Sneak Peek at New "Government-Built" Car!!

Since the U.S. government has taken over General Motors, everyone has wondered what type of car it wants to build. Here's a sneak peek from a hidden camera that caught the first glimpse of the new vehicle.

Government's Comedy of Errors

Why should we let government create a new health insurance company?

Does anyone really believe the federal government is filled with efficiency experts?

Yet superior government efficiency is at the core of claims from President Barack Obama and others pushing creation of a government-run health plan.

Obama states, “If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and it will help keep their prices down.”

And who would keep government honest? Surely not the designated watchdogs, like the Inspectors-General personally fired by the President for catching a FOO (Friend of Obama) with his hand in the till.

Those who believe government could run a health plan cheaper and better than the private sector should consider the bureaucratic messes that Ernest Istook outlines in his column this week at Human Events.

Giant Numbers Are Bad for Your Health

The numbers get in the way when Americans try to understand all the talk about health care legislation. Who can fathom what it really means for government to spend an extra $1-trillion? Or $1.6-trillion? Or the even-higher numbers that are being tossed around!

Should taxpayers be willing to pay a cost that is so huge it defies our ability to understand it?

Just TRY to count to a trillion. If you could continue non-stop, counting one number a second, to reach a trillion would take you 32,000 years.

Ernest Istook takes a look at the enormity of what a trillion really means, in his column at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32346

Defense Shrinks While Rest of Government Grows

Even as bailouts and other spending seem to know no bounds, President Obama is limiting spending in one area—our national defense.

Without waiting for an upcoming review of what our military needs, almost half of Obama’s budget cuts are to defense, and more are planned for future years. All of these are then plowed back into spending increases elsewhere.

What is on the chopping block? The ability to engage in conventional warfare and to deter or defeat major threats, such as North Korean or Iranian nuclear missiles, or a growing navy such as China’s, or a nation with sophisticated aircraft such as Russia’s. Yet for less than the cost of a major bailout, Obama and the Congress could assure proper funding of America’s military and defense.

Ernest Istook gives details of the cuts and how they put America at risk, in his column at: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32169

And check out The Heritage Foundation's documentary at www.33minutes.com.

Saving us from ourselves . . .

We all know the phrase: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.” Perhaps someday they’ll change the national motto from e pluribus unum to est pro vestri own beneficium—“It’s for your own good.”

Regular superheroes save us from villains. Liberal superheroes save us from ourselves.

Today’s federal government doesn’t stop with taking over big things like General Motors and health care, but also wants to govern little things in our lives. They’re talking about new gun controls; a federal ban on smoking in public places; controls on advertising, to make sweets as verboten as cigarettes; even sin taxes on whatever fizzes or appeals to a sweet tooth.

And the Obama Administration that is ending raids on illegal workplaces has threatened instead to raid supermarkets and confiscate Cheerios. Their warning letter to General Mills is online here.

Read details in Ernest Istook’s column, at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32055

Congress vs The Economy!

The biggest show in Washington resembles “Let’s Make A Deal,” as an enormous tax on energy starts moving through committee in the U.S. House. But it could become “Apocalypse Now” because the bill will kill 2.5-million jobs and its $9.6-trillion price tag could wreck the economy.

What do we gain? Supposedly global warming will be reduced by two-tenths of one degree by the end of the century. That’s it. Americans will adjust their thermostats by far more due to skyrocketing electric bills that President Obama predicts will be caused by this legislation. So we’ll be hotter in the summer and colder in the winter.

The annual price tag for a family of four? It’s projected to be $4,000 a year! The higher electric bills alone will average about $1,500 a year.

So why do so many in Congress support this cap-and-tax approach despite the absence of public support? Many have been bought off by sweetheart deals that are spread throughout the bill. More details are in Ernest Istook’s column at Human Events.

Could 2010 Census Include Make-Believe People?

Left-leaning groups want to include millions of pretend people in the real-life 2010 Census. It almost happened in 2000. This time, they might get their way.

The administration claims it has “no plans” to use statistical sampling to augment the actual headcount next year by adding millions of fictitious people.

Conservatives worry that, having learned from the failure of Bill Clinton’s high-profile push for census sampling, the administration has adopted a stealth approach.

Here's the details from Ernest.

Federal Budget Is Like Swine Flue

Talking about the federal budget causes dizziness, headaches and confusion. That’s why many Americans mistake it for the swine flu and try to avoid it.

Likewise, the just-adopted budget can also be dangerous. One threat has been dodged, though. The threat that the budget would give favored treatment to new energy taxes has dissolved, although plans for those taxes are still being pushed actively.

The new budget gives an advantage to plans for nationalizing health care and for greater federal intervention in education, however.

