should ask himself is this: Even if the U.S. insisted on “staying the course” and keeping its military force in Iraq, isn’t it likely that the internal religious squabble will never be resolved and that the bickering, bombing, and slaying of innocent Iraqis on both sides of the religious tangle will go on for years and even decades?

I think President Bush should accept the prime minister’s proposal, give the Iraqi army six months to “crush the violence,” as al-Maliki put it, and see what happens. If the Iraqi army succeeds in stopping the violence, the U.S. would then be free to withdraw virtually its entire military force. And, if it fails and the Iraqi killings and internal religious war continue unabated, we would be free of all obligations and could withdraw our troops.

With this scenario, no one in the U.S. or in other nations could be critical of Bush and the Americans for pulling out. Our objective in getting rid of Saddam and helping the Iraqis form a free, democratic government would have been fulfilled. And we would not have “lost a war,” as was the case in our struggle with the Vietnam Communists.

If President Bush decides to ignore al-Maliki’s plan and no resolution of the conflict is attempted before the Democrats force the issue in Congress, it is probable that the Democrats will cut off funds for the troops in Iraq and thus force a withdrawal from that nation immediately and invite chaos there — and the probable takeover of the country by a Muslim theocracy and the introduction of another tyrant in the Saddam mold.

Republican leaders would do well to pressure the President to give al-Maliki the chance he wants to “crush the violence.” It might also enhance the G.O.P.’s chance to retain control of the White House in 2008.

It has taken an Irish rock-and-roll singer and experienced social activist to tell the truth about President Bush’s tremendous effort in the fight against disease and poverty in many nations of Africa — something the Liberal American news media have purposely ignored or refused to acknowledge.

James Taranto, the editor of the Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web” feature, detailed the remarks of the singer-activist, Bob Geldof, moments before a press conference that featured both the President and the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, in the Rwandan capital.

According to Taranto,

“Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the United States press for ignoring the achievement. ‘Mr. Bush,’ said Mr. Geldof, ‘has done more than any other President so far.’

’This is the triumph of American policy really. It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion. What’s in it for Mr. Bush? Absolutely nothing.’” Then, he added, “’The President has failed to articulate this to Americans.’”

‘Turning to the group of American reporters covering the President’s African trip, Geldof said in a venomous tone that he was “pissed off” at the press for failing to report “on this good news story.” In a finger-shaking reprimand of the reporters, he added finally, “You guys didn’t pay attention.”

I wish I could have been there to applaud Geldof, even though I’m no fan of rock-n-roll singers and musicians. As a performer, maybe he can publicize the tribute the American print and broadcast news media should have delivered. Maybe he can even do it in song and perhaps a recording.

Taranto added this finishing touch to the report:

“For the past two and a half years or so, we’ve been hearing endlessly that Americans hate President Bush, that even those who don’t hate him disapprove of him, that even those who don’t disapprove of him are tired of him, and that his presidency is an unqualified failure.

“Now comes a surprising dissent from that view, and hardly anyone pays attention. It’s a man-bites-dog story, but the press corps looks more like a herd of sheep.”

Amen I say to you, James Taranto. Amen. I think that a few years from now — after the Western World has successfully conducted and won the ongoing international terrorist war against the Islamofascists — historians will revise current press sour grapes and declare that President Bush was one of our best Presidents and a man who courageously led the fight against the brutal forces of Islam’s extremists.

On his visit to Tanzania earlier this week as part of his weeklong stops in Africa, President Bush told the citizens at a hospital in Anusha that the program he announced back in 2005 to help reduce malaria-related deaths in 15 African nations was working and that the death toll was declining steadily and rapidly.

“Our strategy to achieve this goal is straightforward,” the President said of the $1.2 billion program. “First, the initiative supports indoor residual spraying to keep deadly mosquitoes at bay. Here in Tanzania, spraying campaigns have reached hundreds of thousands of homes and have protected more than a million people.

