Archive for June, 2008

Vacation Time

June 28, 2008

I am taking a well deserved vacation. I am visiting the great Americam sowthwest. I am planning to return about August 4, 2008. My mind needs a break. LOL.

Going to the rodeo today. I will give a full report of my fun when I returm.




U.S. says exercise by Israel seemed directed at Iran

June 20, 2008

Read entire article here

By Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt Published: June 20, 2008

WASHINGTON: Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries

June 19, 2008

Read the article here

Did I miss something or did we just become communist Cuba?
Who really thinks that we should trust the same people who mangae Social security with operating refineries?
What will happen to the stock holders?
Do we just tell them “Too bad so sad.”

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling sadi this:

We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.

Drill Now, Drill Here, Pay Less

June 18, 2008

By Tom Bates

Read my editorial here.

Sign the American Solutions Pettition to Drill here for Oil.

This is a simple argument for simple folks like me.

Gas Prices have breached the $4.00 levee mark.
What should we do to bring prices down?

Mr Obama says we should increase to taxes on oil companies. Who honestly believes this will have any affect on lowering gas prices?

Mr. McCain says we should drill now, drill here, and pay less.

I do not have an MBA from Harvard but it seems to me that an increase in supply, rather than higher taxes on oil companies, that will just be paid by consumers to increase their burdens, will have a better chance to reduce prices.

The environmentelists do not want any drilling any where any time. They want us to live in teepes and become vegitarians.

How did these people get such control over government policy? Easy, they purchased it. Our polititions are the best dressed men and women money can buy.

Well it’s time to put an end to this. We must buy our country back with our votes.

Please click on the American Solutions link above to sign the pettition. Do it for yourself and your children.

Prospect of gay Lutheran bishop divides Germans

June 17, 2008

Read the article here.

By Madeline Chambers
Tue Jun 17, 9:05 AM ET

BERLIN (Reuters) – Germany could elect its first openly gay Lutheran bishop next month, a move conservatives say would alienate many Christians and open divisions in the Church.

The July 12 election brings to Germany the question of gay clergy and same-sex unions which has caused rifts in several countries and faiths, including the Anglican community.

Did I just read this?
I wonder how much of the Bible they had to REWRITE to allow such things?
How will they teach the story of Lot and Sadam and Gamora?
How will they teach the sermon on the mount?
How will they just teach the teachings of Jesus?
I think I will cancell my trip to Germany.
I am alergic to lightning strikes.

Supreme Court Insists Terrorists have Habeus Corpus Rights

June 16, 2008

Read the article here.

June 12, 2008
Rick Moran

By the narrowest of margins, 5-4, the United States Supreme Court granted the constitutional protection of Habeus Corpus to foreign nationals being held at Guantanamo:

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court’s liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Letter to Barack Obama

June 15, 2008

Read the article here.
by Will Manly

I’ve always thought of you as dangerously naive at best. Eloquent, gifted, genuine, yes. But dangerously naive at best.

I couldn’t vote for you — but not because of your funny name or your lunatic pastor. I couldn’t vote for you because you say we should raise taxes (even on the rich, who I’m convinced already pay too much), and because you say we should abandon Iraq (which I’m convinced would be surrendering a war we must win), and because you don’t respect the Second Amendment (which I’m convinced should disqualify any politician from any office).

Will Manly is a reporter for The Hays Daily News and The Stir. will@thestironline.com

Here’s a thought: Maybe gun rights voters know gun control laws kill people and steal freedom.
Here’s a thought: Maybe some Americans cling to their church because their pastor is a nice person.
Here’s a thought: Maybe, just maybe, us simpletons in small towns find it harder to be bigoted than all o’ y’all cityfolk.
And here’s my favorite thought of all: Maybe small-town folks are — really — capable of thinking. All on our own.
You’re wrong about why small-town Americans don’t vote for Democrats.

Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair

June 13, 2008

Read the article here.

October 29, 1993
by Adam Thierer
Executive Memorandum #368
This key research from 1993 has been updated in James Gattuso’s new paper “Back to Muzak? Congress and the “Un-Fairness Doctrine”

Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the “fairness doctrine.” The legislation, entitled the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993,” is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.” The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.

Here is what I think
What will this “Doctrine really do?
Here is the skinny on it.
Any and all broadcast stations that carry any political discussion programing will be forced to carry programming of other viewpoints. On the surface this sounds fair, right?
Well this is the way it will work.

Station “A” has Rush Limbaugh. They recieve a single complaint. That will mean they must also offer programing that expresses views other than Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is being carried not because it is right or wrong. It is being carried because they have listeners who support sponsors. The stations can sell advertising to pay for the show. They would have to then carry programming such as is on the defunct liberal network “Air America”. Air America is defunct because they do not have enough listeners to support sponsorship. No one wants to hear their hate filled rantings. I have listened to these types of people and yes they are hateful and intolerant. If they disagree with you they want to shut you up. This is not freedom of speech.

