Cap and Trade Wont Save The Earth

The Biggest Tax Increase In US History

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done…

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman’s co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO’s analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035…

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.

As this editorial notes, the Waxman-Markey would cost the US economy $161 billion in 2020, which works out to $1,870 for a family of four.

As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number will rise to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

And, of course, it isn’t just the hike in taxes that is the problem.
This chart, from the US Chamber of Commerce, maps out the regulatory process and implementation of H.R. 2454, the ‘American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.’

‘Cap And Trade’ will impose 397 new federal regulations and 1060 new mandates. It will mean that much more unwanted and unnecessary control over our lives and liberty.

It is tempting to let the Democrats run completely amok and pass this bill and the upcoming Obama healthcare program. The resulting destruction to our economy would almost certainly destroy the Democrat Party for generations.

But the problem is that our country and our lives will also be destroyed.

These bills simply cannot be allowed to pass.

A Lame Liberal Media Response to a Lame EPA Response to Cover-up Allegations (Updated)

Yesterday, in Obama's EPA Makes a Mockery of Due Process, I commented on an accusation by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) that the EPA may have suppressed the results of an internal climate study to further the green agenda. And while not directly to me, the EPA has nonetheless responded – and the response was pitiful.

It seems that Thomas Fuller at the Examiner also questioned the EPA’s actions, although ostensibly driven more by fear that such subterfuge unearthed might besmirch the names of fellow alarmists than any particular sense of outrage. His motives notwithstanding, Fuller rightly decided to give the EPA an opportunity to respond to CEI’s charges and received this email response from EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy:
“This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed Endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter agency review was conducted. In this instance, certain opinions were expressed by an individual who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue.

Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.”

The inanity of this reply is surpassed only by that of Mr. Fuller’s decision to accept it as a basis for redacting his entire article. More on that later -- first to the substance (or, more fittingly – lack thereof) of Mr. Andy’s response.

In three consecutive sentences the spokesman states first that “a broad array of voices were heard,” then, dismissively, that Carlin’s emanated from “an individual who is not a scientist” and finally that several of this non-scientist’s opinions and ideas “were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding” nevertheless. Outstanding.

For the record: Carlin is indeed listed as an “EPA author and contributor” on a number of supporting documents, including the final Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act [PDF]. But, as stated in the CEI complaint, Carlin’s own report was never allowed entry to the docket of the proceeding.

But it gets lamer. Andy asserts that Carlin’s “manager” (EPA National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) Office Director Al McGartland) allowed Carlin’s “general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar.” Yet, while this is totally contradicted by the email exchange attached to the CEI letter of complaint, at no point does Andy challenge the authenticity of those emails. Not even the one in which McGartland directly ordered Carlin not to discuss matters concerning endangerment outside the NCEE or directly contact the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), which directs EPA’s climate change program.

And while Andy speaks of a committee Carlin was allowed to join that “organizes an ongoing climate seminar series,” he never addressed the principal issue at hand: Why, despite Carlin’s insistence that his comments were significant as they “present information critical to the justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed endangerment finding,” did his superior make the seemingly unilateral decision not to forward them to OAR?

As I said – pitiful.

And now to the matter of Mr. Fuller’s explanation for his effective retraction and conclusion that Andy’s assertions cause CEI “a serious problem,” potentially leaving “their credibility in tatters.” He writes: [my emphasis]
“The analyst in question is Alan Carlin, an economist who has been with the EPA since 1972. Although this has been presented as if his report was skeptical of the received wisdom regarding climate change, a report found on his website (Why a Different Approach Is Required if Global Climate Change Is to Be Controlled Efficiently or Even at All), suggests that he is not a skeptic at all, but rather advocates geoengineering as opposed to limits on greenhouse gases. Some of his opinions differ from the IPCC consensus and most probably differ from the EPA proposal to treat CO2 as a pollutant. But the idea that Carlin is a skeptic whose ideas are being suppressed is probably far from the truth.”
Mr. Fuller’s interpretation of CEI general counsel Sam Kazman’s letter [PDF], and thereby the matter at hand, is completely back ass-wards, even for a self-professed “Lib Dem.” It’s Carlin’s skepticism of Endangerment, not climate change, at play here.