Ernest Istook explains in his column at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31698

A Kitchen Table Agenda

National Review posed these questions to me and to others such as Newt Gingrich and Dr. Ed Feulner: Has the conservative movement begun to fight? Facing the specter of increasing Democratic majorities in Congress, can it rebuild? What should the Right be doing right now? Is it doing it?

You can read all the responses at their website, including mine. Here's what I proposed:

Conservatives are fighting but not persuading. We must reeducate a nation whose core principles have been eroded by left-leaning media, Hollywood, political correctness, and conservative misbehavior.

Liberal ascendance reflects American attitudes more than we like to admit, in a country where only 53 percent say capitalism beats socialism.

Simply promoting lower taxes and smaller government won’t resonate with millions who enjoy zero income-tax liability or who receive government benefits. We must explain that they still have a personal pocketbook stake.

How? With a kitchen-table agenda. In a single word: Consumerism — the belief that the free choice of consumers should dictate society’s economic structure.

Washington mandates have pushed up prices on everything that’s important. Some examples:

• The 2007 energy bill will raise car prices by $5,000 to $7,000 per vehicle.



• Health-care costs reflect 135,000 pages of regulations.



• Ethanol mandates have fueled soaring food prices.



• New light bulbs cost 5 times more than the old.



• How about the economy-wrecking mortgage meltdown? A HUD regulation created a quota (28 percent last year) for how many Fannie and Freddie mortgages must go to those with the poorest incomes.

It adds up. A 2004 government report documented that federal regulations cost the typical family of four about $15,000 each year.

And the red tape and mandates just keep on coming. Cap-and-trade will be the granddaddy of them all. As candidate Barack Obama said, “Under my [energy] plan . . . electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Congressionally engineered hikes in the cost of everything should be discussed as families sit around the kitchen table. The full cost goes beyond regulations and taxes; it’s also an issue of freedom.

Big government remains the cause of big problems, not the solution. We know the message can work when delivered well. Ronald Reagan proved it.

Who Can Afford to Go All-Green?

This week we're inundated with more green symbols than on St. Patrick's Day, and more myths. Common-sense approaches to protecting our environment have been overwhelmed by a radical agenda.

Politicians claim they will boost the economy with green jobs. They don't mention that their legislation will destroy more existing jobs than it ever creates with new green jobs that often pay less than the jobs they kill. Other nations have learned this fact from sad experience with their environmental laws; can't we learn a lesson from them?

Read Ernest's article: Green Jobs? Or Gangrene?

Another overlooked fact about the new energy and environmental proposals is the cost to everyday Americans. Are you ready for skyrocketing energy bills? And higher taxes as well, also from the same proposals? As even The New York Times now admits, alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power are far more expensive ways to generate electricity than by using fossil fuels or nuclear energy.

Ernest exposes this in Green Agenda Soaks Taxpayers

You should also read "Seven Myths of Green Jobs," which has just been released by several academics.

The Few. The Proud. The Taxpayers.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg let the cat out of the bag when he announced that half the city’s income comes from 42,000 of its residents. So in a city of 8.2 million, less than half of one percent of the people carry 50 percent of the tax burden.

On the national scale, the top 10% of income tax filers pay 70% of the taxes and earned 47% of the income.

The Tax Foundation reports that the top 1% of American tax filers paid more taxes in 2006 than the bottom 90%. The numbers were $408-billion paid compared to $299-billion. Of 136 million returns filed that year, a mere 1.4 million Americans paid more than this other 122 million combined.

And 23-million Americans who paid zero in income taxes still received federal “refunds” of $46 billion last year.

Is this what passes for fairness today? Is this why some have Tea Parties to protest, while millions don’t care because they are paying nothing?

Read more here.

The High Cost of Congress

This article appears at WorldNetDaily.

We can’t afford Congress. It’s driving America’s cost-of-living through the roof.

Any tax cut or “economic stimulus” we might get this spring is peanuts compared to how Washington keeps jacking up the price of everything that’s important.

By itself, last month’s energy bill will make food, cars, gasoline and even light bulbs more expensive. Washington is also the culprit behind high medical bills and health insurance, washing machines that have doubled in price, and our wonderful, more-expensive “lo-flo” toilets that don’t flush right.

All this is on top of what red tape already costs us. A 2004 government report admitted that federal regulations cost our economy at least $1.1 trillion each year. That’s $3,666 per person, so multiply that by the number of people in your household. And remember that’s before the 2007 energy bill. And in addition to taxes.

The new energy laws are a leftist’s dream and a supply-sider’s nightmare. As 2008 starts, we’re paying $3 (often more) for a gallon of gasoline. That’s up about a fourth (64 cents) from a year ago. The Heritage Foundation calculates the new energy bill will boost gas prices over $5 a gallon by 2016. Yet rather than let us produce more oil domestically, Congress keeps areas off-limits from drilling that could raise supply and lower prices.