The result would be thus:

1. The station could carry the alternative programing and not be able to sell advertising for it, meaning it would be carried for free.

2. The station would not carry any political disscussion programing because they couldn’t afford to give free air time away.

The net result would be that the only political viewpoints we heard would be from the admittedly left wing liberal press. Other viewpoints would be stiffled.

Freedom of speech would be lost. There are enough radio and TV stations to accomidate all points of view.


Trying Something new

June 13, 2008

June 12, 2008

For the sake of my readers I am going to try something new.

I have been posting entire articles on my page for a while. Some poeple feel it can be a bit tedious and time consuming to read the entire article.

I am going to be putting just a short summary on my blog for a while. If you want the entire article you can click on the link to see it.

This link will take you to my archives web site where I will try to keep every article I post. On this site you will find a link back to my main BLOG page as well as the link, at the time of my posting, to where the original article was gleaned.

Since the originating sites often only keep the articles for a short time, you will be ably to find the full article.

Let me know if this works for you.

Tom Bates


Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ Is a Scam

June 7, 2008

Written By: Joseph L. Bast
Published In: Heartlander
Publication Date: February 1, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Read the article here

When Al Gore lost his bid to become the country’s first “Environment President,” many of us thought the “global warming” scare would finally come to a well-deserved end. That hasn’t happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest.

It’s B-a-a-ck!

Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past–such as Alar, global cooling, the “population bomb,” and electromagnetic fields–were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite.

The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasn’t gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating “transferrable emission credits” for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr. Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own “mini-Kyotos.”

Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012–the target set by the Kyoto Protocol–would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.

Time for Common Sense

The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.

It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.

Who do you really trust to be president?

June 6, 2008

Tom Bates
June 6, 2008
All rights reserved

Ladies and Gentlemen, Iran isnt kidding. They want Israel wiped off the face of the earth.

McCain will kick their butts and do everything to keep us safe.

Obama Will try to talk to them.

It is dangerous to talk to these types of men. Remember a guy named Martin Luther King?. Did he sit down and try to reason with the likes of George Wallace, Lester Maddox, David Duke or Bull Conner? Of course not. There was no way they would change their thinking. There are just some people you can’t reason with. You can never reason with an unreasonable person.

Have you ever had an employer who was just plain mean and sadistic? I sure have. Did you sit down with them and try to talk things out? What was the result? The unemployment line?

We are in for a very rough ride in the next few years. I don’t know about you but I want a fighter looking out for me and my family.

I do believe Israel is very important to our security. They play a big part in keeping the mid-east countries in line. Once Israel is gone do you honestly think they will just stop there? If it is to be believed when they say they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, is it not also believeable when they say it about us?

This is not a strugle for territory as many wars were in past centuries. It is a strugle inspired by a misguided misbelief in what the Karan says.

They have two conditions. Adopt Islam or die. Which should we accept?

Hevan Help us.

Israeli PM raises spectre of military operation in Gaza

June 6, 2008

Jun 6 06:23 AM US/Eastern

Read the source article here .

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday raised the spectre of a full-scale military operation in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip despite Egyptian attempts to mediate a truce.
“According to the information as it is now, the pendulum is much closer to tough military action,” Olmert told journalists on arrival in Israel following a three-day trip to the United States.

His comments came a day after a man was killed in southern Israel in a mortar attack claimed by the armed wing of Hamas, the Islamist movement that has run Gaza since it ousted forces loyal to secular Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas a year ago.

But Olmert also suggested that the door to a negotiated truce was not completely closed.

He said his government was still considering whether to avoid getting “into a violent and hard conflict with the terror organisations in Gaza” or to launch “operations that would be much more aggressive and hard.”

Israeli forces launched several raids after Thursday’s attack.

On Friday a military engineering unit operating armoured bulldozers on the Gaza side of the border was involved in a firefight with Hamas gunmen, the military said.

A member of the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, was killed in the exchange of fire, Gaza emergency medical services said, and an Israeli military spokeswoman said a soldier was wounded.

Earlier on Friday at least 10 Palestinians were wounded in an Israeli air raid on a Hamas police post in the north of the Gaza Strip, Palestinian medics said. The military said the raid was in reply to Thursday’s attack.

Violence in and around the impoverished sliver of land has continued despite Egyptian efforts to mediate a ceasefire and slow-moving peace talks with Abbas, who has only held sway in the Israeli-occupied West Bank since his forces were ousted from Gaza.

At least 491 people, nearly all Palestinians and mostly Gaza militants, have been killed since Israeli-Palestinian peace talks resumed in November, according to an AFP count.