One read no further than the letter’s opening paragraph to understand that neither Mr. Carlin’s general nor his report’s specific position on “the received wisdom regarding climate change” are at issue: [my emphasis]
“CEI is submitting a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of EPA’s position on Endangerment was essentially put under wraps and concealed. The study was barred from being circulated within EPA, it was never disclosed to the public, and it was not placed in the docket of this proceeding. The emails further show that the study was treated in this manner not because of any problem with its quality, but for political reasons.”

So the accusations stand, unanswered and only pathetically challenged: EPA Senior Operations Research Analyst Carlin felt his comments essential to the EPA’s final decision on CO2’s endangerment. These comments were quashed by his superior as they were unfavorable to both the agency’s and the “days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over” Obama administration’s predisposition in the matter.

It’s that simple -- read the unchallenged emails attached to Kazman’s letter.

Shortly after this piece was posted, Fuller announced in an update that he “may have to apologise to Competitive Enterprise Institute, based on conversations with a source inside the EPA that has confirmed the essential elements of Alan Carlin's story.” His follow-up piece appeared shortly thereafter, and tells the story of the unnamed source, who first appeared in the comment section of Watts Up With That under the name “Anonymous.” And while Fuller’s quick 180 makes for interesting reading, the back-story now being discussed at WUWT is fascinating.

Nonetheless -- while it’s nice that an anonymous commenter finally brought Fuller around, the fact remains that he completely dropped the ball after receiving the lame EPA response – utterly misinterpreting CEI’s point, redacting his entire article on the subject and suggesting that CEI acted irresponsibly.

And let’s not forget that Fuller’s real concern over the allegations was that they might help “skeptics” and “conservative Republicans” squash Waxman-Markey. From the redacted article:
“As someone who supports President Obama's energy policy, I can only say the stupidity of this move beggars belief, if it turns out to be true. On a smaller scale, global warming activists have engaged in the suppression of information by withholding source code from scientists who wish to check their work, but to have national policy be essentially misdirected because information is awkward to holders of a specific policy position verges on the criminal.

If the reports are true and the EPA is forced to re-evaluate their determination--and if the reports are true, I think today's events mean they should--and if it delays consideration of Waxman Markey, and it changes the composition of President Obama's energy program, the time and money wasted will be considerable. The sense of open communication and transparency that President Obama has been seeking to establish will be tarnished, if not destroyed. It will fuel suspicions of skeptics and of conservative Republicans. It will lower the credibility of the administration among its supporters.”

Let’s be careful out there.

The Climate Change Climate Change

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

No Global Warming.....

Sunspot activity is way, way down. NASA has a website series of photos to show you from 2000 to 2009 how the sun's activity has slowed down. It is cooling off all over the planet.

There is no global warming. Temperatures have not risen in the last nine years in an appreciable way and this legislation is not going to lower temperatures. It's not going to do anything they claim it's going to do. Nobody is going to have fully read this. There are over a thousand mandates, meaning limits on freedom, over 1,300 pages. Even the chairman of the committee, Henry Nostrilitis Waxman doesn't know what's all in it. It doesn't matter to him what all is in it. Yesterday I think that I heard there was something like 17,000 or 20,000 calls to Congress opposing this. It's going to take a lot more than that to stop this. Yesterday it looked like this thing is going to go down to defeat. But at 3 or 4 this morning they offered a 300-page amendment that nobody's read. But they told the farmers, the Democrats from farm states, agriculture states, yeah, we're going to take care of you. We're going to take out some of these punitive things to get their votes. This is signature legislation and it would be very embarrassing if this goes down in defeat. They're going to have a tougher time in the Senate with it. But it would be best to shut it down in the House of Representatives today, and that's the vote, and I'm told we're going to need six to seven votes, it looks like, whereas a couple days ago it seemed to be a slam dunk. So six to seven votes on either the Republican or Democrat side to stop this.

Let me tell you something else that's happened. I read about this in a lot of different places today. What I have here is a piece from the Competitive Enterprise Institute which summarizes it pretty well. They are making public an internal study on climate science, which was suppressed by the EPA and Lisa Jackson. "Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration's agenda of regulating carbon dioxide." There's a defector, there's somebody in the EPA who put together a report: Wait a minute, temperatures are not rising. We can't prove that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. He cited evidence from around the country; he cited scientific data. By the way, the consensus on climate science that you've always heard about on global warming, it's falling apart. It's falling apart. Scientists from Australia and two or three other countries have defected from the so-called consensus. That's what this guy's report was about. They told him to shut up. They suppressed his report and they said don't you dare talk about it. They fired him. They said don't you dare talk to anybody about this.