“Second, the initiative supports treatment for those who are most vulnerable to malaria, especially pregnant women. Here in Tanzania, more than 2,400 health workers have been trained to provide specialized treatment that prevents malaria in expectant mothers. Third, the initiative provides life-saving drugs. Here in Tanzania, the program has supported more than a million courses of treatment and has trained more than 5,000 health workers to use them.

“Fourth, the initiative supports the distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets, and Laura and I are about to distribute some of those bed nets…. Here in Tanzania, we’re working with the government and partners such as the Global Fund to provide bed-net vouchers for infants and pregnant mothers.”

All well and good. In these commentaries, I have mentioned the bed-net program and the new protective anti-mosquito fences that have been introduced in African countries. They are helpful in the campaign against malaria in Africa, as well as in many Asian countries. But all these new programs aren’t enough in the worldwide fight against malaria.

I’m hoping that before he leaves office, President Bush will finish the fine job he has done to prevent malaria and AIDS in Africa and elsewhere. To finish the job, he should ask Congress and all the Western Powers to end the misguided ban on DDT and thereby end malaria infections everywhere on the planet.

Thanks to environmental extremists, the extremely successful application of DDT about 75 years ago eventually cut the 3,000,000 malaria deaths each year down to a few hundred, and it would have ended malaria for all time if the ban had not been enforced in the 1970s, the result of Rachel Carson’s grossly inaccurate book, Silent Spring.

DDT was one of the most successful insecticides created by scientists. It should be utilized once again, not only in the swamplands of America’s Southland but in every country where swamplands — and mosquitoes — exist.

A campaign to restore DDT should also be joined by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has poured millions of dollars into the fight against both AIDS and malaria in Africa. The foundation also has supported the mosquito-fence and bed-net program in African nations, but its millions would be far better spent in restoration of DDT.

President George W. Bush has certainly turned out to be a chief executive of continuing contrasts. It seems that no sooner does he do or say something that one frowns on, than he turns right around and does something that deserves high praise. Take two recent instances, for example.

On one hand, he embraced the ill-conceived stimulus program in an effort to revive the nation’s economy, but on the other hand he has courageously called a halt to the barrage of pork both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have written into budgetary and other bills.

The stimulus approach to economic recovery is right out of the old-line Democratic Party playbook. It follows the Demos’ strategy of spend-and-spend-and-spend to solve intricate problems that can really be solved only by the opposite philosophy of save-and-save-and-save by reducing taxes and downsizing Big Government.

Worst of all, the stimulus package, which is racing through a Congress that is dominated by the Democrats, will take money paid by taxpayers and give it to millions of persons who have paid no taxes. How in the world that tactic is supposed to bolster the American economy is beyond understanding.

Once again I have to repeat the astute remark made by President Ronald Reagan: “Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.” It is hard to understand why President Bush has chosen to rely on a typical Demo stratagem, instead of following much better methods he himself has proclaimed during his presidency.

So much for the bad news. Now for the good news. President Bush has already begun to make good on the warning he made to the predominantly Democrat gathering for his State of the Union message. In his speech, he startled the Demos with the pronouncement that he was going to veto or weed out the pork that came to his desk in the form of legislation.

Of course, the warning also applied to the Republicans, who are just as guilty as the Demos are when it comes to inserting pork in bills and budgets. Note, too, that the President is also making the mistake of referring to congressional pork as “earmark” provisions, as if that softer name takes away the sting of pork.

We must hope that Bush holds his ground and proceeds with his determination to chop the pork out of congressional legislation. Why shouldn’t he? After all, he can’t be re-elected, and it’s obvious he won’t be running for any other political office. So, Mr. President, give ‘em all hell, and fry hell out of all the pork!

Oh, yes, I can’t end this without referring to one of my disappointments with the President’s State of the Union speech. He indicated he has changed his tune and now has cast his lot with the global warmers. It’s true that he used the phony term, “climate change,” instead of global warming, but it was obvious that he has adopted a middle road on the global-warming issue and no longer considers it to be the hoax legitimate scientists have proved it is.