Someday you might save gas, since Congress has dictated that new cars must soon get 10% more miles per gallon. But that depends on your being able to afford a new car. Sticker shock on new cars will get worse because engineering them to meet the mandate will raise car prices by $5,000 to $7,000 per car, according to General Motors.

Compounding the engineering challenge is the Congressional requirement that more ethanol be mixed into the gasoline. That lowers mpg because ethanol contains less energy. In return for this mileage reduction, your tax dollars are used to pay ethanol producers a 51-cent-per-gallon subsidy. Since the new law compels the sale of 35 billion gallons of ethanol—up from the currently mandated 8 billion gallons a year—the subsidy costs to taxpayers will rise from $4 billion to $17.5 billion annually.

This is why food prices keep going up. As more corn goes into ethanol, food processors must bid against the government subsidy to buy corn. So must livestock producers who need the corn to feed the cattle, chickens and other animals. Even before the four-fold increase in the ethanol mandate, one-fifth of corn production already goes to ethanol. This will worsen the $9 billion a year extra that consumers already pay in food prices because ethanol subsidies have taken so much corn out of the food and feed supply. Thanks to Congress, the era of cheap and plentiful food in America may be over. (Sadly, they’ll just propose more food stamps as a “solution”.)

Could we just plant more corn (and maybe end $23 billion in farm subsidies)? The ethanol mandate is so massive there’s not room to plant more corn to avoid higher food prices. The National Environmental Trust estimates the new mandate will require us to plant an additional 82.5-millon acres of corn (129,000 square miles). That would take every square inch of Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio—presuming you could evacuate the people and plant every acre.

Then there’s Congress’ bright idea about light bulbs—banning Thomas Edison’s invention of the incandescent bulb. As a smart shopper, I can buy them on sale for only 25 cents each. But I can’t find the new curly-cue fluorescent bulbs for less than $2 apiece. I’ve bought some anyway, since they’re said to last eight times longer and save 80% more energy. But I resent Congress’ telling me I’ve got no choice. I’m tempted to be ornery and stock up on the old-school bulbs before they’re banished to consumer prison. (I had the same dismay when the feds banned 99-cent cans of Freon, making us spend a hundred dollars to fix the coolant in our car air-conditioning.)

There’s a cultural factor, too. We lose a little refinement when the piggy-tail lights replace decorative bulbs in candelabras, mirror lights, etc., or we can’t find small incandescent lights for Christmas decorations.

These mandates come from the same folks who brought us the $900 washing machine (up from $400 or so before l federal mandates kicked in) and the pricier 1.6-gallon-per-flush toilet, which wastes water because you have to flush multiple times.

Federal red tape is also the biggest reason why health care is so expensive. For each hour spent with patients, our doctors, nurses and their staff must spend almost another hour doing the paperwork dictated by federal regulations.

No wonder we’re losing jobs to the rest of the world. They don’t drown themselves in silly red tape that makes the price of their products uncompetitive. But we do.

Presidential candidates take note: If you want to woo middle class voters, don’t offer them one-shot rebates or other “economic stimulus” gimmicks. Bring back common-sense, and make life in America affordable again.

--Ernest Istook is a former U.S. Congressman from Oklahoma, and now a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Ten Days Before Iowa

by Ernest Istook

Note: The Iowa Caucuses will occur only ten days after Christmas. So, with apologies to "The Night Before Christmas" by Clement Moore":

'Twas ten days before Iowa as they sought the White House.
Every pollster was stirring, even polling each mouse;
The airwaves were filled with the candidates’ flairs,
In hopes nomination soon would be theirs.

The voters were nestled all snug in their beds,
While politics-free visions danced in their heads.
Iowa was due first, New Hampshire on tap
But for now they just wanted a Christmas Eve nap,

When there on the TV arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my bed to see what was the matter.
The Internet was humming; talk radio was brash.
Mainstream media was spewing its usual trash.

I ignored for the moment the new-fallen snow
Since campaign advertising was a flashier show.
Then what to my tired eyes and ears did appear,
But a miniature sleigh, and eight candidates sincere.

All chasing the driver, so mired in the muck
I knew in a moment they were hounding the lame duck.
More eager than buzzards the candidates they came,
Pursued by reporters who called them by name:

"Now, Clinton! Now, Thompson! Now, Obama and Huckabee!On, Giuliani! On, Edwards! On McCain! And on Romney!”
To the top of the polls, then the bottom they’d fall!
Now bash away! Bash away! Bash away all!