The point is the Environmental Protection Agency, Obama Administration, they don't care about the truth in any of this. This is not about global warming. It is not about climate change. It's about nothing but taxes. It's taxing everything they can get their hands on. It's revenue generation. Obama yesterday even had the gall to call this a jobs bill. Well, I'll tell you what green jobs did to Spain. George Will wrote about it yesterday. The stimulus bill was supposed to be a jobs bill and it didn't turn out to be a jobs bill, and this is not a jobs bill. This is a jobs-killing bill. Why would our government come up and do something? I know it's hard to understand that we've elected somebody who is willingly, purposely setting out to deplete the capital in the private sector, to destroy the US economy. I know it's hard to understand. Most of you don't have, most of us -- I'll include myself in this -- most of us don't have this concept of that kind of power; of wanting it, wanting to use it for our own personal fun, frolic, frivolity, whatever. We can't imagine that we have elected somebody who really doesn't like the United States as it was founded, but that's what's happened. This is exactly what we've done here. Now, this is not being reported widely in the United States, but it's happening in Australia and Japan and Europe. It's happening there and the reason it's not being reported here is because, of course, our star is Al Gore and the United Nations. The media goes out and they smear any dissenters. After listing scientists from all over the world who are skeptical of manmade global warming, Kimberley Strassel writes this: "The collapse of the 'consensus' has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon," and they're deciding around the world they don't have the desire and it makes no sense to put even more stress on their economies to reduce carbon when there's no evidence that more carbon is harming anything, bottom line.

Our official climatologist here, Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, sent me a note last night. Let me find it in the stack here. It's about fish. They're finding that fish ears are growing because of carbon dioxide in the ocean. Remember all the horror stories that we have seen over the years about deformed frogs at birth and we have been told this is due to global warming and their ecology all out of whack. We find out that that's not the case, and the left-wing BBC is nonetheless the source: "Scientists think they have resolved one of the most controversial environmental issues of the past decade: the curious case of the missing frogs' legs. Around the world, frogs are found with missing or misshaped limbs, a striking deformity that many researchers believe is caused by chemical pollution.
However, tests on frogs and toads have revealed a more natural, benign cause. The deformed frogs are actually victims of the predatory habits of dragonfly nymphs, which eat the legs of tadpoles. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers started getting reports of numerous wild frogs or toads being found with extra legs or arms, or with limbs that were partly formed or missing completely. The cause of these deformities soon became a hotly contested issue."

It had to be caused by global warming, this and that. And people said, no, no, this is happening naturally. They were debunked and then called deniers and so forth. But they have now proven that these deformed frogs are simply nature taking its course. Nothing to do with man. Nothing to do with us. The cap-and-trade bill will probably tax dragonflies once they learn about this.

One thing that you need to know about this test vote that the AP, the State-Run Media is talking about all over is the test vote is designed to make you think it's all over. The test vote is designed to make you say, "Oh, it's too late now! I can't do anything about it." That's not true. This thing is still up for grabs. I've got two different lists here of Republicans and Democrats on the fence. One's from Red State and I don't know where the other one's from. But they're a little different from one another. And there are too many names here to give out. Let's go with the short list, the Republicans. Here are the last names of the Republicans on one of the list.

This is nothing to do with saving anything. This is nothing to do with global warming. It is nothing to do with saving the climate or saving the planet or saving the polar bears. It is nothing to do with that. The problems that this legislation claims to address do not exist. Well, to the extent that some problems exist, they are not caused by us. Regulating our behavior, changing our behavior, limiting our freedom will not have any effect on whatever climate changes are or are not taking place out there. It's just that simple. So we can argue about this. We can debate the merits of it all day long, but just in an ideological or philosophical way, this is a no-brainer, a non-starter. It is unnecessary. It is a pure power and money grab by the same people in Washington who have been grabbing power and money since Obama was inaugurated.