In his effort to neutralize Iran and halt its ambition to become a nuclear power, the President may be embarking on a tremendous risk in the Middle East. As a result of his recent trip to the area and principally to Saudi Arabia, which professes to be a friend of the U.S., Bush has declared his intention to make smart bombs, Patriot missiles, and other weapons available to the Saudis, as well as to the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

The entire package proposed by the President would be worth about $20 billion, a goodly sum even in view of our other multi-billion gifts to other nations in recent decades. Remember, too, that not too many years ago, the U.S. informed the Saudis that they needn’t return a $7 billion foreign-aid loan.

Congress could stop the shipment of the armaments Bush has promised, but that is deemed unlikely because many congressmen are in sympathy with the President’s policy to contain Iran. However, those who are opposed to the deal say there is no guarantee that the Saudis and other Middle Eastern nations will not use the weapons against Israel. That is one of the most dangerous risks in the deal.

Working in favor of the President’s plan is the fact that Saudi Arabia, the new Iraqi government, and other Mideast nations dominated by the Sunnis don’t trust the Shiite-controlled Iran. They appear to be worried more over Iran’s intention to control the entire Middle East than they are of Israel.

Another important factor that figures in the explosive mix is something I have written about often since my visits to Israel some time ago. I first saw evidence of Israel’s nuclear buildup in Dimona and its atom-bomb readiness in the early 1970s, and I am convinced that the Israelis would not hesitate to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations if the Iranians decide to attack Israel.

One must remember that many years ago, the Israeli air force knocked out Saddam Hussein’s first and only nuclear installation as its construction began. Other Mideast nations severely criticized the Israelis for their attack, but they withheld any counter-action against Israel because they were secretly grateful, in fact, that the Israelis or anyone else silenced dictator Saddam Hussein’s ambitions to take control of the entire region.

This is a devilish opinion, but I believe that, if Israel threw caution to the winds and decided to repeat its Iraqi venture with a similar and even more deadly attack on Iran and its nuclear installations, the same “equally grateful” attitude would assert itself in other Mideast nations — and no one would be inclined to mount an attack on Israel, as a result. To say that strange things are common in the Middle East is to emphasize the obvious.

Another major question — perhaps the most important of them all — is what action the U.S. would take if another war, and possibly a nuclear war, should break out in the Middle East? Would we wait to find out who would be the victor, or would we send our Navy, our Air Force, and another million-man army to the region to end such a war?

Have I disturbed your tranquility with all this? I have? Good! We should give it a lot of thought before it happens, not when thousands of bodies are being buried!

Starting tomorrow, President George Bush will be on his way to a prolonged peace mission to some of the most dangerous countries in the world. In addition to seeking accords on maintaining peace and the democratic government in Iraq, he will be trying to shore up current negotiations for a permanent peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

According to the schedule announced by the White House, he will meet with Israeli and Palestinian leaders separately on Wednesday and Thursday, with U.S. generals and American troops in Kuwait and Iraq on Friday and Saturday, with leaders of the United Arab Emirates on Sunday, with Arab officials in Dubai and Saudi Arabia next Monday and Tuesday, and finally with Egyptian leaders in Cairo next Wednesday.

In addition, the President will meet with Britain’s former prime minister and now the U.K.’s envoy to the Mideast, Tony Blair, to talk about peace strategy. That will be an important meeting, because Blair was a strong supporter of Bush’s Mideast policies while he was Britain’s political leader.

While I have to acknowledge that Bush’s objectives in going to the Middle East are important in his crusade for peace, I stand by my longtime opposition to any travel by American Presidents to foreign lands — mainly because of the great danger in such travel in a world racked by severe conflicts, plus the ever-present international war against terrorism and the Muslim extremists.

I know that the President will be accompanied by a strong protective escort wherever he travels and that U.S. military forces will also provide protection. But it doesn’t take much of an effort for a wacky or demented terrorist to find a way to emerge out of a crowd to attempt an assassination.

