Archive for July 24th, 2008

Dem Senate Majority Leader: $5-A-Gallon Gas Is No Problem

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

If you have not contacted your senator and representative, you need to do so now.

WASHINGTON – Asked if he thinks he has the votes to block legislation lifting the moratorium on offshore oil drilling, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: “We will have to wait and see.”

Wait and see?

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi oppose lifting the ban on domestic oil drilling – and they are hoping the American people will just quietly accept gas prices topping $5 a gallon or even higher.

They say the key to lowering the price is conservation.

WND’s Joseph Farah is not accepting that and is organizing efforts to flood Congress with emails, phone calls, letters and text messages demanding action that can lead the country in the direction of energy independence.

“Right now, that means lifting the moratorium,” he says. “That’s the first step. If we can’t agree on that as Americans today, then we are in for a long period of national economic decline. If we can’t push Congress to do the right thing with even a strong majority of Democrats behind us, then this country is simply no longer a place where the will of the people means anything.”

Farah’s goal is to force Congress to act in the next 73 days – before it adjourns for the year.

“There’s an election coming up one month after that adjournment date, and even the most entrenched incumbents know how sensitive this issue is,” says Farah. “Now is the time to let them hear you.”

Original Link.

Proposals Would Give Government Unprecedented Control Over Our Kids

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

No one, outside of my wife and I, know what is best for my kids. I don’t need the government to tell me how to raise my kinds.

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to debate two bills that could give the federal government unprecedented control over the way parents raise their children – even providing funds for state workers to come into homes and screen babies for emotional and developmental problems.

The Pre-K Act (HR 3289) and the Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343) are two bills geared toward military and families who fall below state poverty lines. The measures are said to be a way to prevent child abuse, close the achievement gap in education between poor and minority infants versus middle-class children and evaluate babies younger than 5 for medical conditions.

‘Education Begins at Home Act’ – HR 2343

HR 2343 is sponsored by Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., and cosponsored by 55 Democrats and 11 Republicans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the Education Begins at Home Act would cost taxpayers $190 million for state home visiting, plus “such sums as may be necessary” for in-hospital parent education.

While the bill may appear to be well-intentioned, Pediatrician Karen Effrem told WND government provisions in HR 2343 to evaluate children for developmental problems go too far.

“The federal definition of developmental screening for special education also includes what they call socioemotional screening, which is mental health screening,” Dr. Effrem said. “Mental health screening is very subjective no matter what age you do it. Obviously it is incredibly subjective when we are talking about very young children.”

While the program may not be mandatory for low-income and military families, there is no wording in the Education Begins at Home Act requiring parental permission for treatment or ongoing care once the family is enrolled – a point that leads some to ask where parental rights end and the government takes over. Also, critics ask how agents of the government plan to acquire private medical and financial records to offer the home visiting program.

Original Link.

Killings Turn Focus on San Francisco Sanctuary Law

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – The scene repeats itself daily on city streets: a driver gets stuck bumper to bumper, blocking an intersection and preventing another car from turning left.

But authorities say that was enough to cause Edwin Ramos to unload an AK-47 assault weapon on a man and his two sons, killing them.

The deaths immediately drew public outrage, which intensified when authorities revealed that Ramos, 21, is an illegal immigrant who managed to avoid deportation despite previous brushes with the law.

The case has put San Francisco’s liberal politics to the test, setting off a debate over its sanctuary law that shields undocumented immigrants from deportation.

On Wednesday, Ramos pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder in the deaths of Anthony Bologna, 49, and his sons, Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16. Bologna and his older son died in the intersection on June 22. His younger son succumbed to his injuries days later.

Shortly after that, police arrested Ramos, a native of El Salvador and reputed member of the Mara Salvatrucha gang, known as MS-13. Investigators believe he was the gunman, though two other men were seen in the car with him.

The heinousness of the deaths has put pressure on San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris to seek the death penalty against Ramos. Harris, who campaigned on an anti-death penalty platform and has never pursued capital punishment during her more than four years in office, has declined to say exactly how she intends to proceed.

“This case has been charged as a special circumstance case,” making it eligible for the death penalty, spokeswoman Erica Derryck said. “No additional announcement has been made about this aspect of the charging.”

Ramos’ attorney, Robert Amparan, said his client was not the shooter. “They have the wrong person,” he said.

Amparan declined to discuss details of the case, but he denied his client was involved in gang activity and said Ramos entered the country legally. Federal authorities contend Ramos is undocumented.

The victims’ family learned that Ramos had been arrested at least three times before the shooting and evaded deportation, largely because of San Francisco’s sanctuary status.

The policy, adopted in 1989 by the city’s elected Board of Supervisors, bars local officials from cooperating with federal authorities in their efforts to deport illegal immigrants.

Officials in the juvenile offenders agency interpreted the law to also shield underage felons from deportation by refusing to report undocumented ones. Mayor Gavin Newsom said he rescinded the policy regarding juvenile offenders after learning about it in May.