Now, according to the Washington Post: Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat from Minnesota -- he's the agricultural committee chairman -- "said he was not sure what the offset program would look like: 'The truth is, nobody knows for sure how this is going to work.'" This is a Democrat chairman of the Ag Committee talking about cap and trade. Nobody knows how it's going to work! Nobody's read the full thing. Waxman has admitted he doesn't know what's all in it. All they know that's in it that matters to them is tax increases, limitations on liberty and freedom and Washington regulating more and more of the behavior of the American public. That's what's attractive. Here are some Republican names on the short list that I'm told are on the fence. Buchanan in Florida. Gerlach in Pennsylvania. Johnson in Illinois. Ehlers in Michigan. Kirk in Illinois. Frelinghuysen in New Jersey and Smith in New Jersey. Those are the Republicans on the short list of on the fence. The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations' 2007 'Fourth Assessment' report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those [new] developments include a continued decline in global temperatures..."

And you know by virtue of your own life global temperatures are not rising. If you live in the Northeast, you live in Chicago, you live in the upper tier of states, you know you're barely... You haven't seen summer yet and it's June 26! "Rush, you can't use this anecdotal stuff." BS! Reality is reality. Global warming is not happening. The polar ice caps are not shrinking! At any rate, "developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense..." We know that. We've had fewer hurricanes since that bad year of including Katrina. New findings are that "water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature." The point is that this old "consensus" we've all heard about for all these years, "A consensus of scientists agree global warming is appearing..."

You can have no consensus in science. It's not up for vote, it's not up for an opinion. That consensus was so-called preferred scientist software even falling apart now. "All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations." Now, this is what the Competitive Enterprise Institute writes. "EPA should independently..." The science is irrelevant to the EPA! They don't want to analyze the science. It's not that they're accepting science from outside sources; they're accepting a political conclusion from outside sources. This whole issue is nothing but politics and it has been nothing but politics since I first heard of it in 1980. Back in 1984 -- I've told you the story -- I was watching This Week with David Brinkley and there was some global warming alarmist on named Oppenheimer. "We've got 20 years, George!" he said to George Will.

"We've got 20 years. If we don't get in gear fast the oceans are going to rise." Twenty years? Well, 20 years was 2004. It's 2009 and everything's hunky-dory. All of this is just absurd. The EPA is not relying on science. Everything that Barack Obama has taken control of is pure politics. It is purely political, 100%. So to ask the EPA to look at different science? They just suppressed an internal report from one of their own employees. It says, "What you guys are doing is wrong. They said shut up. Don't tell anybody about this," and they fired the guy. "Shut up. You're not going to get out there." Anything that contradicts the political desire -- and the political desire here is power, control, regulation of human behavior, the weakening of the US economy all for the benefit of the creation of more power for Obama and his minions. So, it's down-to-the-wire time on all this. And again here's the short list of Republican Congressmen and women who are on the fence on this the legislation H.R. 2454.

Buchanan in Florida. Gerlach in Pennsylvania. Cao in Louisiana. Johnson in Illinois. Ehlers in Michigan. Kirk in Illinois. Frelinghuysen in New Jersey. Smith in New Jersey. Now, there's a lot of Democrats on the fence, way too many to name here. Heath Shuler from North Carolina is one. But he's not on both lists. Here's the short list of Democrats. Altmire from Pennsylvania. Bright from Alabama. Dahlkemper from Pennsylvania, Driehaus from Ohio. Ellsworth from Indiana. Kissell, North Carolina. Kratovil, Maryland. Paul Kanjorski, Pennsylvania. Minnick in Idaho. And Teague from New Mexico. That's the short list of Democrats apparently on the fence. That test vote you're hearing about, if you have heard about it, it was 217 to whatever it is. They need 218 to pass this. That's the majority. The test vote's designed to make it look like they've got it and to dispirit people from opposing it. That's not the case.

The Truth about American Investment Overseas
Currently, American companies that do business overseas add $2.5 trillion to our economy, and support more than 20 million jobs, either directly or indirectly. The proposed tax increase on these companies would weaken American competitiveness, threaten American workers, and jeopardize the American economy.
Download Issue Summary Overseas Investment Strengthens the Economy
For every dollar that U.S.-owned businesses invest in overseas operations, $3.50 is invested here at home. Find out more about the importance of preserving the competitiveness of American companies operating overseas.

Get the Facts: Overseas Investment Strengthens the Economy
Higher Corporate Taxes Equal Slower Economic Recovery
Adding nearly $200 billion to the tax burden of American companies doing business overseas will ultimately cripple our economic recovery and cost the U.S. much-needed jobs. Find out how this harmful tax increase will disadvantage American workers and their communities.

