Say Anything Blog

Find it here

The Last Liberty?

William D. Zeranski

We’ve reach a point in the political and economic life of America where nearly all liberties have been infringed upon.  Political correctness and multiculturalism have a choke hold on the freedom of speech in the classroom and in the public square, aided and abetted by those in government, MSM and academia.  Laws and government regulations put the citizens’ ownership of property at the mercy of unelected officials.  Basic constitutional rights which, at one time, were considered unassailable are now under constant assault.

So what is really left?  What is that final freedom that allowed the early American to cross rivers and mountains, plant fields of wheat in the Great Plains, and go north to Alaska? That last liberty is the freedom of movement.  And I don’t mean the walk to the neighbor’s house or the bike ride around the block, or the sometimes laborious drive to work, but the freedom to go here and go there.

Think of all the nations in the world where going here or there is not an option; there is no choice in the matter.  Well, after a fashion, all Americans finally stand at the same threshold, simply because of the price of a gallon of gasoline.  There are many Americans, in government and ordinary citizens, who accept, even promote the idea of nationalizing American refineries.

In a land where government controls great swaths of the North American continent and covets the refineries needed to produce the fuel to travel what is left, there is no freedom of movement.  As always, there is a greater invitation for the continual erosion of what freedom remains.

[...]

Fuel, not only makes the American economy go and grow, it allows 21st century Americans to go from here to there, to see and to do, because Heaven is not a cage.

In addition, the ability of our free enterprise economic system to generate wealth is conditioned by the mobility of individual citizens.  Greater mobility means a greater ability to generate prosperity.

Congressman had accused soldiers of killing ‘in cold blood’

With most of the eight Marines charged in the Haditha, Iraq, incident now exonerated, the highest-ranking officer among the accused is considering a lawsuit against Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who fueled the case by declaring the men cold-blooded killers.

In an interview with nationally syndicated radio talk host Michael Savage, the lead attorney for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani said he and his client will look into suing Murtha and the Time magazine reporter, Tim McGuirk, who first published the accusations by Iraqi insurgents.

But the attorney, Brian Rooney, said nothing will happen immediately because he wants Chessani, described as a devout Christian and the father of six homeschooled children, completely “out of the woods” legally before any action is taken. The government, through Lt. Col. S.M. Sullivan, today filed a notice that it would appeal the case to the next judicial level.

As WND reported, a military judge at Camp Pendleton in California yesterday dismissed charges that Chessani failed to properly investigate the Nov. 19, 2005 incident in which 24 Iraqi men, women and children were killed.

[...]

It’s about time to return fire on the liars.

The morality play on offer from greenies and their media buddies holds that “we can’t drill our way” to cheaper oil prices, but “conservation” and “new technologies” for “alternative energy” are the answer.

Thus, I am thankful to Al Gore for proving that even in a high profile demonstration project these “solutions” won’t work. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research reports that Gore’s home in Nashville has increased its energy usage by 10% in the past year. This is in the face of proudly-announced (and expensive) energy-saving steps. Stop the ACLU cites the Soros-Funded Think Progress site for information:

[...]

Now that Gore has proven his measures are ineffective, it is time to drill offshore, ANWR, mine coal and oil-bearing rock, and build nuclear power plants on an expedited basis.

Rick Moran

The Mississippi River is overflowing levees in Illinois leaving millions of acres of prime farmland underwater and driving up the cost of corn. Reuters reports:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said a levee broke at 1 a.m. CDT near Meyer, Illinois, leaving more than 17,000 acres of prime farmland at risk from the floodwaters.

[...]

The real story here is that the MSM is selling it to us as a “500 year flood”.

Find it here

The Mistakes That Launched 3,000 Rockets

By Richard A. Baehr

When Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew 8,000 residents and all of its defense forces from the Gaza Strip in the late summer of 2005, he offered several rationales to support what he called “disengagement.” Regrettably, all but one have proven to be illusory.  The result has been disastrous—leading to the creation of a lawless terrorist haven in the Gaza Strip from which the controlling Hamas faction has lobbed thousands of crude rockets indiscriminately into southern Israel, precipitating a new generation of terror attacks against the Jewish state.

[...]

Lessons Learned

There are two painful lessons that can be learned from the daily rocket fire on Sderot, Ashkelon, and other population centers in Israel’s south.  First, Israeli gestures of good will signal weakness, and can lead to greater Palestinian hostility and violence.  Second, half measures never solve any underlying problems.

