Star-Crossed Biofuel Lovers Overcome by Gasses

Years ago, the most popular ice-breaker line when a couple first met was, “So, do you come around here often?” As astrology developed into a cottage industry, awkward moments were made less excruciating when couples began asking, “So, what’s your sign?” For today’s romantics, a generation of global warming/climate change lemmings, the new ice-breaker (literally) seems to be, “So, can you believe this global warming? What are you doing to reduce greenhouse gasses?” My eco-pulse has quickened by merely writing a brief description of such an encounter!

Not only is that question a unique conversation starter, it also demonstrates a keen awareness of the hip sociopolitical phenomenon sweeping the globe. The War on Terror or Operation Iraqi Freedom are mere bylines compared to what many believe is the most pressing story of our time. The following headlines from today’s news coverage are only a small sampling of the countless global warming/climate change stories dominating global media outlets each day:

“Global Majority Wants Action on Climate Change.”
“Global Warming Leaves Russians Cold.”
“UN Chief Urges Immediate Climate Action.”
“Schwarzenegger Urges UN to Move on Climate Change.”
“Rising Seas Threaten US Historical Sites.”

Could anything send a more convincing message of responsibility and commitment to a prospective “soul mate” than passionately expressing a lifelong dedication to reducing one’s greenhouse gas emissions? Any woman will embrace a man’s efforts to control his gaseous emissions of any kind, but particularly those pesky greenhouse gasses that are allegedly going to be the death of us all one day. To global warming devotees, bulging biceps or bounteous beauty take a back seat to biofuel usage as desired mate traits.

Yet what will happen to the star-crossed eco-lovers when they learn that a trait once held as a treasured virtue is actually a vice? Such love spell breaking news appeared yesterday in an article by Times (London) reporter Lewis Smith titled, “Study: Biofuels May Produce More Greenhouse Gas than Oil.” The thump you would have heard, if more media outlets had published the story, was the sound of millions of collective environmentalist jaws hitting the floors of their hybrid vehicles as they realized how lovingly and blindly they had embraced biofuels that now appear to be uglier than their declared nemesis, big oil. As our farmers rapidly convert their fields to accommodate the burgeoning ethanol industry rather than food production while millions starve in agriculture-poor African nations, the scientific revelation that ethanol and rapeseed biofuels produce high levels of nitrous oxide should be particularly disheartening to ethanol-enchanted environmentalists.

It’s not as if the study was part of a global conspiracy by big oil to further its allegedly insidious interests. The study was a collaborative effort of British, American, and German researchers, one of which was a Nobel Prize-winning expert on ozone. Before you buy a hybrid vehicle or applaud your congressman for working to expand ethanol production as a means to save the world from global warming catastrophe, pause a moment and examine what renowned scientists, rather than Alarmist Al Gore, discovered about those bewitching biofuels (bold emphasis added by Capital Cloak):

A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions may be contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests.

Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and corn have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.

Other biofuels, especially those likely to see greater use over the next decade, performed better than fossil fuels, but the study raises serious questions about some of the most commonly produced varieties.

Rapeseed and corn biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 percent and 50 percent more greenhouse gases, respectively, than fossil fuels.

The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realized.

…The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.

"One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions," said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland and one of the researchers.

Corn for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the U.S., where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed (one variety of which is canola), which accounts for 80 percent of biofuel production.

"The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto," Smith told Chemistry World magazine.
…But they concluded that the biofuels "can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2O [nitrous oxide] emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings."

The research is published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, where it has been placed for open review.

The research team consisted of scientists from Britain, the U.S. and Germany, and included Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone.

…Dr. Dave Reay, also of the University of Edinburgh, used the findings to calculate that with the U.S. Senate aiming to increase corn-ethanol production sevenfold by 2022, greenhouse-gas emissions from transportation will rise by 6 percent.

In their rush to gain the political favor of environmentalists, congressmen are tip-toeing through and around a growing body of expert scientific research that is debunking the hysteria over greenhouse gasses almost as fast as Al Gore produces them jetting around in gas guzzling private aircraft or keeping cool in his palatial homes.

Devotion tends to blind one to the faults of his or her beloved. Environmentalists enjoyed an energetic elopement with ethanol and other plant-derivative biofuels. Now that the flaws of their betrothed have been exposed by a Nobel Prize winner and an international team of environmental experts, the relationship they so cherished with biofuels may soon wind up wrecked on the rocky shoals of reality. The honeymoon with ethanol has led only to a mournful rendition of “Love on the Rocks.” Neil Diamond proved prophetic with his second line, “Ain’t no surprise.”

Technorati Tags:
Biofuels, Ethanol, Rapeseed, Greenhouse Gasses, Global Warming, Climate Change, Al Gore, Nitrous Oxide, Greenhouse Emissions

Thompson and Gore Share Tennessee Waltz

Al Gore and Fred Thompson have more in common than their Tennessee roots and international fame. Despite holding as close to diametrically opposed views as one could expect to find in the political realm, Thompson and Gore share an understanding of the most influential power in American politics in the twenty-first century: the media, liberal and conservative alike. Beyond merely recognizing that media shapes perceptions of politicians and political office seekers, the Tennessee duo dance a graceful waltz around traditional media outlets. Likewise, both count on their media savvy to convey their shared, albeit very different, passions for swaying public opinion.