Dumb questions were asked at a hurricane pace,
To be met with one-liners, and attacks face-to-face.
So up to the house-top the wild mob they flew,
With the sleigh full of promises, and whispering campaigns, too.

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
The comebacks and charges, till I’d had quite enough.
As I reached out my hand to turn off the sound,
Down the chimney the whole circus came with a bound.

They were all dressed in mud, from each head to each foot,
Reputations were tarnished with ashes and soot;
Old slogans and charges each flung in attacks
And they looked like some peddlers or maybe some hacks.

Their eyes—oh, how beady! Yet their dimples how merry!
Their cheeks were like roses; their smiles, they were scary.
They smelled like new plastic; they were made up with flair.
And one of them boasted four-hundred-dollar hair.

The stump of a lead one watched fall from his grip,
Another wore a halo, which started to slip.
One looked like a lawyer, as played on the telly.
One shook when she laughed, and denied she was smelly.

Two were movie star handsome, like they came off a shelf.
One was white-haired and somber, a non-jolly old elf.
The other kept saying he’d bring change to all
And each claimed that we should just ignore Ron Paul.

They spoke endless words, and they spun in their work:
Promised to fill every stocking; denied being a jerk.
Many voters decided that they’d just hold their nose
As to who’d get the nod. Then up the chimney all rose.

They sprang to private jets, ignoring Al Gore’s epistle.
They flew off to New Hampshire, showing toughness and gristle.
But I heard them exclaim, ere they flew out of sight,
"Happy Christmas to all, and to all please vote right!"

--Ernest Istook is a former U.S. Congressman from Oklahoma, now a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a radio talk show host.

The "peace dividend" is back

This was published in The Washington Times on Aug. 6, 2007.

Antiwar profiteering?

by Ernest Istook

Some of the politicians who propose withdrawing our troops from Iraq have an ulterior motive. They want to stop spending money on the military so they can start spending it on social programs.

If they succeed, an army of social workers may prove the only force in the world capable of beating America's military. Funding that "army" is a revival of the "peace dividend" doctrine that brought us a hollowed-out military during the Clinton administration.

Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, has claimed first dibs on the money to create a new $6-billion-a-year program against urban poverty "funded by savings from ending the Iraq war." Fellow presidential candidate John Edwards certainly will want a chunk, considering that his central theme is a mega-billion-dollar expansion of the "War on Poverty."

Congress is already on a spending spree. During the first six months of the new majority, the House and the Senate approved almost $200 billion in new spending, mostly to be financed with tax increases, with a little left over to lower the deficit. But raising taxes carries political risks, so tapping a "peace dividend" is an alternative justification for higher spending. It's a tempting target, because the five-year cost of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is officially calculated at $758 billion.

Bill Clinton pushed this argument when running for president, telling a 1991 Georgetown University audience, "With the dwindling Soviet threat, we can cut defense spending by over a third by 1997.... The American people have earned this peace dividend... and they are entitled to have the dividend reinvested in their future."

Today's lengthy troop deployments are one legacy of those cuts. Dropping the Army from 18 divisions to 10 forced each remaining soldier to spend more time overseas and less at home. It would be worse if Congress hadn't insisted on increased defense spending in the late Clinton years, followed by a further buildup under President George W. Bush.

But our military's needs won't end even if we reduce our activity in Iraq. Before the harsh desert environment took its toll on equipment and weapons, our inventory was aging. That's part of the reason the Heritage Foundation and many others urge a permanent defense budget commitment of 4 percent of gross domestic product (up from today's 3.9 percent).

This "4 Percent for Freedom" goal would conflict, obviously, with the social spending buildup leading Democrats want to finance partly by abandoning the mission in Iraq. It also would clash with the need to reduce federal deficits and balance the budget. But we can't allow our security needs to take second place.

The era of big government never ended. Rumors of its death have been greatly exaggerated. Republicans didn't end big government while they ran Congress, and the new Democrat majority certainly won't.

This year alone Congress has ramped up spending. It has tacked $40 billion on to Mr. Bush's appropriations proposal, passed five-year plans to spend an extra $23 billion for homeland security, spent $9 billion more on water resources, another $7 billion on transportation security, and a farm bill adding $17 billion.

A pending expansion of government-paid health care ("for the kids") will cost at least $71 billion over 10 years, enlarging the SCHIP "children's health" plans to provide government-paid health care for households making more than $80,000 per year — 4 times the poverty level. The costs of the Senate-passed energy bill still haven't been calculated — but expect it to push gasoline prices to $3.79 a gallon by next year, according to a Heritage Foundation report.

Tapping into a "peace dividend" will be an attractive political excuse to pay for these and more big-government plans — telling voters it's no pain, only gain. Our national defense could suffer from it.