Indeed, every one of the rationales for the 2005 disengagement envisioned a quiet border, and an improved security situation.  Hopefully, the Israelis have learned two more lessons from the Gaza situation:  know your enemy, and no more wishful thinking.

Read the whole thing.  Obama should pay attention to this, but he won’t.  In all probability, neither will McCain, even though it’s an assured victory.

Eeyore for Secretary of Defense!

Rick Moran

Jennifer Rubin has a jaw dropping quote from Obama’s national security advisor Mark Danzig on why Obama’s foreign policy sounds so infantile ("we should all sit down and chat and respect one another").

[...]

That’s right. Danzig thinks that Winnie the Pooh is an ideal model for national security:

“Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security. He spelt out how American troops, spies and anti-terrorist officials could learn key lessons by understanding the desire of terrorists to emulate superheroes like Luke Skywalker, and the lust for violence of violent football fans. . . .”

Mr Danzig spelt out the need to change by reading a paragraph from chapter one of the children’s classic, which says: “Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.”


This is not a spoof, says Rubin although I can’t decide whether it is scary, stupid, or just typical liberal idiocy.

I nominate Christopher Robin as Secretary of State.

By James Lewis

“These are the times that try men’s souls,” wrote Thomas Paine on December 23, 1776. It was a deeply demoralizing time for American independence fighters, with Gen. George Washington in constant retreat, always just managing to dodge defeat by the British.  Keeping American morale strong was the crucial ingredient for victory then, just as it is today. 

By comparison, we are living in a time of domestic peace and prosperity --- but we are under constant, minute-by-minute propaganda assault by the Left-wing media. That is demoralizing. It has the worst effects on our politics and culture. By stacking the US media and our schools, the Left keeps traditional American values and customs under constant assault. That is why you feel the way you do when you listen to the big media. It is enormously damaging.

Today, as in 1776, the biggest battle is once again about our courage and optimism. Conservatism is embedded deep within the American spirit. But it requires constant loving care and outright cheerleading to feel free to express ourselves. You are not alone: Sixty million conservatives can’t be wrong. (And that’s a lowball estimate.)

[...]

Will the American people be taken in by the Left? That’s the crucial question that will decide the historic election of ‘08.

Well, get off your duffs, friends. Conservatives must be activists. The big media will cover for Obama --- and all we have on our side are about 60 million intelligent voters who still think for themselves. That’s a good starting point, but it has to be turned into an electoral majority in the next six months. We must puncture the rock-star balloon of the most dangerous presidential candidate in fifty years. It can be done. It has been done with Dukakis, Mondale and Kerry. All we need to do is tell the truth.

If you like John McCain, help him win just as hard as you can. If you don’t like him, don’t jump off a cliff. What about all the others true conservatives who are running? They need money, volunteers, and constant pressure on the media to give them a fair shake.

Since the media are in a financial crisis, they have to listen better than before, or go bankrupt. It might be useful to remind them, politely, of that basic fact of life.

Candidates and Resources.

Remember, the US Senate is our last line of defense against a tyrannical Left in America. If by November we have fewer than 35 sane and sensible US Senators, the Left can override any veto by a potential President McCain. Or if Obama becomes the first hard-core Leftist US President, he can only be stopped by a solid one-third of the Senate. So we must win enough Senate races. That is as important as electing a president we can believe in.

[...]

This is not the first big challenge in American history. But it’s ours, and we owe it to the past and the future of this country to win this one.

Now go and do something constructive.

Read the whole thing.  This is no time to be seduced by the constant avalanche of lying leftie propaganda.  Hold to what you know is true.

By James Kirchick

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

[...]

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration’s case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate’s 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: “We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true.” On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that “the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress.”

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House “manipulation”—that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction—administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it “did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments.” The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found “no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: “Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.”

Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don’t get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were “misled” into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats—not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others—sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month’s report, titled “Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information,” includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees—who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors—many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats’ lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

[...]

A leftie journalist tells the truth; I expect him to get the “Joe Lieberman treatment” soon.

By Terry Trippany

The Associated Press labeled Joe Lieberman as the “Democrats’ public enemy No. 1” in an astoundingly one sided attack over the weekend in response to critical remarks the former Democrat Senator made about Barack Obama while campaigning for John McCain.