There has been much ado in the media about Fred Thompson's decision to eschew this Wednesday's GOP New Hampshire debate hosted by Fox News in favor of airing his first campaign ad during the debate and appearing on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno later that evening. Critics of Thompson's strategy offer trumped up charges that Thompson is impugning the dignity of presidential politics by announcing his candidacy on the "Tonight Show" rather than the tried and true press conference method. Others, including his competitors, fault him for not taking the candidate debates seriously and joining them in their seemingly bi-weekly grillings from various media personalities "moderating" the debates. Such criticisms merely reveal the petty jealousies of media outlets who desire Thompson's stage presence for its inherent ratings draw, as well as the envy of his GOP rivals who work much harder, spend more money, and shake more hands than Thompson but unlike him cannot afford to skip the circuses the debates have become without suffering in opinion polls of potential voters.

Thompson is gambling that choreographed debates with candidates given only enough time for canned answers is no way to get his message across to today's voters. Those who have watched the previous GOP candidate debates would be hard pressed to argue that candidates are afforded any real opportunity to interact with potential voters during such events. The candidates do not debate each other directly, which would give voters entertainment and political substance, and until candidate debates are in fact debates, Thompson's choice to sit out these dances appears increasingly sensible.

Thompson and Gore are revolutionizing presidential campaigning and political issue lobbying, respectively, while media outlets and political opponents cry foul. Whatever one thinks of Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth, it is difficult to deny that using film as his communication medium for spreading the alarmist view of global warming effectively circumvented the traditional political lobbying strategy of persuading newspaper editors or television network on-air news personalities to take his pet issue seriously. Al Gore ran an end run around the traditional news media and took his message directly to audiences in forums, universities, high school classrooms, and living rooms around the world. He was eager to communicate his global warming opinions without the need for media middlemen to analyze his message and then explain it to their viewers or readers. People could simply watch his film and choose whether to accept it as fact or fiction.

Of course, media outlets became willing accomplices in spreading Gore's message, touting it so effectively that Academy Awards were all but guaranteed and media adulation flowed, perhaps as small consolation prizes for narrowly missing out on the brass ring in the 2000 presidential election. So thorough was Gore's manipulation of the media to spread a personal message that fellow Tennessean Thompson now appears to be following Gore's lead in bypassing media events such as Wednesday's GOP debate solely to keep his message from passing through the filters of mainstream media before it reaches potential voters. The following quotes illustrate the similarity in thinking and media strategy between Gore and Thompson. First, Al Gore from an interview with Vanity Fair:

Gore tells Peretz that he does believe that some of his words were distorted and that certain major reporters and outlets were often unfair, and admits that the tendency of the press to twist his words encumbered his ability to speak freely. “I tried not to let it [affect my behavior],” Gore tells Peretz. “But if you know that day after day the filter is going to be so distorted, inevitably that has an impact on the kinds of messages that you try and force through the filter. Anything that involves subtlety or involves trusting the reporters in their good sense and sense of fairness in interpretation, you’re just not going to take a risk with something that could be easily distorted and used against you.”

Your first reaction to Gore's comments to Vanity Fair will likely be to chuckle at the accusation that the New York Times and Washington Post were somehow out to sink Gore's chances for winning the White House in 2000. The illogic of such a conspiracy theory is remarkable; is Gore implying that those two bastions of media liberalism would have preferred and worked toward a George W. Bush victory in that election? Having addressed that absurdity we can return to the similarities between Gore's and Thompson's media awareness. Compare Fred Thompson's strategy for the 2008 election with Gore's concerns about the media filter as cited above:

The face time with Leno and the debate ad on Fox News Channel are the coquettish moves of a candidate who has already proven his aptitude using the media, from television to the Internet. While his main rivals—Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain—parry debate questions, Thompson will pretty much control his own message.

Thompson aides want as many eyes on the Web video as possible. The debate ad and a follow-up commercial on Thursday will instruct viewers to go online and get their undiluted message straight from the candidate.

"We think one of the strongest weapons this campaign has is Fred Thompson's ability to connect directly with the public," said Todd Harris, Thompson's communications director. "We want to drive as much traffic as possible to the Web site."

Gore clearly believes now that media outlets, even ones with a known liberal bent, lampooned him and affected voter perceptions of him as a presidential candidate in 2000. He believes it was "scary" that the media had such power. A politically wiser Gore, now with experience in producing and distributing his own media products and political message, understands the need to avoid the media filter and communicate directly with voters. Likewise, Thompson is effectively using a variety of media tools to share his views with voters without news reporters distorting his intended message.

This concept is similar to a phenomenon that occurs in the intelligence community; analysts read raw intelligence reports, determine what they think the intelligence means, and then distill it into analytical reports for policy makers who depend on analysts to explain what they are reading. If policy makers had the time or inclination to receive raw intelligence directly from field operatives and make up their own minds as to what the intelligence indicated, their policy decisions might be markedly different. Voters, like policy makers, like to have news and issues wrapped neatly in eye-pleasing packages and rely almost exclusively on middle-men, reporters or editors, to explain the significance of the news they are reading or watching. We seem to have lost our individual capacity to think, to reason, and to form our own opinions without a famous media personality telling us how we should think about the issues. It is truly group think run amok.

Gore and Thompson, though doing it for seemingly different motives, are breaking new ground and performing what may become an important service to American politics by taking their messages directly to their intended audiences. Rather than criticize Thompson for not joining his competitors in bowing before the media at CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC hosted debates, voters and pundits should praise him for ignoring the natural inclination to cozy up to news outlets that, as they did to Gore in 2000, will surely turn and bite him on whatever Achilles' Heel they can expose.