Mr. Bush's opposition is almost the only political barrier. His political capital is low, but Congress' is even lower. Liberal use of a veto is the only way to combat this liberal big spending.

Ernest Istook is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org). He served 14 years as a U.S. Congressman from Oklahoma.

Illegal Immigrants Departing Because of New State Laws!

Why deport if they depart!?

Now that the Immigration Amnesty Bill has been defeated, state laws to halt jobs and public benefits for illegals are being noticed by those here illegally--and many are giving up and going home!

This underscores the point that many of us have made--that enforcement of the law doesn't mean we must round up and deport all 12- to 20-million people who are here illegally. Many will depart voluntarily.

Watch this video of a news report from Georgia, where their tough state law has kicked in. Let's look for similar news from Colorado, which enacted its crackdown even before Georgia. In other states, like Oklahoma, the law is brand-new and so it's tougher to evaluate the results.

Every state should enact such laws. Of course, beware the ACLU and others, who are planning lawsuits trying to abolish them.

Legal Services

If you have a legal matter to discuss with Ernest, you can reach him at (405) 659-6500, or via email to istooklaw@gmail.com.Ernest Istook has over 30 years of legal experience, and is licensed to practice in the State of Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court, and federal courts.

Anti-Communism, Pro-Immigration Day for Bush

America's memorial to an estimated 100-million murdered by Communist regimes will be dedicated Tuesday in Washington, D.C.

President Bush will be the featured guest at the event unveiling a bronze statue modeled after the Tiananman Square imitation of America's Statue of Liberty.

Afterwards, Bush heads to lunch with Republican Senators, having boasted this weekend that he can bring enough of them around to support the immigration bill he wants, as drafted by Senators Ted Kennedy, John McCain, and others from each party.

As the website for the Victims of Communism Memorial describes:

It is a great moral failing for a free society to misunderstand the extent of Communism's atrocities. While the horrors of Nazism are well known, who knows that the Soviet Union murdered 20 million people? Who knows that China's dictators have slaughtered an estimated 60 million? Who knows that the Communist holocaust has exacted a death toll surpassing that of all of the wars of the 20th century combined?

Those attending the event will be attentive to whether the efforts of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II are highlighted for their labors in defeating Soviet and European Communism. And it will noted if Bush uses the occasion to try to create some parallels between that fight and his current focus on immigration.

Undaunted Bush Still Pushes Immigration Bill

George W. Bush is facing another bad week, with no light at the end of the tunnel.

President Bush isn't giving up on his support for the immigration bill that was scuttled in the Senate this week. He plans a lunch next week with Republicans in the U.S. Senate, trying to persuade them to revive the bill and pass it.

It's unlikely he'll win over any of the opposing Senators, but Bush's tenacity guarantees that his support for the unpopular amnesty will remain in next week's headlines--and that's not good for the White House in the eyes of the American people. Nor is the fact that Sen. Ted Kennedy says about the bill, "We're coming back."

Also next week, the U.S. House is expected to begin passing appropriations bills that significantly exceed the President's budget. Although he's pledged a veto of such bills, it's possible that veto-proof margins will support the bills, which include funding for veterans' health care.

Meantime, more Republicans continue to pile on George W. Bush. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told the American Enterprise Institute on Friday that Republicans will lose in 2008 if their candidate is seen as someone who will continue the Bush Presidency.

As Associated Press reports about Gingrich:

He has roundly criticized the Bush administration in recent interviews, describing the White House as dysfunctional and saying the president has driven the party into collapse. While he refrained from direct criticism Friday, he
cited failures in Iraq, border security and the response to Hurricane Katrina as
signs of a broken government.

His comments come just days after a Republican presidential debate in
which GOP candidates criticized Bush over his handling of the Iraq war, his
diplomatic style and his approach to immigration.

Good News Comes in Three's?

At about the same time Thursday evening came two sets of good news:

1. Senate leader Harry Reid announced that the Kennedy-Bush-McCain immigration bill was being pulled from the Senate floor (although it could return at some future date, just like Godzilla).
2. The judge in the Paris Hilton case ordered her back to court Friday morning to see about re-jailing her, and possibly holding in contempt the L.A. Sheriff who released her early despite the judge's original orders.

After all, if illegal immigrants won't get amnesty, then why should Paris Hilton?!!,

They say that good news often comes in three's, so what could be next?

Bush the Loser at GOP Debate

All the candidates had their spin doctors ready to proclaim their man the winner of Tuesday night's debate in New Hampshire. But regardless of who won, the loser was clearly President George W. Bush.

Support of Bush from his own party faithful continues to unravel, as outlined recently by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan.