Get the Facts: Higher Corporate Taxes Equal Slower Economic Recovery
Overseas Operations Benefit American Workers
U.S. investment overseas helps create high-quality, high-paying jobs here at home. Our tax policy should encourage economic growth, not stifle it. Find out more.

Get the Facts: Overseas Operations Benefit American Workers
American Consumers Bear the Real Burden for Higher Taxes
Corporations don’t pay taxes; people do. Raising corporate taxes during a time of worldwide economic hardship will lead to higher prices for goods and services. Learn more.
Get the Facts: American Consumers Bear the Real Burden for Higher Taxes

Connecticut Firefighters 'Vindicated' by Supreme Court Ruling

The Connecticut firefighter at the center of a high-stakes court battle told FOX News he feels "vindicated" by the Supreme Court's ruling Monday that he and his mostly white colleagues were unfairly denied promotions because of their skin color.

Meanwhile, the ruling quickly became a political football in Washington as Republicans argued it raises serious questions about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's judgment -- since the opinion reversed a decision she had endorsed in the lower court. The White House pushed back on the criticism Monday afternoon, saying the opinion should not prove an obstacle to Sotomayor's confirmation.

Despite the political implications of the decision, plaintiff Frank Ricci said it had a big impact for him personally.

"We feel vindicated. It's been a long road," he told FOX News, adding that he expects a "promotional ceremony" soon.

Ricci was among the 20 firefighters -- 19 white and one Hispanic -- who sued the city of New Haven, Conn., arguing that they were discriminated against when the city threw out the results of a promotion test after too few minority firefighters scored high.

The city argued its action was prompted by concern that disgruntled black firefighters would sue. But that reasoning didn't hold sway with the court's majority, or Ricci and his colleagues.

Firefighters' attorney Karen Torre told FOX News she was relieved the court has finally "righted" what she described as an unreasonable interpretation of civil rights measures.

"We're very, very pleased that hopefully this decision will put an end to the type of obnoxious, identity politics and race baiting that occurs in workplaces around the country," she said.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the 5-4 opinion in favor of Ricci and his fellow firefighters.

It included no specific reference to Sotomayor. But Republicans skeptical of Sotomayor swiftly used it to bolster their case that the high court nominee may let her personal views influence her judicial decisions.

"It was quite a rebuke actually to her and the opinion that was rendered," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told FOX News Radio.

He said the case would be a "matter of importance" and "discussed at some length" during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, set to begin next month.

"I think it raises questions in the minds of the American people as to whether some of Judge Sotomayor's speeches are being reflected in her opinions in terms of the favoritism for one group or another than might occur," he said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., released a statement saying the decision underscores his concern that Sotomayor "may have allowed her personal or political agenda to cloud her judgment and affect her ruling."

The Obama administration and Democratic allies in the Senate, though, dismissed such criticism.

"I don't foresee that this would represent anything that would prevent her a seat on the Supreme Court," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Gibbs explained that Sotomayor was clearly following a precedent in ruling in favor of the city of New Haven. He said the Supreme Court was offering a "new interpretation" of part of the Civil Rights Act.

"So I think some of the very concerns that members of Senate have expressed about judicial activism, seemed to be at the very least upside down in this case. I think her ruling on the Second Circuit denotes she's a follower of precedent," Gibbs said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., also criticized the Supreme Court's ruling in a statement, and said "it would be wrong" to use it to criticize Sotomayor.

Sotomayor's confirmation hearing is scheduled for July 13.

What Has Glen Suicidal?

In the liberal bastion of New Jersey they have started hanging little 'Project Porchlight' boxes on doorknobs all across the state. Inside is a note that reads:

"Change a bulb and save. A CFL bulb uses up to 75% less energy than old-fashioned bulbs. Save up to $30 in energy costs. Every light bulb change means less pollution, lower cost and reduced demand for electricity which means healthier, cleaner air, environmental and public health benefits. Be the light in your community. This lamp contains Mercury."

This is paid for with tax dollars.

Are you sick and tired of the out-of-control behavior of the government and just want some common sense?

Saving Freedom

There is at least one politician who gets it out there -- Senator Jim DeMint. He has a new book out, Saving Freedom, which gives an inside look into why we are slipping into socialism and what we can do about it. It's a great conversation and a great book - both should give you hope that there are still some good apples in Congress. The question is, are there enough to stop the massive government tentacles before it's too late?