Fred Thompson Al Gore Presidential Candidates 2008 Campaign New Hampshire GOP Debate Media Influence

Blowing Down Gore's House of Straw Polls

Only in America can only thirty-five people gather in a living room to talk politics, cast a vote for their favorite candidates, and find the results of their tiny get-together linked to as a major story on the Drudge Report, a news site that attracts around 14.5 million hits per day. Matt Drudge is a master of titillating or misleading headlines, and Wednesday's story link "Gore Wins Democratic Straw Poll in Arizona" was a good example of Drudge's subtlety. Everything in the headline was technically true. Al Gore did in fact win a straw poll in Arizona. The Drudge headline, however, was apparently selected to create the impression among potential readers that Al Gore won a substantive political victory in a statewide Democratic straw poll in Arizona, when in reality his straw poll victory was neither statewide nor substantive. Forty Democrats from the Scottsdale area gathering in a living room to vote in a straw poll is hardly a sweeping political movement worthy of international media attention, nor can any credible political observer extrapolate from it the eventual outcome of the Arizona Democratic primaries. But don't tell that to Matt Drudge, whose headline gave Gore credibility where none was merited.

The epic tale of Gore's Lilliputian victory in a Scottsdale living room straw poll as championed by Drudge appeared in the Arizona Republic, and the Republic clearly made every effort to report the straw poll results as a genuine story with deep political ramifications not only for Arizona Democrats, but for the national race for the party's nomination as well. However, a careful reading of the article revealed that only thirty-five of the forty Democrats who showed up for the straw poll actually paid the $20 fee to obtain a ballot and vote. Votes for "first choice" and "popularity" were later tallied accurately (no hanging chads in the Southwest), and unannounced but quietly salivating at the prospect candidate Al Gore won the "first choice" vote with 51 percent followed in a distant second place by John Edwards with 17 percent of votes cast. These numbers may seem meaningless, but as they say in TV infomercials, "but wait, there's more!"

We rarely associate the words "Democratic votes" and "calculator" with the words "fun" or "interesting," yet the application of a calculator to the Scottsdale straw poll results generates more entertainment than one would initially think. For example, it was fascinating that Democrats, who have whined for 7 years that the popular vote should count more than electoral votes or percentages reported the Scottsdale straw poll results in, of course, percentages only. No raw vote count totals were provided in the Republic news report. Why? Perhaps because the media can take insignificant poll results and make them sound as if the participants in the poll represented a much larger segment of the overall population than they really did. A handy calculator helps illustrate how this is achieved.

The Arizona Republic reported the vote count as follows:

When tallying the votes, the local party leaders considered both the "first choice" of voters and the "popularity" of candidates.

The popularity vote was important because it showed who voters would chose if Gore does not run.

Gore won the first choice by 51 percent, followed by Edwards with 17 percent, national front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton with 14 percent, Sen. Barack Obama by 9 percent, Sen. Joe Biden by 6 percent and Rep. Dennis Kucinich by 3 percent.

Edwards won the popularity vote by 29 percent, followed by Gore with 26 percent, Obama with 19 percent, Clinton with 14 percent, Kucinich with 6 percent, Biden with 4 percent and Richardson with 2 percent.

All those double-digit percentages certainly helped readers forget that only 35 people actually participated in this vote. Thus, Al Gore's 51 percent, which when converted to actual votes signified that he was the first choice of a whopping 17.85 actual voters in an Arizona living room, seems much less impressive than merely reporting that he garnered 50 percent of an Arizona straw poll. Perhaps if they find that hanging chad or a pregnant chad gives birth they will find the other 0.15 of a vote.

Likewise, Edwards' second place finish with 17 percent converts to only 5.95 actual votes. However, the big mystery was Bill Richardson, who as Governor of New Mexico and a fellow southwest Democrat, only polled 2 percent, which when converted is only 0.7 of a vote. By reporting Richardson's straw poll showing in percentages rather than vote count, the Arizona Republic performed a small act of sympathetic kindness. When your party holds a straw poll in a neighboring state and you receive only seven-tenths of a vote, it may be finally time to "redeploy" and wait for other career options than the presidency.

Despite a valiant reporting effort by the Arizona Republic and international recognition courtesy of a Drudge Report link, a community straw poll involving thirty-five votes simply could not be taken seriously, especially when compared to the well-organized statewide Republican straw poll held in Iowa and won by Mitt Romney. Romney's opponents and snide media pundits were quick to minimize the perceived importance of Romney's decisive victory in the Iowa straw poll, but perhaps the irrelevance of the Scottsdale Democratic straw poll will serve as a contrast that will bring Romney's success in a larger poll more sharply into focus.

The time fast approaches when Al Gore's performance in straw polls and primaries will signify something substantial and ominous in the realm of electoral politics. The Scottsdale straw poll was not the long-awaited sign of the Al Gore apocalypse upon us. The so-called "Democratic straw poll in Arizona" merely gave one homeowner and thirty-four members of her community a few moments to bask in the global warming of a media spotlight.

Technorati Tags: Al Gore Straw Poll Arizona Democrats Arizona Republic Drudge Report Matt Drudge Presidential Candidates Scottsdale Bill Richardson John Edwards Poll Results

Bush is Warming Whimp Next to Klaus

It is rare for a the president of a nation to write a guest column for a newspaper. It is even rarer for a president to openly challenge, in an international publication, the prevailing politically correct view of a controversial issue that appears to be dictating the policies and actions of many governments worldwide. Yet perhaps because an issue is in fact dictating in a manner that reminds Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus of another oppressive form of public thought control, communism, he chose to warn the world of the dangers of climate change hysteria. President Bush relishes his image as a “cowboy” president, a man who talks tough, talks straight, and never runs from a fight, but when it comes to confronting the increasingly alarmist radical political movement that surrounds “global warming,” President Bush is no match for President Klaus. While President Bush attends summits and pays verbal homage to man’s contributions to global warming, President Klaus adopted the true cowboy swagger and spoke his mind about climate change and the flawed science behind this hysterical phenomenon.