The Associated Press picked up on how freely the GOP candidates distanced themselves from the President. Iraq and immigration were the central themes, with the Iraqi criticism centering on what happened after the fall of Saddam Hussein rather than on the decision to invade. The AP also labelled it "startling criticism".

FOX News announced "Republican White House Hopefuls Distance Themselves From Bush".

National Public Radio proclaimed that Bush was "the biggest issue of the night." The Washington Times writes that Bush "took a bruising".

It was noted in the Arab world, where one article concluded that the GOP contenders all felt "their best chance comes by distancing themselves from him [Bush]."

Debate sponsor CNN reported, "Republican presidential candidates directed as much of their firepower at President Bush as they did at each other." (The others also freely criticized Sen. John McCain for being a principal supporter of the pending immigration "reform" bill, which Giulani labelled "a typical Washington mess.")

Congressman Tom Tancredo even told the audience that since Bush had disinvited him from the White House, that if elected he would reciprocate by telling Bush "not to darken the doorstep" of the White House.

Bush-bashing was expected and frequent at the Democratic candidates' debate, but when it happened at the Republican debate, that was news. The Dixie Chicks must have loved it.

Key Analysts Predict Hillary vs. Mitt

Two of Washington's premier election analysts made a prediction this weekend: It'll be Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Gov. Mitt Romney facing off in November of 2008.

Speaking at a major Michigan political gathering, Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg agreed on the matchup, and that national trends seem to favor the Democrat's chances.

Cook said Clinton’s campaign has “Prussian efficiency,” likened it to Richard Nixon’s campaign in 1972 and said hers is “more organized than any Democratic campaign that I’ve ever seen.” Cook says 46 to 48 percent of Americans “won’t vote for her no matter what," but he says she's walking that thin line well because, "She’s cautious and she doesn’t make mistakes.”

Rothenberg, handicapping the GOP race, said “Normally, you’d look for the oldest white guy in the race.” But McCain has lost his outside status, Rudy Giuliani is “in the wrong party,” (“He’s pro adultery in a party that is not officially pro adultery,” he quipped) and Mitt Romney “oozes leadership but has multiple positions on issues like abortion” that are important to GOP voters in Iowa. Fred Thompson is in the race, Rothenberg said, “because the media needs a new name. He’s a vessel each of you can pour your hopes and dreams into, the Republican Barack Obama.”

The pair suggested that history favors a Democrat winning in 2008 because only once since World War II has a party had three straight White House terms--when George Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan.

The wild card this year, they said, may be New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, if he indeed makes a third-party bid where he spends a billion dollars of his own money. (See my May 15th blog about this.)

'Consensus' on Global Climate Change? A Hoax!

Trying to silence the opposition (Take that, First Amendment!!), Al Gore and friends keep claiming that scientific consensus supports them on man-caused global warming. They push the media to proclaim that "the debate is over", so dissenting voices must be ignored.

Oh, really?

Canadian writer Lawrence Solomon began six months ago to check the credentials of every scientist who publicly spoke out against Al Gore's alarmism.

His conclusion?

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction.

What about the claims of Al Gore and the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that 2,000-2,500 top scientists support their position? The UN group won't even release their names! Says Solomon:

I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007." . . . Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.

You can read Solomon's latest full article here.

And for a great analysis of the truth behind the hype, check out this article at The Heritage Foundation's www.insider.org, "Global Warming: A Guide to the Hype."

Bush Accused of Wrecking GOP and Conservatism

Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan has a devastating critique of President George W. Bush. Beyond abandoning the conservative cause, she accuses Bush of creating a wrecking ball White House that is destroying the governing conservative coalition of the Republican Party.

Her comments are an absolute "must read".

The last straw, she writes, is the Bush accusation that it's unpatriotic to oppose his immigration plan:

"The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism.""

Noonan concludes:

"Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.""

Connect the dots between Noonan's column and the new Washington Times report that donations to the Republican National Committee from its small-donor core base are dropping by 40% this year--and its whole telemarketing staff has been let go (after suffering scorched ears from hearing angry comments about immigration whenever they dialed for dollars).

This may be the start of a dam bursting, with a wholesale abandonment of the Bush White House by many of its supporters and apologists.

Thompson to the Rescue?

All over the news today is the "unofficial" confirmation--Former Senator Fred Thompson will jump into the Presidential race on the Republican side. July 4th is the possible date for becoming "official"--but that's just a tactic to assure continuing media attention.

To conservatives who have been asking, "Is there anybody else?", Thompson has had the advantage of being viewed from a distance. Don't most of us look better at a distance than up-close? One media outlet, Congressional Quarterly, has already posted a summary of Thompson's U.S. Senate voting record. Another has posted his history as a lobbyist. Now that he's evidently made a decision, there'll be a rush to examine his record and history.