The first four paragraphs of the report were dedicated to an all out character assassination that chided Lieberman for straying from the Democrats in a betrayal that is ominously close to transforming him into “an attack dog for Republicans.”

[...]

But the latest betrayal has upset Democrats, who often answer in clipped but polite tones when asked about Lieberman. The reason: The independent still caucuses with the Democrats on most issues except the Iraq war, and he holds their slim political majority in his hands.

“There’s a commonly held hope that he’s not going to be transformed into an attack dog for Republicans,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., an Obama supporter.

What could possibly have set off the attack? Simple, Joe Lieberman crossed the line by getting specific in his critique of Barack Obama on the issues of terrorism and foreign policy concerning Iran, Iraq and Israel.

[...]

There is speculation that if Democrats bolster their Senate majority this fall, they could seek payback by stripping Lieberman of his Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairmanship.

While there’s no serious talk afoot about punishing Lieberman, Kerry said, “I can’t tell you what happens next year.”

As warnings go this one seems pretty blatant. But then again, this is just “speculation”.

Stalinism is alive and well in the national Dem Party.  So much for a diversity of ideas and “crossing the aisle”.
For basically doing the same thing, Republicans have rewarded McCain with the Presidential nomination.  Go figure.

Rick Moran

Not making many headlines because the perps are Democrats, the sweetheart loan deals that former Obama Vice Presidential vetter Jim Johnson accepted from Countrywide Chairman Angelo Mozilo have ensnared two Democratic senators; Ken Conrad of North Dakota and former presidential candidate Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

[...]

So after calling the CEO of a company with various matters before the Senate, asking for a loan and then receiving at least two sweetheart deals, Mr. Conrad now says: “I did not think for one moment - and no one ever suggested to me - that I was getting preferential treatment.”

The arrogance is breathtaking. And going Conrad one better was Dodd who, as Chairman of the Banking Committee, oversaw actual legislation that directly benefitted Mozilo and Countrywide:

The same goes for Senator Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), who chairs the very Banking Committee responsible for drafting the laws that govern Countrywide’s market. Mr. Dodd is still in denial mode, but so far no one has knocked down the Portfolio.com story that he received discounted loans as part of Countrywide’s “Friends of Angelo” program.

But it is Countrywide’s connections to Fannie Mae that may turn out to be the most problematic. The government lender did an enormous amount of business with Countrywide and Mozilo evidently encouraged that business by granting sweetheart loans to executives like Johnson as well as lawmakers like Conrad and Dodd.

Democrats in Congress are pushing a bailout of both borrowers and lenders like Countrywide and they have been holding up legislation to reform Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac) until Bush signs off on the giveaway. Is it coincidence that Dodd is one of the chief sponsors of this giveway and heavily involved in this quid pro quo demand from the Senate on desperately needed Fannie Mae reform?

Judging by the goodies he got from Mozilo, one would have to conclude that Dodd and Conrad have some questions to answer.

Typical Dem corruption; let’s remove them from power.  It’s our civic duty.

Find it here

$4 Gasbags

Anyone wondering why U.S. energy policy is so dysfunctional need only review Congress’s recent antics. Members have debated ideas ranging from suing OPEC to the Senate’s carbon tax-and-regulation monstrosity, to a windfall profits tax on oil companies, to new punishments for “price gouging” – everything except expanding domestic energy supplies.

Amid $135 oil, it ought to be an easy, bipartisan victory to lift the political restrictions on energy exploration and production. Record-high fuel costs are hitting consumers and business like a huge tax increase. Yet the U.S. remains one of the only countries in the world that chooses as a matter of policy to lock up its natural resources. The Chinese think we’re insane and self-destructive, while the Saudis laugh all the way to the bank.

There are two separate moratoria on offshore drilling: One is a ban that Congress has attached to every budget since 1982, and the other is a 1990 executive order that President Bush has waived in only a few cases. Republicans made failing attempts to overcome both when they ran Congress, but current Democratic leaders and their green masters remain adamantly opposed. The new political opportunity amid record prices is to convince enough rank-and-file Democrats that they’ll suffer at the polls if they don’t break with this antiexploration ideology.