In a guest opinion column in the Financial Times last week, President Klaus offered the following view of global warming, quoted here in part:

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

…Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

…I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:
■Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
■Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
■Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
■Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
■Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour
■Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction
■Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

President Klaus in this column demonstrated courage and common sense to a degree that is lacking, on this issue of global warming, in the leaders of both American political parties. Democrats embrace global warming like lemmings, prepared to follow the pied-piper of the day, Al Gore, off the environmental cliff without considering any of the voluminous contradictory evidence. Republicans, including the President and Newt Gingrich, concur that it is politically inadvisable to question the existence of global warming as a man-made phenomenon and thus are out on the speaking stump proposing solutions for a problem many scientists do not believe is a problem at all. A Republican who bows at the altar of global warming should be sacrificed upon it when voters choose the Party’s nominee for 2008. Blindly following any form of hysteria is a sign of poor judgment that is not worthy of one who would lead the strongest of the world’s free nations.

The fall of communism in Eastern Europe provided the free world with an influx of people starving for liberties and thirsting for freedom, and they, better than many unappreciative and apathetic Americans, recognize threats and intrusions on freedom. President Klaus sees such danger in the global warming movement. The world tends to ignore lone voices in the wilderness, but it would do so at its peril if it chooses to set aside the advice of Vaclav Klaus, a true straight-talking president.

Technorati:
Vaclav Klaus Global Warming Czech Republic Climate Change Al Gore Hysteria Communism Environmentalists

Gore's Denials Are Evidence He Will Run

Al Gore will officially become a candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination. He just hasn’t admitted it to himself yet. Although he attempts to deny to the media that he intends to run, his denials themselves actually provide the best evidence that he will in fact seek the presidency again.

Experienced interviewers/interrogators will recognize certain patterns in Gore’s responses to questions about his potential candidacy, patterns consistent with attempts to deceive himself and the interviewer. There are noticeable similarities between Al Gore’s denials of presidential ambition and standard denials of involvement by criminals undergoing law enforcement or intelligence interrogation.

For example, many murderers, when asked during interrogations if they killed the victims, offer the following responses: “I could never do something like that” or “I loved her, how could I hurt her?” While these responses give an outward impression of denial, when examined closely they actually contain no denial of guilt and reveal an avoidance of the actual question. Such answers also demonstrate the inability of the suspect to admit to himself that not only was he capable of murder, but he actually went through with it when the opportunity presented itself. In the minds of many who have murdered or committed violent crimes, there remains the faint hope that what happened did not really happen and that they must be innocent because they have no explanation how they could be involved in something so grave. They literally attempt to convince themselves with internal arguments such as, “that couldn’t have been me, I’m not that kind of person, I would never do that.” Yet these are merely conscious deflections from the unconscious knowledge of what they have done. The conscious cannot admit what the unconscious knows to be true, and the conflict is expressed in the attempted denial that contains a belief about them rather than an admission of what actually occurred.

Now, Al Gore is not a murderer or criminal (although there was that pesky issue of selling military and nuclear technology to China), but his responses when asked if he will enter the presidential campaign contain most elements of deception and denial commonly encountered by law enforcement and intelligence interrogators. In a mere two sentences, Al Gore's words confirmed for me that he fully intends to run but refuses to admit to himself or the media that he cravenly harbors that ambition. In an interview with ABC News this week, Gore was asked the question everyone wants answered: will he run for president in 2008? Gore’s response follows:

Gore underscored in the interview that he is "not a candidate," and that he is "not looking for a set of circumstances that would open the door for me to get back into politics. I'm really not."

But he does leave some wiggle room for the possibility of running in 2008. "Look, we're a year and half away from this election," he said, "[I] see no need to say, 'OK. I'm not ever going to even think about that in the future.'”

As the ABC headline provided by Gore proclaimed, “I Am Not a Candidate.” That was Gore’s initial response when asked if he was running in 2008. While this gives the impression of a denial, it is not a denial but is instead a deflection. In this response Gore is stating a truth: he is currently not a declared candidate. This does not answer the question as to whether he intends to become a candidate. By answering in this fashion, Gore clearly wants to give the impression that he does not intend to seek the presidency but his conscious cannot admit what the unconscious knows to be true: he has already made plans to run.

Gore’s expanded response is even more revealing. He claimed that he is not actively looking for exactly the right circumstances that would force his run for the presidency, such as adulation and begging from his party. He even reinforced this claim by adding “I’m really not.” This statement also bears some resemblance to a denial, but it is not a denial. It demonstrated that Gore cannot consciously admit to himself that he would hungrily seek the presidency if the door appeared open to him. He may not be looking for the open door, but he will walk through it when he comes to it on his own or his party beckons him toward it. “I’m really not” simply means “I really am, but admitting that would mean I am ambitious and power hungry, and I cannot admit that to myself or the media yet. Not until the door is open.”

He has made similar comments in the media. To Time Magazine, Gore stated:

…that he "has fallen out of love with politics" and that he was unlikely to run.

"I haven't ruled it out. But I don't think it's likely to happen," Gore told Time, explaining that he considered the role he was now playing as a global spokesman for awareness on climate change to be an important one.