The Bolognas’ relatives say Ramos apparently benefited from the policy when he reportedly was convicted twice of felonies in 2003 and 2004 but never was turned over for deportation.

“All San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance has done is bring violence and death to this once-great city,” said Frank Kennedy, who is married to Anthony Bologna’s sister.

Kennedy called for an investigation of the sanctuary policy and demanded “prosecutions for violating the law.”

Meanwhile, local and federal authorities are pointing fingers at each other over Ramos’ most recent arrest before the shooting.

Ramos was arrested in late March with another man after police discovered a gun used in a double homicide in the car Ramos was driving.

The district attorney’s office decided not to file charges against Ramos, and he was released April 2 even though he was in the process of being deported after his application for legal residence was denied, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Original Link.

WaPo: As Obama Makes Gaffe After Gaffe, Let’s Talk About McCain’s ‘Flubs’

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

Remember when McCain said that he had visited all 57 States during his campaign? Then there was the time that McCain said “Well let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.” Oh, and what about the time that McCain said “10,000 people died” in the Kansas tornadoes (death toll really 12). Crazy stuff, eh? Wait, let’s not forget when McCain said that Arkansas was a “nearby” state to Kentucky. Man was that a major flub showing a complete lack of knowledge of simple geography.

Hmm, wait a minute. I might be making a flub myself, here. Didn’t Obama make all those gaffes (and many, many more)? Why, yes, he did. So, why, amidst an ever growing list of Obama flubs and gaffes, did the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz just pen a story titled “Is McCain’s Age Showing? Tongues Wag Over Flubs”? It’s as if the Obamessiah has spoken in flawless, if not mellifluous, English with nary a gaffe uttered throughout the campaign.

Read the rest of the article here.

“Dawkins, Darwin, and the Battle of Worldviews” by Albert Mohler

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

The odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks is one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics — i.e. a miracle.
It is therefore safe to say, the odds of the necessary amino acids coming together in the correct sequence to form a “simple cell” are akin to blowing up an old fashion print shop and as the type rained down from the sky, it landed in the exact order to create the complete unabridged dictionary. Or as another author put it: “…the probability of spontaneous generation ‘is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.'”
In others words, it is virtually impossible. Now take the fact that we are not made up of simple cells, but of complex ones, and the fact that we are not single celled organisms, but made up of complex series of millions of cells and the odds of this happening by accident are so astronomical that it is completely impossible.
To date, no evolutionist has been able to disprove or find any flaws in my statistical evidence.
See these articles for further information:
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 1.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 2.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 3.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 4.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 5.

Dawkins, pleased to be known as “Darwin’s Rotweiller,” has been given a new three-part television series in Britain, known as “Dawkins on Darwin.” The British press is fawning in its applause, and Dawkins appears to be in rare form.

As reporter Kate Muir gushes:

Richard Dawkins is that rare specimen, a public intellectual, a knight of the mind who goes into battle against the ignorance and foolhardiness of the populace. Unlike the French, who worship their public intellectuals, giving them pet names such as les intellos, and airing them regularly on serious television and in print, the British like to shove academics into a musty corner, or laugh at them. This was not always the case: the Victorians, with their public lectures and royal societies, gloried in debate and celebrated the thrills of fresh knowledge.

That is a fairly representative understanding of the elite media. Those who do not accept the Gospel according to Darwin (or Dawkins) are simply ignorant, invincibly ignorant perhaps, and Dawkins is thus “a knight of the mind” who battles ignorance.

That approach is a blatant attempt to dismiss all debate over Darwinism or evolutionary theory. The methodology is simple to grasp — just reclassify all opposition to evolution as ignorance and establish evolutionary theory as the only acceptable worldview. Muir paints Dawkins as an apostle for atheism, rescuing the public from ignorance. “In these barren, thoughtless times, Dawkins gives people something substantial to chew on,” she writes. “His audience is surprisingly grateful, and also relieved to see someone slapping creationists about and tossing them into the primordial soup, as well as explaining atheism positively.”

This is the approach Dawkins himself admits taking, as Muir reports:

Dawkins says that natural selection is “the most important idea to occur to the human mind”, the slow change of species over millions of ideas disproving the religious theory of intelligent design by God.

That we are still trying to sell evolution to a large part of the public bothers him. “It is weird in many ways that natural selection is still debated,” he says. “But it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it.” Indeed, Dawkins refuses to share a stage with creationists. “I don’t like giving them the oxygen of respectability, the feeling that if they’re up on a platform debating with a scientist, there must be real disagreement. One side of the debate is wholly ignorant. It would be as though you knew nothing of physics and were passionately arguing against Einstein’s theory of relativity.

At this point Dawkins is characteristically helpful in exposing the real worldview of evolution. In his words, evolution disproves “the religious theory of intelligent design by God.”

Original Link.

‘Truth Truck’ Prevents Abortion in St. Louis

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

I wonder how many abortions could have been prevented in years past if the women had seen what REALLY happens to the baby………..