While energy “independence” is an impossible dream, there’s no doubt the U.S. has vast undeveloped fossil-fuel deposits. A tiny corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil and would be the largest producing oil field in the Northern Hemisphere. Yet the Senate blocked that development as recently as last month. The Outer Continental Shelf is estimated to contain some 86 billion barrels of oil, plus 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet of the shelf’s 1.76 billion acres, 85% is off-limits and 97% is undeveloped.

[...]

Yes, we know, increased drilling is no energy cure-all; new projects take about a decade to come on line. Then again, more than a few experts say that new production could affect price as the market perceives a new U.S. seriousness to increase supplies. Part of today’s futures speculation is based on the assumption that supplies will remain tight for years to come, even as Chinese and Indian demand surges.

Nor would merely repealing the exploration bans be enough. Between 2000 and 2007, the drilling of exploratory oil wells climbed 138%, but over the same period domestic crude oil production decreased 12.4% and fell to the lowest levels since 1947. Refineries for gasoline are stretched to the limit, but multiple regulatory barriers impede new construction or even expansions at existing facilities. Then there is the inevitable lawsuit downpour from the environmental lobby.

Democrats are going to have to grow up. The oil-rich areas they want to leave untouched are accessible with minimal environmental disturbance, thanks to modern technology. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita flattened terminals across the Gulf of Mexico but didn’t cause a single oil spill. As for anticarbon theology, oil will be indispensable over the next half-century and probably longer, like it or not. Airplanes will never fly on woodchips, and you won’t be able to charge your car with a windmill for some time, if ever.

Public anger over fuel prices could hardly come at a worse time for the GOP, since voters tend to blame a flagging economy on the party that occupies the White House. But the opportunity is to offer a reform alternative to Barack Obama and the high-price energy status quo he embraces. It looks like the public is increasingly ready for . . . change. In a May Gallup poll, 57% favored “allowing drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits.” Just 20% blamed the increase in gas prices on Big Oil, like Mr. Obama does.

Recent weeks have seen some GOP stirrings on Capitol Hill, but John McCain has so far refused to jettison his green posturings, such as his belief in carbon caps and his animus against offshore development. A good reason for a rethink would be $4 gas. At present, it is charitable to call Mr. McCain’s energy ideas incoherent, and it may cost him the election.

It’s an easy call to make, but does McCain have the smarts to take advantage of this wide open issue?  The Dems won’t drill, so the Republicans have this all to themselves, along with the illegal immigrant issue.  They just have to pull the trigger.

By Andrew Sumereau

John McCain is clearly the preferable option for conservative voters come November. Although liberal in his views toward immigration, government intrusion in free speech, environmental issues, campaign finance reform, health care, education mandates, and a host of other issues that run contrary to conservative orthodoxy, McCain is solid on two (alas, two) vital issues that make the difference; spending and judges. From the frustration of eight years of a Republican Administration that began with so much hope and promise it pains one to say it, but there it is.

Against the prospects of a President Obama, McCain wins.

A victim of circumstances and timing in many ways, Senator McCain carries the sins of Bush and the free-spending Republicans into the 2008 election minus any counter balancing virtues. The coming election has an eerie deja-vu feeling. The Democrat nominee is young, glib, dare one say it, slick; beloved by a media most happy to shield him from criticism. He is facing a cranky old Republican Senator with visible war wounds, famous for his temper, and viewed with apprehension by the religious right.

In addition, John McCain is detested, and deservedly so, by many Republicans of all types. Beyond issue and policy differences, and they are legion, his personality grates. His conceit of “straight-talk” and “maverick"-like independence so superficially applauded (up until now) by the mainstream media is almost Clintonesque in its narcissism. If only other politicians had his courage, he implies, things would be fixed straightaway. The big special interests have all the other elected officials in their pockets. Only Maverick-John tells it like it is! Yet the truth is that McCain could serve well as poster boy of the arrogant elitist beltway insider, friend of Hillary and Ted, foe of the unwashed. The party habit of selecting the next in line (e.g. Dole) has rarely produced such an unappealing candidate at such a critical time. In many ways he reminds one of Adlai Stevenson, who famously frustrated his supporters with his holier-than-thou ways during two failed contests against the popular broad-smiling Ike.

Despite what will surely be the focus of McCain’s campaign, foreign policy and experience will not decide this election for conservative voters. One may point to the war in Iraq as the defining issue come November and see a big advantage for McCain. Not necessarily so. History will decide the wisdom of our foreign policy over the last seven years, whether the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were a legitimate response to the threat of organized terror, or the overreaction of predisposed warriors intent on using the events of 9/11 to democratize the Middle East.