"If I do my job right, all the candidates will be talking about the climate crisis. And I'm not convinced the presidency is the highest and best role I could play," he said in the cover story for the Time issue dated May 28.

Gore, who has repeatedly referred to himself as a recovering politician, warned however: "You always have to worry about a relapse."

The problem with falling out of love with politics, or anything else, is that falling back in love is common and unpredictable. In fact, the phrase “fall in love” is entirely inaccurate. Love is developed over time, through experience, trial, and sacrifice. One can become temporarily infatuated, but that is not love. Gore’s lifelong pursuit of political achievement and high office was akin to love, while his obsession with global warming and propaganda movie making is an extended infatuation dedicated to one convenient truth (sorry Al): keeping Gore politically viable while he licked his 2000 election wounds in preparation for 2008. His statement about falling out of love, while giving an impression of denial, was not a denial. If shown sufficient adulation by his party and his pet cause, Gore’s love of politics would quickly rekindle to its normal flame of obsession. Likewise, he claimed that he was not convinced that the presidency was the best role for promoting his global warming hysteria. He did not state, “I can never be convinced,” thus if the right people whispered the right things about global warming and the “bully pulpit” in his ear, he would surely find that convincing enough to jump into the ring while claiming he was issued a call to duty rather than fulfilling the lifelong ambition he publicly conceals.

Al Gore loves politics more than Priuses, campaigning more than carbon offsets, and the White House more than greenhouse gas reduction. If you believe Al Gore would rather be the world’s global warming guru than the President of the United States, you do not know Al Gore.

Terrorists Motivated by Global Warming?

"It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism." So wrote Gen. Anthony Zinni, President Bush's former Middle East envoy in a 35 page report produced by CNA Corporation, a national security think tank. 6 retired admirals and 5 retired generals contributed to the report, which asserts that global warming poses a significant threat to national security. Zinni’s quote above may also illustrate why he is the President’s former Middle East envoy.

The existence and rise of terrorism has been blamed on a variety of factors, all of which inevitably lead to a central villain: America. U.S. support of Israel, America’s declining morals and corrupt culture, placement of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, “occupations” of Iraq and Afghanistan, all of these have been cited as reasons for why terrorists hate America. Now, eleven distinguished retired military leaders have come to the logic defying conclusion that terrorists, who willingly dwell in 130 degree Fahrenheit desert heat, want to kill Americans because of global warming.

According to CNN:

The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism. . . ."

Stanford scientist Terry Root, who co-authored a similar paper earlier this month on global warming’s impact on earth’s inhabitants, quoted by CNN/AP, warned:

"We're going to have a war over water," Root said. "There's just not going to be enough water around for us to have for us to need to live with and to provide for the natural environment."

On a related note, the U.S. Northeast today awakened to flooding and continued torrential rain as a “nor’easter” hit the region over the weekend. Amazingly, the earth’s natural environment has distributed water for eons without the assistance or obstruction of feeble mankind. The earth never loses water, as the condensation, evaporation, precipitation cycle returns moisture into the atmosphere where clouds transport it elsewhere. Droughts and floods were common throughout recorded history in most parts of the world long before “greenhouse gasses” became a concern. Polar icecaps have thawed and refrozen to varying degrees during the earth’s existence, before CFCs and carbon footprints (or in Al Gore’s case, Bigfoot prints-get a smaller house Al!).

In fairness to the NCA report, migrating populations seeking better resources and opportunities throughout the world are indeed a threat to world stability, but not for the reasons their report claims. Hence the need for better border security and enforcement of our existing immigration statutes, to get ahead of this problem that is, in fact, a quest for freedom rather than an escape from melting ice caps. The migrations are already occurring and have been for decades. Global warming is not driving Mexicans to leave their families to seek employment and income in America.

The large influx of immigrants from Europe in the nineteenth century that made America a strong and inclusive nation were not fleeing Europe’s coal belching factories choking the air in the great industrial centers. They came to America seeking greater freedom and opportunity. In all respects, population migrations are a search for better opportunity, and the nations of the world should prepare to receive immigrants and heat up the melting pots.

NCA and other think tanks should focus on devising secure, organized, and humanitarian immigration systems to prepare for normal cyclical climate change and resulting migration rather than urging the government to spend billions on emissions protocols and mandating consumer behavior. President Bush deserves praise for rebuffing demands to place a restrictive carbon emissions stranglehold on American businesses competing with other nations not lifting a finger to curb “global warming,” such as China. It would be foolish to impose economy crushing standards on American companies and hope that other nations will eventually follow our example.

Global warming must be globally accepted and globally combated in an “all for one and one for all” program, or it should be ignored. In the Cold War, President Reagan did not disarm America because nuclear weapons posed a threat to the earth and then hope that the Soviets would follow that example out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead, negotiations over arms control required mutual effort and reductions. In the so-called global warming battle, the U.S. should not expose its economy to the ravages of the financial battlefield until China and all other emissions culprits are playing on the same level playing field.

General Zinni and his collaborators on the global warming report are strategists, and as such have experience developing tactical and logistical plans for virtually any contingency. While it is not unusual for such men to prepare for any eventuality, the recent rush by members of Congress, 2008 presidential candidates, and think tankers (perhaps with aspirations for public office) appears politically opportunistic in the embrace of the cause du jour. As I wrote last week, elevating global warming to a national security issue may satisfy a need for political attention, but it will significantly hamstring our military resources and dilute priorities as attention is diverted from al Qaeda to Al Gore.