In the first place, why is it necessary for the leader of the free world to leave the White House to conduct negotiations or to meet with foreign leaders? He has an infinite number of highly capable envoys to relay his wishes and intentions to foreign officials in any part of the world.

In today’s world, we have been blessed with the most remarkable methods and networks of communication, including wire services, immediate telephone systems, radio and TV systems that connect all regions of the planet, and intelligent envoys who are proficient in every language known.

Consider what could happen if a terrorist managed to break through all the protective lines and assassinate the President of the United States. Chaos could result at home and abroad. Even though Bush is what the political writers call a lame-duck President because he is not eligible for re-election, Congress and the U.S. would immediately lapse into a critical era, made specially dangerous because it is a presidential-election year.

We cannot afford to have anything happen to the nation’s political leader, even though his presidency has only a year to run. But that applies not only in years of crisis like the present one. I think Congress should seriously consider an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which forbids any President from traveling outside the country while he is in office.

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!

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.

As could have been expected, the perpetrators of the colossal global-warming mythology, led by the biggest liar of them all, former Vice President Al Gore, stand to make millions, billions, or even trillions in profits in the products and services they have begun to sell industry, business, and the public in the U.S. and around the world.

Fortune Magazine has blown the lid off the money-making hoax with a report that Gore has joined forces “with a venture capital company that is seeking to profit from the move toward ‘clean technology’ in the $6 trillion global-energy business. Gore is becoming a hands-on partner at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, a major Silicon Valley venture-capital firm where an old friend, John Doerr, is a partner.”

Gore has wasted no time in capitalizing on his receipt of a Nobel Peace Prize, of all things. It was an award the Nobel people should have had more sense than to give to a man who has manufactured a new career based on non-scientific nonsense and misrepresentations of true climate science.

Fortune tells us that in the next few years “more than a third of Kleiner’s latest fund, which totals $600 million, will reportedly be invested in technologies that seek to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.” Those technologies include firms “making microbes to scrub old oil receptacles, build large solar-power farms, develop solid-oxide fuel cells, and design equipment for use in electric-car batteries.”

When are the world’s legitimate scientists — and they are in the distinct majority — going to rise up as one and blow the whistle on Gore and the rest of his global-warming advocates? The scientists’ silence is not only permitting the global warmers to go on fleecing industry and the public; it is allowing Gore and his misguided pals to distort honest science.

Gore has the support of an equally misguided crop of so-called “scientists” in the United Nations, who keep issuing scientifically flawed reports in support of the global-warming hoax and the need for the U.S. and other nations to bankrupt themselves with outlandish schemes to prevent a danger that isn’t there.

President Bush, who has tried half-heartedly to sidetrack the global warmers, should call on the world’s leading climatologists to set the record straight and derail the global-warming movement before it deals severe monetary damage to the U.S. and the world. To do so, all he needs is the report compiled by Oregon’s brilliant scientist, Dr. Arthur Robinson, whose survey a few years ago registered the names of 20,000 honest climatologists who debunked the global-warming myth.

Once and for all, the American public and the people of all other nations, as well, need to be told the truth about the non-existent danger Gore & Co. have been peddling in books, films, and, now, in awards like the Nobel Peace Prize to undeserving people. At the same time, the Wall Street Journal and the few other existing Conservative news media should start pointing the finger at those college and university Liberals who have joined the global-warming clan in order to protect lucrative grants and other awards.

From the White House:

Laura and I are deeply saddened by the death of Jennifer Dunn. She was a good friend and compassionate leader. During her congressional career, Jennifer effectively promoted policies that enabled more people throughout our country to realize the American dream. She was committed to reforming welfare, reducing taxes, and strengthening our healthcare system. She was a tireless advocate for free trade and worked to eliminate the death tax, believing that leadership on these issues would foster growth and prosperity for small businesses and communities. As a member of the House Republican Leadership, Jennifer used her position to help strengthen women’s rights and protect children.

After leaving Congress, Jennifer continued to be a strong advocate of common-sense conservative values.

Jennifer was most proud of her family. Our thoughts and prayers are with Keith, Bryant, Reagan, and Angus.

