James M. Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute, has a stinging op-ed peice in the Chicago Sun-Times concerning Al Gore and the threat of Global Warming:

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ”An Inconvenient Truth,” have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate reported, “Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.”

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, “Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.”

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes. [source]

Seems the debate is over only in Al’s world. Or should I say church?

LISTEN NOW: audio

Show Notes are Below… Continue reading →

I was listening to the local liberal radio station this morning. Thom Hartmann was talking about the Fair Tax and what a bad idea it is. His argument against it was that it wouldn’t be fair to people who spend 100% of their income because they would be paying tax on all their money, while people who spend only 10% of their income wouldn’t be paying as much tax.

He’s absolutely right when he says that. But he makes it sound like it’s a bad thing. With the Fair Tax, you don’t pay income taxes, you only pay tax on what you spend. This will increase your paycheck by about 30-40%, which is a very good thing. When you spend your money, you pay the tax. People who spend 100% of their income will end up paying the same amount of tax.

When you look at the big picture, it’s not just a break even deal. The Fair Tax has some pretty good benefits, both for individuals, and for the country. You won’t hear Thom Hartmann talk about these.

• Most people overpay the government in their Income Tax withholding. Sure, they give you a refund when you file your yearly taxes. But the government has had your money in the bank earning interest. They give you back the money, but they keep the interest your money earned. I’d rather have all my money in my bank earning interest for me. Why should the government make interest on my money? They shouldn’t, that’s why.
• When the government takes your tax money up front, you don’t even have the opportunity to use your money to make more money. If you’re saving up for a new big screen television, your money earns interest while it sits in your savings account. When you buy the television (and pay your taxes) you end up with more money than you’d have had with the government taxing you first. In this example, it’s maybe only a few dollars more, but anybody who doesn’t value a few dollars is welcome to use the donation button and give the money to me.
• Under the Fair Tax there’s no need for the Internal Revenue Service to exist. Getting rid of it reduces the size of government. The annual operating budget for the IRS was about 10.7 BILLION dollars in 2006. ^[source] I bet we could use that money somewhere else. Like maybe to help pay down our massive national debt.
• By taxing dollars spent rather than dollars earned, we would be able to collect tax on the huge amount of unreported income. I am talking about people like drug dealers, who most likely aren’t filling out a W-2 right now. Of course, it doesn’t apply to just drug dealers, it applies to anybody who has income and chooses not to pay taxes on it now.
• Perhaps the greatest benefit to the Fair Tax would be the fact that we would be able to collect taxes on money earned by illegal Mexican workers. I know for a fact that there are a lot of illegal workers on company payrolls who claim enough deductions on the W-2 that no money is withheld from their paycheck. Once a year, they go back to Mexico, come back with a new identity, and start all over. They never pay any taxes. Under Fair tax, we still wouldn’t have any tax revenue on the money they send back to Mexico, but we would collect tax on the money they spend while living here. With an estimated 15 to 20 million illegals in this country, that would add up to a lot of money.

So the question is, is the Fair Tax really fair? Only if you think it’s fair that you earn interest on your money rather than the government earning interest on your money. And only if you think it’s fair that everyone pay taxes, not just honest Americans.

When you look at the whole picture, Thom Hartmann is just plain wrong.

The Democrats are up to no good again. Apparently, getting our borders secured isn’t as important as tampering with talk radio.

Democrats have decided that Air America’s a failed experiment, liberal talk radio can’t compete on an even playing field with conservative talk radio… so conservative talk radio must be dismantled. [source]

In 1987 the fairness doctrine was abolished by the FCC, following a 1986 Appeals Court decision that said the FCC was not required to apply it.  The doctrine compelled broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner.

At this time in the life of our nation, there are so many ways to get your message into the public sphere that we don’t need a “fairness doctrine”. Liberal talk radio is a failure. It’s not because they don’t have a fair chance to compete. It’s because with the exception of Randi Rhodes, they all suck. Air America had a fair shot at success. Nobody was listening, which made it unprofitable, which made it fail.

It’s arrogant of the Democrats to try and force radio station owners to air programs that will lose them money. But it really pisses me off that they’re wasting time on this issue when we still have a flood of illegal immigrants flooding across our borders.

There’s an interesting exchange over at Newsvine concerning socialized medicine. Conservatives and libertarians, don’t hesitate to sign up. We could use your help over there on the Vine.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin has made an astonishing bid to grab a vast chunk of the Arctic, giving himself claim to its vast potential oil, gas and mineral wealth.His audacious argument that an underwater Russian ridge is linked to the North Pole is likely to lead to an international outcry.

I would just like to note for the record, that if you follow the ground under the Pacific Ocean, America connects with Russia.  So, I guess Bush can make a claim on Asia now.  That makes sense.