CNN: Bitter Dems Target Electoral College

On Monday, a reader submitted a comment on my post “Electoral College in Crosshairs of 39 States,” in which the reader disagreed with my assertion that the impetus behind the current push to abolish the Electoral College was President Bush’s controversial victory over Al Gore despite Gore’s winning the popular vote. I wrote that liberal bitterness over that incident was driving the current movement.

Last night, CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider published an article on this issue, and although writing for a liberal-biased network, he acknowledged that Democrats are championing the Electoral College’s demise and recognized that while the movement did not begin with the 2000 election, that event created a sense of urgency that generated action. He also supported the conclusion that the current movement as described in my Monday post is in fact a legislative method to avoid amending the U.S. Constitution. Schneider wrote:

Those states would agree to appoint presidential electors who would vote for the winner of the national popular vote, no matter who wins the vote in each state. It would be a way to turn presidential elections into a nationwide popular vote without having to amend the Constitution. . . .

The problem is what happened in 2000. George W. Bush got elected by winning the Electoral College, even though Al Gore got more votes. That's happened four times in the country's history.(Watch Schneider talk about the Maryland law )

In our current system, the president is elected by the Electoral College and not directly by the people. The number of electoral votes each state receives depends on its population and representatives are chosen to vote on behalf of the people in the state. To win, a candidate has to win 270 electoral votes, which is a majority. If neither candidate gets that, Congress determines who wins. A few times, the American people's choice for president hasn't actually moved into the White House.

It's mostly Democrats who are behind this move. They're still angry over how Bush got elected, even though in 2004, a shift of about 60 thousand votes in Ohio would have elected John Kerry despite Bush's popular vote margin of over three million.

While there may be a need to engage in national discussion and debate over this issue of a national popular vote, that debate should occur BEFORE states act to circumvent the Constitution because “their man” did not win in 2000. The debate should focus on the merits of the Electoral College and if the support for a national popular vote is as broad as its proponents claim, then advocates should initiate the Constitutional amendment process.

The fact that they are quietly passing state legislative bills to avoid amending the Constitution should be a warning flag that the anti-Electoral College movement is pushing for something not explicitly approved of by a majority of Americans. If it were popular and much needed, a Constitutional amendment would pass smoothly. Advocates are avoiding that process because most Americans do not want to abandon a system established by the Founding Fathers at the request of smaller states to make sure their interests were not completely negated by the largest population centers.

The arguments that a national popular vote would improve campaigns because candidates would be forced to spend more time in “safe” cities and states, are specious at best. The idea of Democrat candidates campaigning hard in liberal Philadelphia to increase their margins of victory to offset losses in the popular vote elsewhere, is as ludicrous as the old “margin of victory” formula used by the BCS in college football. Teams like Florida State would post 77-0 victories over small patsies offering no competition because it was safe, and then BCS poll voters would be impressed by the margin of victory and boost a team’s rankings. A national popular vote would create a BCS system for electing U.S. presidents, a system in which 6-7 large metropolitan areas would determine a winner (just like the self-proclaimed 6 “major” college football conferences dictate participation in the BCS), and smaller states and cities would have little to no influence on national policies that directly affect them (just like the “mid-major” conferences have no opportunity to play in the BCS championship game).

Fortunately for America, the Founder’s wisdom foresaw the need to protect rural and suburban communities from being swallowed by the political domination of a few large cities concentrated in certain regions. The Electoral College assures that Philadelphians, who through no fault of their own know nothing about the needs of ranchers in the west or farmers in the Midwest, are not selecting our president simply because they outnumber the residents in less densely populated areas. A national popular vote would concentrate power too narrowly, and like the BCS, once power is obtained, it is stingily, if at all, shared.

Despite token BCS appearances by the University of Utah and Boise State (both resounding victories for the "mid-major"), the current BCS system still assures that no team outside of the 6 self-proclaimed "major" conferences will ever receive enough votes to play in the BCS "Championship" Game. It is not difficult to predict that America's 6-7 largest cities would operate in a similar fashion, choosing election participants and eventual winners with no regard to the needs or preferences of "mid-major" states and regions. We can do better than a BCS or American Idol popularity contest. The stakes are too high for such sophomoric and cavalier selection processes.

If you missed Monday’s post on this topic and the reader comments, I encourage you to take the time to examine the issue and make your voice heard by your local legislators. With 39 states debating bills similar to Maryland’s, chances are high that your legislators may be pondering an end run around the Constitution. We have a Constitutional amendment process for a reason. I urge readers to make your local representatives adhere to it.

Electoral College in Crosshairs of 39 States

Is your state legislature quietly working to discard an important Constitutional provision established by the Founding Fathers? It may be, but it is hoping you will not notice until it’s too late. Several state legislatures have already done so and 38 states at last count were considering passage of legislation to destroy the work of the Founding Fathers with no fanfare and minimal public outcry or even awareness. What is this pressing issue that states are moving rapidly to address, and in many cases embrace? Eliminating the Electoral College and our republican form of government currently in place in favor of a winner by popular vote democracy.

The provision gradually being voted out of existence is important, as it balances power between large and small states in national elections and limits the influence that one highly populated region can wield in determining who will be President of the United States. The Constitutional provision is commonly misunderstood, as most voters never take the time to read Article V of the Constitution, and is thus easily misrepresented in the media by groups who favor eliminating the Electoral College. These groups cite arguments for the change that are disingenuous statistically and historically, yet they rely on voter ignorance to achieve their goal.