I couldn’t help but notice the resurgence of MoveOn.org this month. In my neck of the woods (Eastern Washington) they have been staging a variety of events, including the heckling of my Congressman Doc Hastings at an open forum. Mostly, they focus their anger on their opposition to the war, but they have also been claiming that Bush is eroding our civil liberties.

At this stage in the war (and political cycle), another post by me, or anyone else, debating the merits of the war would probably serve little purpose. But I do want to challenge the accusation levied by MoveOn.org spokeman Steve Verhey that President Bush has eroded American civil liberties in the name of fighting the war on terror.

I would suggest that the historical record indicates exactly the opposite. In fact, I would go further and argue that no president in American history has done a better job of balancing respect for civil liberties with the necessities of war and crisis than President Bush. Using history as a guide, let’s look at how other presidents have behaved when confronting similar crises.

When the United States was fighting “Indian wars” many Natives were stripped of their land. When the Supreme Court stepped in and said Georgia could not expel thousands of Indians to Oklahoma (Worcester v. Georgia, 1832), President Andrew Jackson completely ignored the Supreme Court and expelled them anyway. Pres. Jackson became famous for his statement, “[Chief Justice] Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let Mr. Marshall enforce his decision.” President Bush, in contrast, has had many disagreements with the US Supreme Court, but he has not once ignored any of their rulings. When he lost battles over military tribunals, he ordered changes to the way they were conducted.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln, who most historians consider our greatest president, routinely ignored and violated the Constitution. He unilaterally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus on his own authority. He tried US civilians in military courts, even when civilian courts were up and running. He instituted a draft without authority. He imposed an income tax in direct conflict with Constitutional law. Bush, on the other hand, has not done anything close to what Lincoln did. The US Congress, with bi-partisan support, did pass the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which denied the Writ of Habeas Corpus to Guantanamo Bay detainees. This restriction of jurisdiction, however, is explicitly allowed for by the US Constitution in Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2. Whereas Lincoln went around the Constitution to suspend Habeas, Bush is simply narrowing Habeas via the very process set up in the Constitution…and he, unlike Lincoln, is getting permision from Congress.

During WWI, President Wilson pushed for and passed the Sedition Act of 1918 which forbade Americans to use “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” towards the United States. The law also contained prohibitions on “unpatriotic speech,” stating “Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service.” IN fact, the Sedition Act made it illegal to criticize the US form of government, stating, “whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States…” is guilty under the Act. Simply put, this bill made the Patriot Act look like a Boy Scout guide. Many men were imprisoned simply for protesting America’s involvement in WWI. The famous socialist Eugene Debts was sentenced to 20 years in jail for his “anti-war activities.” Today, as evidenced by our recent MoveOn.org events, people are free to protest away without any fear of imprisonment.

President Roosevelt takes the prize from most egregious violations of civil liberties during a time of war. He literally imprisoned thousands of American citizens of Japanese decent simply because of their ancestry. Less well-know is the fact that Roosevelt also used military tribunals to try and execute American citizens (See Ex Parte Quirin, 1942). Can you imagine the cerebral implosion that would take place on the Left if President Bush started rounding up Muslims and putting them in interment camps, or if he used military tribunals to try and execute American citizens/civilians? When we compare Bush’s decision to wiretap incoming phone calls from Afghanistan to Roosevelt’s actions of imprisonment and execution, President Bush comes out looking like the Mother Teresa of civil liberties.

As a last example, I would remind people that President Truman tried to seize America’s steel mills in the name of fighting the Korean War, even though there was no direct threat of North Korean attacks on US soil. The Supreme Court stepped in and stopped him. Once again, in comparison, Bush has never acted in such an arbitrary manner towards private property or civil liberties.

In the end, when history compares the way President Bush has respected civil liberties in comparison to other presidents, he will not only come out on top, but he will come out so far on top as to not even have anyone as a “close second.” We should remind people of that the next time MoveOn.org decides to use their very well protected civil liberties to claim they have lost their civil liberties.