The Israeli military said on Friday that Palestinians fired more than 2,300 rockets and mortar bombs at Israel in the past six months.

“The sand in the hourglass is running out. We are at the last pinch of sand,” the Yediot Aharonot daily quoted Defence Minister Ehud Barak as telling leaders of southern Israeli communities near Gaza.

The mass-circulation newspaper said it appeared likely that a major military operation in Gaza would take place within days.

Before leaving Washington on Thursday, Olmert played down the chances of achieving a truce in and around Gaza. “Israel’s conditions for a truce are not bearing fruit in the way that could lead to a ceasefire,” he said.

In exchange for stopping rocket attacks, Hamas has demanded an end to the blockade of Gaza which Israel says is aimed at forcing militants to halt their attacks on the Jewish state.

Israel has demanded an end to rocket attacks and arms smuggling from Egypt’s Sinai peninsula, as well as progress in negotiations for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured by Palestinian militants in 2006.

Egypt has been acting as mediator in the truce talks because Israel refuses to negotiate directly with Hamas, which it considers a terrorist organisation.

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

Israeli minister says alternatives to attack on Iran running out

June 6, 2008

Jun 6 03:36 AM US/Eastern

Read the source article here .

An Israeli deputy prime minister on Friday warned that Iran would face attack if it pursues what he said was its nuclear weapons programme.
“If Iran continues its nuclear weapons programme, we will attack it,” said Shaul Mofaz, who is also transportation minister.

“Other options are disappearing. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme,” Mofaz told the Yediot Aharonot daily.

He stressed such an operation could only be conducted with US support.

A former defence minister and armed forces chief of staff, Mofaz hopes to replace embattled Ehud Olmert as prime minister and at the helm of the Kadima party.

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

China and Cuba are drilling where we should, Florida

June 6, 2008

Read George Wills collumn here.

By George F. Will
Thursday, June 5, 2008

Rising in the Senate on May 13, Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, explained: “I rise to discuss rising energy prices.” The president was heading to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in its oil production, and Schumer’s gorge was rising.

Saudi Arabia, he said, “holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term.” Therefore arms sales to that kingdom should be blocked unless it “increases its oil production by one million barrels per day,” which would cause the price of gasoline to fall “50 cents a gallon almost immediately.”

Can a senator, with so many things on his mind, know so precisely how the price of gasoline would respond to that increase in the oil supply? Schumer does know that if you increase the supply of something, the price of it probably will fall. That is why he and 96 other senators recently voted to increase the supply of oil on the market by stopping the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which protects against major physical interruptions. Seventy-one of the 97 senators who voted to stop filling the reserve also oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today’s senators — including Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain — have voted to keep ANWR’s estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.

So Schumer, according to Schumer, is complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline. “Democracy,” said H.L. Mencken, “is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” The common people of New York want Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice.

Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR’s oil in the ground and who voted to put 85 percent of America’s offshore territory off-limits to drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that restricted area contains perhaps 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — 10 times as much oil and 20 times as much natural gas as Americans use in a year.

Drilling is underway 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.

ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware), and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington’s Dulles airport. Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent — that is one-thousandth of 1 percent — has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore — and a thriving commercial fishing industry.

In his book “Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of ‘Energy Independence,’ ” Robert Bryce says Brazil’s energy success has little to do with its much-discussed ethanol production and much to do with its increased oil production, the vast majority of which comes from off Brazil’s shore. Investor’s Business Daily reports that Brazil, “which recently made a major oil discovery almost in sight of Rio’s beaches,” has leased most of the world’s deep-sea drilling rigs.

In September 2006, two U.S. companies announced that their Jack No. 2 well, in the Gulf 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, had tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil, which would increase America’s proven reserves by 50 percent. Just probing four miles below the Gulf’s floor costs $100 million. Congress’s response to such expenditures is to propose increasing the oil companies’ tax burdens.

America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.

Has the president gone mad?

June 2, 2008

At the height of the civil war when Union defeats were at their worst, Abraham Lincoln called a cabinet metting. He opened a joke book and started reading it aloud, laughing along the way. The cabinet members didn’t quite know what to do. They all thought the president had gone over the edge and lost his mind. When he finished and put the book down he reportedly said “Gentlemen, if I could not find something to laugh about at times like these, I fear I could go out of my mind.”

With that advice, I offer up a few laughs I found on youtube. Enjoy.

Who is Michelle Obama?

June 1, 2008

I think she says it quite well.

Who is Rev. Wright?

June 1, 2008

Let let him tell you in his own words.

Who Is Mr. Obama?

June 1, 2008

Maybe he can tell us. I’ll just keep quiet and let them a picture be worth a thousand words.