Operation Rescue’s “Truth Truck,” which sports large photos of aborted babies on its sides, was trapped in a situation in St. Louis that turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

Truck driver Mark Gietzen pulled the truck onto the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. Operation Rescue’s spokesperson Cheryl Sullinger picks up the story.

“Things went into complete bedlam, actually, at the abortion clinic,” Sullinger shares. “The guards ran over and shut the gates. They called the police and…actually, by shutting the gates, prevented patients from entering the abortion clinic for a considerable amount of time.”

Police pointed out there was no signage restricting the parking lot to abortion clinic staff and patients only. “After a little discussion, they opened the gates and released the Truth Truck, and everyone on the street cheered because they thought that was an amazing thing,” Sullinger notes.

According to Sullinger, the reality is that in trapping the truck behind a closed gate, more people saw it than otherwise would have, giving Gietzen additional time to minister to people entering the clinic.

“He was able to stay in the parking lot longer than he would have been able to, and women who were actually entering the clinic for abortions were checking the truck out and seeing the truth about what was going to happen to their babies in there,” Sullinger explains. “And so, what [Planned Parenthood] meant for bad ended up being a good thing — and so we’re happy about that.”

After police pointed out the driver had done nothing illegal, the gate was opened and the truck exited, only to be greeted by a rousing cheer from pro-life demonstrators.

Original Link

“Gore’s Plan Just a Dream” by Jack Kelly

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

Former Vice President Al Gore and his entourage arrived at Constitutional Hall in Washington D.C. July 17 for his speech on global warming in a caravan consisting of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevrolet Suburban — not the most fuel efficient vehicles Detroit ever made.

“The driver of the Town Car that eventually whisked away Gore’s wife and daughter left the engine idling and the AC cranking for 20 minutes before they finally left,” noted Mark Block of Americans for Prosperity.

Al Gore wants you to do as he says, not as he does. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported last month that Mr. Gore used as much electricity last year at his mansion in Nashville — one of four homes he owns — as 19 average American homes do. Mr. Gore frequently travels between his homes and to speaking engagements by private jet — which, on a per passenger basis, emits four times the greenhouse gases of a commercial jet.

In his speech at Constitution Hall, Mr. Gore called for a crash program to convert the entire U.S. electric grid to carbon-free sources of energy within ten years. That’s “ridiculous,” said Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH).

To get an idea of how ridiculous, consider this data from the Energy Information Administration. In 2006 (the last year for which complete data is available), 49 percent of our electricity was generated by coal-fired plants; 20 percent from natural gas, and 1.5 percent from oil. That is, more than 70 percent of all the electricity we have now is generated by the fossil fuels Mr. Gore wants to get rid of.

Of the remainder, two thirds is generated by nuclear plants (19 percent overall), but Mr. Gore doesn’t want to increase our reliance on nuclear power. He wants to rely on “renewables” which currently account for just shy of ten percent of electric power generation. But more than 70 percent of that is hydroelectric power, and there are only so many places where we can build dams. The “green” sources Mr. Gore prefers — solar, wind, geothermal — combined produced only 2.3 percent of our electricity. Mr. Gore didn’t mention that he’s invested heavily in companies which produce “green” energy. Neither did the journalists who covered his speech.

The power grid already is strained by the unwillingness of Democrats to construct electric power plants of any kind. On the day of Mr. Gore’s speech, CNN reported electric power costs in Maryland and the District of Columbia have risen 46 percent in the last two years. Experts fear there could be widespread brownouts within three years as the demand for electricity exceeds the ability to supply it. And this is without the additional demands that would be imposed on the grid by all electric or plug-in hybrid-electric cars, which in the intermediate term offer the only way (other than a hair curling depression) to reduce significantly our use of gasoline.

As Mr. Gore was urging his audience at Constitution Hall to forego the electricity he uses so lavishly, the Physics & Society Forum, an arm of the American Physical Society, an organization which represents nearly 50,000 physicists, published a paper by a prestigious scientist that attacked Al Gore’s thesis that man is responsible for global warming.

Lord Moncton of Brenchley, who was the science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, said the computer models the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “grossly overstated” the sensitivity of climate to increases in carbon dioxide.

Mars, Jupiter and Pluto warmed at the same rate as earth, Lord Moncton noted. Since they are not known to have factories or SUVs, he concluded the most recent warming was caused by the sun, not Man.

Lord Moncton’s paper details numerous exaggerations and extensive errors by the IPCC, said Larry Gould, professor of physics at the University of Hartford.

APS Forum Editor Jeffrey Marque said he was opening up his pages to global warming skeptics because of “the considerable presence within the scientific community” of people who don’t accept the global warming thesis. Previously, leaders of APS had said the evidence was “incontrovertible.”

Another scientist who’s changed his mind is David Evans, who constructed climate models for the Australian Greenhouse Office.

“When I started that job in 1999, the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good,” Mr. Evans said. But “by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role.”

Original Link.