Meantime, another conservative icon, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, will be watching Thompson's campaign rollout, looking for useful lessons in case Gingrich joins the fray, possibly in September.

Pundits love this, because it provides a multitude of new angles for making news by voicing their speculations (which many prefer to actual hard news), such as:

• Will this help Giulani by further splitting the conservative vote? Or hurt him by countering one celebrity with another?
• Surely it can't help McCain by putting one of his good buddies up against him!
• Romney has banked on conservatives who cannot stand Giulani or McCain flocking to him, but now those voters have another option. On the other hand, Romney looks more like a Hollywood star than the real-thing Thompson!
• Will social conservatives truly rally around him? After all, Dr. James Dobson already questioned Thompson's faith!

And get this--A former girlfriend of the former Senator, country singer Lorrie Morgan, has already announced her support for Thompson. (No, I'm not making this up!)

Be prepared for lots of spin talk about Thompson's being in the mold of Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger, thanks to his TV and movie work. But which is it? Reagan or the Governator? Those two have very different politics!

The only sure thing is that the Thompson move creates a new job opening: Who wants to play the D.A. now on NBC's "Law and Order"? Maybe one of the many who have recently departed the U.S. Justice Department?

Is It Really That Bad? Yes!

Thanks to bloggers, the immigration "compromise" proposal is available online in a version upon which you can post your comments. It disastrous consequences have conservatives up in arms.

The power of the blogosphere over the weekend has collectively dissected the draft bill--a task the "mainstream media" couldn't do in two weeks!

The Heritage Foundation has also posted the full text of the draft bill online.

As Mark Steyn writes:

"Great news! Being illegal is now perfectly legal! Just for being one of the circa 12 million people who shouldn't be here, you can now be here indefinitely! If you were living and working in America illegally before Jan. 1, 2007, you're now entitled to one of the new Z-1 "probationary" visas. And your parents and spouses are entitled to one of the new Z-2 visas, and your children to the new Z-3 visas."

That's the travesty of the "non-amnesty" Z visas! As Brian Darling of The Heritage Foundation writes about the "GOP Sellout":

"These "Z Visa" holders can stay in the "Z" status indefinitely, which means they never have to pursue "a pathway to citizenship." They also would be able to get Social Security numbers and benefit from some welfare programs. Shockingly, there is no cap on the numbers of amnesty recipients in the draft language. "

Denying that this bill is amnesty is the worst distortion of the English language since ebonics and Bill Clinton's inability to understand what "is" is!

Interestingly, most public wrath is falling upon Republican sponsors, even though they are outnumbered by Democrat supporters. That's because many outraged Americans at least had higher expectations that Republicans would resist rather than cave-in.

Many Democrats in Congress, are holding back because--incredibly--they think the bill isn't liberal enough!

Even if this bill never becomes law, it could be the final nail in the coffin for GOP prospects of reclaiming Congress in 2008.

Ironically, a stronger Democrat majority and a Democrat President would almost certainly guarantee that an even worse version would then be enacted. But so long as the GOP's high-profile leaders in Congress fail to show fighting spirit on this issue (including taking the White House directly to task), much of the Republican base feels they must choose between rebellion and disillusioned apathy--and too many will choose apathy.

The Beginning of The End?

The American people's faith in Washington will now plummet from its already low level. Regardless of how the "imigration compromise" may be revised, or whether it passes the Congress, the announcement of the amnesty deal clinches the argument that political leaders "just don't get it."

The biggest question now is whether grassroots Americans will turn more to angry activism or to disengaged hopeless cynicism.

Some businesses may like the proposed deal, but few everyday Americans will. Any plan that creates a "Z Visa" or anything else that lets millions of illegals stay is amnesty. Period.

As bad as the announcement was, it can get worse. Democrat leaders are already harping that it needs to be liberalized more.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will require 70 House Republicans to promise support before she would bring the bill to a vote in the House. Will 70 GOP members do so??

Key components of the immigration plan, as described by Senator Ted Kennedy:

• All illegal immigrants who arrived before Jan. 1, 2007, could stay and work after paying a $1,500 fee, passing a criminal background check, and showing a strong work record.
• They would also have to pay a fine of $5,000.
• After eight years, they could apply for a green card.
• A new visa category would be created for parents of U.S. citizens, allowing them to visit for up to 100 days per year.
• A temporary-worker program would allow 400,000 immigrant workers to enter on two-year visas, after which they would have to return home for a year before reapplying. The visas could be renewed up to three times.
• A new point system would add factors for green-card eligibility to lessen the "chain migration" of family members.
• The Border Patrol and interior enforcement would be expanded, and a new security perimeter would be created. Such border enforcement provisions would have to be implemented before immigrant-rights measures take effect.
  