Americans should always be wary of any movement that claims the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned a particular circumstance and thus the Constitution must be altered to reflect “reality” or “modern developments.” In the case of the movement to abolish the Electoral College, the motive of the movement’s ardent supporters should be closely evaluated. In sound bites and news articles, the leaders of this movement claim to be fighting for minorities, for “making votes count,” and for the winner of the popular vote to automatically be elected. What is the reason for this renewed any rapidly advancing campaign to eliminate the Electoral College and republican system? Why, George W. Bush, of course.

Four times in American electoral history, the winner of the popular vote did not win the Electoral College and was denied the presidency, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. While some dissatisfaction with the Electoral College system arose from the first three of these occurrences, the 2000 election which denied Al Gore of victory generated multiple recounts, court decisions, and accusations of dishonesty unparalleled in U.S. history. No president since Abraham Lincoln took office with more animosity and bitter division confronting him than George W. Bush. Opponents immediately declared his presidency to be illegitimate because “the people” had chosen Al Gore. The rancor this electoral environment produced has hampered the Bush administration and has given added impetus to the current drive to abolish the Electoral College. Although that movement disguises itself as an innocent lamb Constitutional improvement, it is in reality a dangerous wolf counting on Anti-Bush sentiment to assure the desired change.

Maryland’s legislature recently approved a measure that will guarantee its Electoral College votes will automatically be given to the winner of the popular vote. Some Maryland legislators questioned the wisdom of giving away the state’s 10 Electoral College votes to a candidate the majority of its own voters may not have chosen, but the anti-Bush hotheads succeeded in passing the measure. State legislators have cleverly understood that changing the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College is a very lengthy and difficult process, while changing their own state constitutions can achieve the same end by simpler means. By automatically assigning a state’s Electoral College votes to the popular vote winner, the Electoral College would no longer have the ability to serve the purpose for which it was created: balancing power between large (highly populated) and smaller states. The Electors’ votes would be meaningless.

The recent World Net Daily article about this issue refers to two groups: one, National Popular Vote, is spearheading the drive to abolish the Electoral College. The other, Wallbuilders, is advocating against the change and for preservation of our government as a republic rather than a true democracy. The Wallbuilders Internet site offers historical explanations for the origins of the Electoral College, and detailed counterarguments to the claims that the Electoral College is undemocratic, outdated, unfair, discriminatory, or ineffective in balancing power. It is worth reviewing, as this movement to destroy our republican form of government appears to be gaining momentum.

Of equal importance, Wallbuilders also debunks the dangerously false assertion that the Founding Fathers would embrace the proposed change to a virtual democracy rather than a republic. Those who argue that the Founders never intended for a popular vote winner to lose an election have clearly never read, or are choosing to ignore, both Article V of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, both of which strenuously work to convince Americans to avoid a popular democracy. The founders, in fact, mandated that all state governments also be republics rather than democracies. The following quotes from Founders illustrate that they knew the difference between a republic and a democracy and wisely chose a republic, courtesy of Wallbuilders:

[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be, liberty. Fisher Ames, a framer of the bill of rights

We have seen the tumults of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt. Gouverneur Morris, signer and penman of the constitution

[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating, and short-lived. John Quincy Adams

A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils. Benjamin Rush, signer of the declaration

In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth. Noah Webster, responsible for article i, section i, ¶ 8 of the constitution

Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state — it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage. John Witherspoon, signer of the declaration

The desire for large, densely populated states to wield more influence on elections has not changed since the days of the Founders. One need only look at the recent decisions by California, Florida, and several other large states to move their election year primaries to February to see why small states need protection. Why was this done? Simply, large states felt that smaller, insignificant (in their view) small states like Iowa and New Hampshire were having too much influence on national elections through their early primaries and caucuses. These same large states are also championing the back door approach to abolishing the Electoral College by passing state legislation dictating that Electoral votes are given to the popular winner nationwide.

If you are unsure whether you reside in a state that is acting behind the scenes to eliminate the Electoral College, contact your state legislators and voice your opinion. While it is true Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, President Bush carried 2436 counties nationwide as opposed to only 676 for Gore. Gore’s support was concentrated in a few densely populated cities on the East and West Coasts. President Bush’s appeal was truly national in scope, indicating that the majority of localities felt he best represented their interests and values. Spy The News! encourages voters to educate themselves about this issue and why the Founders established the Electoral College. Readers should work to prevent state legislatures from destroying a measure the Founders applied as a cement to hold the large and small states together despite population concentrations or popular trends.

Speaker Pelosi's Slight of Presidential Protocol Worse than "ic" Error by President: Wants to Strip President of War Powers

Comments made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi illustrated all too clearly that Democratic animosity toward President Bush trumps Democratic commitment to fighting terrorism and keeping the world safe from nuclear arms proliferation. Speaking to a gathering of Democratic members of the House of Representatives in Williamsburg, VA on Saturday, Pelosi menacingly stated to her colleagues, “if it appears likely that Bush wants to take the country to war against Iran, the House would take up a bill to deny him the authority to do so.”

From a national security perspective, this sentiment, coming as it did from someone third in the line of presidential succession, is significant. Note that Pelosi did not qualify her remarks with any caveats such as whether Congress should authorize war against Iran if Iran attacked another nation, such as Israel, or if an Iranian-produced nuclear device were detonated in an American or allied city, or even if Iran continues to refuse to halt its nuclear weapons program. Pelosi likewise did not make an exception for a scenario in which Iran, seeing Congress’s spineless debates over meaningless “resolutions” on the Iraq War, decided the time was right to invade Iraq and seize its considerable natural resources and slaughter Sunni’s without restraint or mercy.