This play by Putin could get very ugly. 

Full story.

The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.  [Full Story]

Good work.  Now, let’s hope that people keep paying attention to what Congress is doing. 

The Heritage Foundation released an interesting article today on the upcoming vote to reauthorize farm subsidies and the member of Congress that will be benefiting from its reauthorization.

Not benefiting from votes from farmers or corporate farms donating to their campaigns. No, it is far more exasperating than that. They will actually be getting money paid directly to them.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data reveal that this group of direct financial beneficiaries includes many Members of Congress who receive USDA subsidies and who will be voting on the farm bill reauthorization. Under current law, many Mem­bers and their families who engage in farming receive direct cash payments from the U.S. Treasury courtesy of the taxpayer…

So who are they? The Heritage Foundation offers a list of Senators and Congressman who are on the list to receive subsidies, and how much they get:

• Senator R. Jon Tester (D–MT), “Between 1995 and 2005, the farm received $232,311 in USDA subsidies”
• Senator Gordon H. Smith (R–OR), “received $45,400 in wheat-related subsidies between 1995 and 2005.”
• Senator Ken Salazar (D–CO), and his brother, Representative John T. Salazar (D–CO), “From 1995 through 2005, the Representative received $161,084 in agri­cultural subsidies from the U.S. Treasury, and the Sen­ator received $770 in 2002.
• Sena­tor Charles Grassley (R–IA), “Grassley received $225,041 in USDA subsi­dies…between 1995 and 2005.”
• Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D–SD), “her father and former South Dakota governor, Ralph Lars Herseth, is a major beneficiary of federal farm pro­grams. Between 1995 and 2005, he received $789,575 in federal farm support”
• Senator Sam Brownback (R–KS), “received $40,403 in farm subsi­dies (mostly for conservation) between 1995 and 2005. His father, Glenn Robert Brownback of Parker, Kansas, received $319,662 over the same period, and his brother, John R. Brownback, also of Parker, received $286,082.”
• Senator Richard Lugar (R–IN), who is a senior member of the Senate Agricul­ture Committee, “Between 1995 and 2005, Lugar Stock Farms, Inc., received $126,555 in USDA subsidies.”

There are many more out there who benefit directly from farm subsidies. This conflict of interest is outrageous. But it gets worse:

Members of Congress are not the only politically influential individuals and institutions that receive USDA subsidies. Professional lobbyists, leaders of agriculture trade associations, state agencies, and politically active not-for-profit organizations also receive funds from the USDA.

Some of those other individuals and institutions:

• The State of Montana – $35,314,692 from the USDA between 1995 and 2005

• Washington Department of Natural Resources – $11,412,027 in USDA subsi­dies between 1995-2005

• Ducks Unlimited – $28,338,088 from the USDA from 1995 to 2005.

The Chicago Tribune has a different story, but with a similar theme. The Environmental Working Group compiled a database showing who benefits from farm subsidies.

The database includes about 358,000 beneficiaries who received $9.8 billion in crop subsidy benefits between 2003 and 2005. The list includes Microsoft Corp. co-founder Paul Allen, whose net worth of $18 billion makes him the fifth-richest person in the U.S., according to Forbes magazine; Texas oilman and billionaire Lee Bass; and former Bulls star Scottie Pippen.

Paul Allen is a farmer? Scottie Pippen drives a tractor? What is going on in this country?

The Heritage concludes that there needs to be some conflict of interest changes made in the Congress to prevent this type of abuse. I disagree. I think we need to simply do away with farm subsidies completely. If a farm, or any business, cannot survive on its own, it should be allowed to fail and let someone else fill that hole in the market. It’s harsh, but my tax dollars should not be spent to prop up an unprofitable business.

Bill Barnes just wanted to scratch of his $2 lottery ticket. He was not remotely interested in a fight. However, when he felt a hand reach into his pocket where he had $300, he started swinging.

He immediately grabbed the person’s wrist with his left hand and started throwing punches with his right, landing six or seven blows before a store manager intervened.

“I guess he thought I was an easy mark,” Barnes, 72, told The Grand Rapids Press for a story Tuesday.

He’s anything but an easy mark: Barnes served in the Marines, was an accomplished Golden Gloves boxer and retired after 20 years as an iron worker.

The 72-year-old Marine (not ex-Marine, Semper Fi and all that) was more scared of going home without the cash than taking a beating by the thief.

“I wouldn’t want my wife to give me hell for lettin’ that guy get my money,” he said with a smile.

We all know how he feels.

Full story w/ video goodness.

Live on Talkshoe: Mon, Wed, & Fri at 10:00pm Eastern Call in: (724) 444-7444 • Talkcast ID: 25742 [display_podcast]

Political News

• On to South Carolina
• Bridge To Our Wallets

Continue reading →