Do As I Say, Not As I . . .

Is Democratic majority doing what they condemned Republicans for?

Politico reports that "Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power. "So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).

"On Wednesday, Democrats suggested changing the House rules to limit the minority's right to offer motions to recommit bills back to committee -- violating a protection that has been in place since 1822."

Silencing the Minority

UPDATE: Roll Call has a detailed look at what happened, why, how Republicans delayed the plan by going nuclear, and what might occur next.

Drudge Reports a new liberal effort to muzzle dissent has prompted Republicans on the floor of the U.S. House to launch parliamentary delaying tactics in protest.

Since 1822, a cherished right of any minority party has been the ability to offer a "Motion to Recommit" before a bill can be presented for final passage in the House. Both parties have used it as a tool to propose amendments that totally change a bill, often in ways that are very embarrassing to the majority party.

Reports say Speaker Pelosi plans to end that minority right or to restrict severely the content of any Motion to Recommit. Crying foul, Republicans are using parliamentary tactics to slow things to a crawl on the floor of the House. They also are reminding the world that Democrats (including Pelosi), claimed the GOP had abused them as a minority, but vowed they would be "different" by protecting minority rights.

Being in the majority isn't enough for liberals. Rather than just defeating the opposition they want to silence them, too:

xThey muzzle pro-life speakers at the Democratic National Convention
xThey limit free speech with suppressive campaign finance laws
xThey stifle criticism of their global warming claims
xThey want to shut up the voices of talk radio
xAnd now they want to muffle every idea in Congress except their own.

Big Billions Boost Bloomberg?

NYC Mayor Considers Spending $1-Billion of Own Money!

He says he's not "planning" to run for President, but evidently he's preparing just the same.

With a personal wealth estimated at $5.5-billion, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is rounding up those who pieced-together Ross Perot's third-party run for President, reports the Washington Times, outlining how behind-the scenes arrangements are underway so all will be ready if Bloomberg decides to go for it--with plans to use $1-billion of his own money.

That means major advantages for Bloomberg:

=No time spent raising money,
=So he can wait months before declaring.
=He can brag he's not beholden to any donors or special interests (a major appeal to disenchanted voters).
=His wealth lets him massively outspend all of the other candidates combined, and
=Without having to compete for a party nomination.

The wealthiest of the other candidates, Mitt Romney, may have personal wealth of around $250-million--less than 5% of Bloomberg's $5.5-billion+ fortune. Depending on when he starts, a $1-billion Bloomberg commitment would let him spend $2-to-3-million each day between now and November 2008.

Bloomberg's well-paid advisers obviously are stressing how the other GOP contenders haven't caught fire. But Bloomberg isn't the hero that conservative voters are looking for: he's very much a social liberal, regardless of what he might promise on fiscal issues. Because he would bypass the primaries by running as an independent/third-party, he will disregard the GOP's social conservatives, threatening to split the GOP base.

What a New York City soap opera! Hillary vs. Rudy vs. Bloomberg!?

aWall Street Journal analyze's Bloomberg's potential.

aWashington Times reports Bloomberg is laying the groundwork to run.

aForbes ranks Bloomberg as the 34th richest person in America. (Ross Perot is #40.)

aA look at what's behind Bloomberg's fortune (with an estimate that it may be $13-billion, not "only" $5.5-billion.

aThe company website behind his wealth: www.bloomberg.com

Bush on Roller-Coaster with GOP?

The trickle of veto threats by the White House is becoming a steady stream, even as the GOP's willingness to uphold such vetoes becomes more uncertain.

Friday's letter from OMB Director Rob Portman is a shot-across-the-bow to Congressional big spenders. The letter warns that if appropriations bills exceed Bush's budget (which is tens of billions lower than Congress' proposed budget), then the spending bills will be vetoed.

Even as Democrats predictably scoffed at the veto threat, there was a silence from Republican leaders about whether they would uphold vetoes based on the amount of spending. So far, his party has hung with Bush to keep troop-pullout deadlines out of bills, but 80 Republicans just last week voted to spend $7-billion extra for "emergency" assistance to agriculture, despite an explicit veto threat on that bill. Their desertions helped the bill to pass by a veto-proof margin.

When you couple this with last week's contentious White House visit by moderate Republicans, it's clear that everyone's resolve is being tested. One of the clear messages from voters in the 2006 election was that Congress needs more spending discipline. Even if most GOP Senators and Congressmen agree with Bush, it doesn't take very many Republican Members deserting on spending discipline to reinforce the disillusionment of the GOP base. That would be a major barrier to GOP efforts to recapture Congress.