Based on Pelosi’s statement, none of these provocations, any of which would pose clear and present dangers to global security, would be sufficient for this Democratic Congress to approve military action against Iran and support the Commander in Chief, entirely because he is George W. Bush. For Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues the fundamental threat to America is not Iran, or North Korea, or even Islamic terrorists. Rather than working to deny terrorists of their funding, weaponry, and safe shelter from sponsoring states, the current Congress is more interested in working to deny the President the authority to wage war with Iran regardless of Iran’s actions. Note her choice of words, “deny him the authority” (emphasis added). Congress is not interested in proposing a bill to deny ALL presidents the authority to wage war against Iran, only THIS president.

If a Democrat, Hillary Clinton perhaps, is elected president in 2008, and Iran successfully tests a nuclear weapon and then acts militarily against Israel or the U.S., would the Democratic president respond with war on Iran? Or would Speaker Pelosi’s Congress “deny him [or her] the authority to do so”? Democrats cannot have it both ways. Either Iran is a threat or it is not, and to rule out military action against Iran even before it becomes a necessity is irresponsible and demonstrates a poor grasp of national security policies.

Analyzing Pelosi’s comments further reveals much about the Speaker’s emotions and personal disdain for the President. Courtesy protocol within the U.S. Government, and indeed American culture as a whole, once required the proper name and/or title for the person elected to serve as President, regardless of party. Even in the rancorous Congressional debates immediately prior to the Civil War, Congressmen and Senators referred to the President as “Mr. President” or “President (fill in the blank).” Speaker Pelosi rarely uses the appropriate titles for a sitting president, instead choosing to express her anti-Bush sentiment by generally refusing to acknowledge he is the President, constantly leaving out the title altogether.

The Democratic Party recently threw quite a tantrum in the media when President Bush referred to it as the “Democrat” rather than the “Democratic” Party. The President explained that he simply forgot to include the “ic” suffix and apologized, but that hardly pacified the Democrats, who displayed a remarkable sensitivity to the expected protocol of appropriate titles. For Democrats to constantly refer to the President as simply “Bush” or “Mr. Bush” demonstrates an intentional and personal disrespect for the President, who has the historical expectation of being called “Mr. President,” “Sir,” or “President Bush.” News articles and broadcasts, conservative and liberal, have embraced the stripping of titles in the interest of brevity.

Respect for the office of President has declined in the U.S. and the world to the point that few are impressed anymore by the title “President of the United States,” when not long ago it was the most imposing and respected position in the world to friend and foe alike. The loss of respect for the office is not a product of President Bush’s perceived shortcomings, but rather arose prominently during the Vietnam War and unfortunately continues to this day.

Having witnessed the unseemly behaviors of a former president and the social circles he kept, I understand how loss of respect for the man serving as president occurs. Not all presidents are role models in their private lives. However, even when observing such behavior, to me he was still “Mr. President” or “Sir” and he represented the U.S. to the world. Our presidents must project to the world the image of collective support of the American people, particularly in times of war or crisis. There was nearly unanimous support for war against Saddam Hussein in 2003 based on the available intelligence, yet when the war became more difficult than expected blaming the President became a political opportunity for his personal opponents in both parties.

Despite the patently false accusation, anti-war activists eagerly spread the concept “Bush lied people died.” Where are the chants, “Clinton lied people died”? After all, while in office former President Clinton declared Saddam Hussein a grave threat to the world and pointed out that while others may possess WMD, Hussein had actually used them on Iranians and Kurds (read Clinton’s announcement of strikes in Iraq in 1998 and his justification for them here). Senator Clinton echoed similar assessments of Hussein when she voted to support the war in Iraq.

Democrats do not accuse the Clintons of lying, defending them instead as victims of faulty intelligence. They reserve the liar label for President Bush, who used the same intelligence to justify the removal of Saddam. Al Gore screamed, “He [Bush] betrayed out country. He played on our fears,” despite Gore’s support of the decision to strike Iraq in 1998 for the same reasons Bush cited for war. The effort to portray President Bush as a deceiver and warmonger has influenced international opinion and discredited the office of president itself, a weakening that Democrats will wish they had not encouraged if/when they hold that office and need to wield power to protect the nation.

When 2005 brought the Hurricane Katrina disaster, it was the President’s fault that neither the mayor of New Orleans or the Governor of Louisiana took any action to use local resources to relocate and care for their citizens who chose not to listen to FEMA and NWS warnings to evacuate. Democrats instead encouraged storm victims, particularly African-Americans who lost everything to Katrina, to blame the President and accuse him of not wanting to help black people. Was the African-American mayor accused of this when he failed to utilize hundreds of available local school buses to evacuate the city? No, it was still the President’s fault.

We are failing as a nation to project a strong image to the world during a period of war and crisis (terrorism) and our enemies, terror groups as well as nation states, are well aware of our divisions and personal animosities. Until the American electorate chooses otherwise, President Bush is the President of the United States and should be treated as such by Congress, particularly in public appearances and in front of the controversy-hungry media. The Speaker of the House and her party should not be cementing plans to deny the President of any authority that one day may prove essential to national security simply because they personally dislike the man and covet the office.

Technorati Search Tags: Al Gore Presidential Protocol Presidential Authority Islamic Terrorists Nancy Pelosi Bush Administration Civil War Iranian nuclear program National Security Hillary Clinton Bill Clinton Iraq War Global War On Terror