It is clear, in the short term that a McCain administration will cling to the ongoing military effort. He is a very sure bet on a continuation of aggressive and largely unilateral foreign policy. But unlike domestic issues, Presidents, as Truman said, “ride the Tiger” in foreign affairs.  They are controlled by events and often forced into moves at odds with their original intentions. Bush came into office as a critic of nation building and yet leaves committed to the rebuilding of Iraq. Johnson’s Great Society fell victim to his own escalation of the Vietnam War. Clinton sent troops to Haiti. As Chief Executive of the federal branch they must protect our borders and command the military by constitutional decree. Democrats, even Carter, have found that once in office the requirements and prerogatives of military power seldom are resisted.

On domestic issues it is no better. He is with Kennedy on education and immigration, with Fiengold on campaign finance, with Gore on the environment. For the committed conservative, he speaks and acts as Bush-lite without the few rhetorical bones thrown in for appearance’s sake. Each day, it seems, he appears to make a pronouncement, or suggest a policy, or chastise an enthusiastic supporter, in order to please the main-stream media and send conservatives off wailing and gnashing their teeth. 

[...]

McCain is in a fight against the manufactured illusions of “hope” and history.  He needs every vote he can manage. Before he once again decides to berate conservatives, propose liberal policies, befriend the political opposition and (why?) laud the Clintons, he should perhaps better find a nice photogenic porch. Sit on the porch. Do this and conservatives on November 5th will surely hold their noses and pull the lever for what is best for the country.

An interesting analysis.  Read the whole thing.

Find it here

John Coleman vs Al Gore

Danny Huddleston

Regular readers of this website are well aware of the Global Warming scam. Poking holes in the AGW theory is becoming child’s play. But we have to keep at it because the general public and major presidential candidates are not so well informed. A large percentage of the public still get their news from the mainstream media. And of course the MSM is in the tank with Al Gore and the global warming believers.

That’s why it’s important to let the public see the other side of the global warming debate. We are very lucky to have a scientist like John Coleman who is not afraid to speak his mind. John has been a weatherman since 1953, for 7 years he was the weatherman on “Good Morning, America”. He is also the founder of “The Weather Channel” on cable. Now he is in his “retirement job” at KUSI in San Diego. A lot of younger meteorologists just starting out can not speak out against AGW orthodoxy because they might lose their jobs. John has reached a point in his career where he doesn’t need a paycheck and can speak his mind, and he did just that in his comments before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. Here are a few excerpts:

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

[...]

Later in his comments there is this: “By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures”.

So, Roger Revelle, Al Gore’s mentor and teacher did not believe that CO2 and its greenhouse effect warranted extreme countermeasures. I wonder if he would approve of what his former student is doing?

Since the planet has actually been cooling in the last ten years it’s fun to watch the AGW believers flail about trying to come up with new theories to explain what’s happening. Their favorite new word is “variability”, this is how they explain global cooling.

And what do we call this scam? Global Warming has been passe for some time now and until recently it was Climate Change (better to explain temps going up or down). Now, in one of those slick new public service ads (courtesy of Al Gore’s Nobel Prize money) they use the phrase “Climate Crisis”. Apparently Obama has copyrighted “Change” and anyway “Crisis” adds a little more urgency to the whole enterprise. I wonder what it will be called next year? Perhaps “Climate Catastrophe”.

Read the whole thing.  It just ain’t happening, folks.

Clarice Feldman

My initial elation at the Irish vote against ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was tempered by reports that the EU proponents were continuing on course despite this latest setback. But today it appears the Czechs are adding their “no” to Ireland’s:

The Czechs have hammered another nail into the coffin of the Lisbon treaty by declaring that ratification must stop.

Czech president Vaclav Klaus, who is supported by the country’s largest political party, called the Irish referendum vote a “victory of freedom and reason” and said “ratification cannot continue”.

[...]

The Czech Republic, traditionally one of the more Euro-skeptic of the EU’s 27 member states, is one of nine countries which have not yet ratified the treaty.

Another crack in the facade of totalitarian socialist EU Europe.  Good for the Irish and the Czechs!  Why would anyone choose totalitarian socialism over the free enterprise system, anyway?