NY slips in retroactive tax

Glenn is outraged over the latest tax hike in New York - this one was slipped in the middle of a mammoth health care bill of all things. Not only does it raise taxes -- it makes the tax retroactive and they are reaching back to take money earned previously to the passing of the bill. If they can do that, Glenn wonders, does he qualify for state benefits for the times in his life he was broke and didn't receive any?

Slow bleed vs. Slaughter

Glenn talks with best-selling author Brad Thor about his latest book, The Apostle, and about everything going on in the country today. Brad says that while we are getting an onslaught of liberal policies jammed down our throat, he'd actually prefer that to what John McCain would have offered which was still bad, just a slower bleed. Brad prefers the slaughter because in his view, the slaughter will open people’s eyes to the massive government expansion we are residing over. Hopefully he's right -- there's a lot on the line.

Workforce Fairness Institute

Exposing EFCA

Our Private Ballot
The Employee "Free Choice" Act takes away a worker's fundamental right to a private ballot in union organizing elections. Big union bosses would bypass free and fair union elections supervised by the National Labor Relations Board for a "card check" system where they could intimidate and coerce workers to sign cards authorizing the formation of a union. Under this bill, once the union has obtained a mere majority of workers signing authorization cards, a union is immediately recognized with no further discussion or debate and no secret ballot election. In contrast to a private ballot election, a card check system allows the union and employer alike to see where you stood.

The private ballot is the cornerstone of American democracy. Only when a vote is private -- free of the intimidation or coercion that open public "voting" would invite -- can the people's voice truly be heard.

The Employee "Free" Choice Act would rip apart a sacred American right in favor of an unfair and coercive card check process. That's why EFCA should really be called the Employee Forced Choice Act.


Our Workplaces
The danger of the Employee Forced Choice Act extends well beyond a denial of workers' democratic rights. EFCA would dramatically change the nature of the American workplace, inserting Washington bureaucrats into the most basic decisions about your job or your business. If an employer and a union don't reach a contract agreement within 90 days, a Federal "arbitrator" can step in to unilaterally impose contract terms -- without a full vote of the workforce that is currently required in union contract negotiations. That's right: EFCA not only ends automatic elections on whether to form a union, but it drastically undermines your right to vote on contracts too.

EFCA would create a culture of cynicism and mistrust in American workplaces -- when surveys show that over 74% of workers not in unions are satisfied with workplace relations. Workers could see unions formed in the dark of night and take over control of their workplace without their knowledge. Stealth union campaigns could target workers again and again to sign cards in their homes at night or wherever a union could track them down. And at the end of it, Federal bureaucrats could be given absolute control to impose unfair contracts dictating how workers do their jobs.

Our Economy
With an economy in crisis, now is not the time to institute radical change on the American workforce that would reduce competitiveness and flexibility in the workplace and force already strapped middle class families to pony up even more in forced union dues.

Big Labor bosses are pushing EFCA in order to drive up their membership numbers and get more money into their coffers. They are not content to compete on a level playing field where workers get to vote in private because they simply don’t like the current results in union elections where workers freely choose. They essentially want a big labor bailout by forcing more workers into unions and generating more union dues. Already, union bosses are lining up for taxpayer bailout money for underfunded pension funds for their rank-and-file, while labor bosses make sure their own pension funds are fully funded. Passing EFCA would put millions more workers into this system of broken promises and failure, further dragging down an already fragile economy.

Memorial Day

Letter from woman in Arizona

The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when he will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our Constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen.
Because we are coming. We the people are coming!

Wow what a great letter and I agree with her whole heartedly.

http://www.americasmightywarriors.org/

Dear EPA:
There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the primary driver of natural temperature change is solar-magnetic activity, yet the solar flux is completely omitted as an influence on climate in all four IPCC assessments and in the Obama administration’s new “Climate Change Impacts in the United Sates” report. This omission is rationalized on grounds that the existing theories of how solar activity affects climate are still formative. The scientific method rejects this rationalization. Observational evidence is supposed to trump theory, not vice versa, but IPCC is using theory (its distrust of existing theories of the mechanism by which solar-magnetic activity drives global temperature), as an excuse for ignoring the overwhelming evidence that solar-magnetic DOES drive global temperature. Not all religions are anti-scientific, but the demonstrably anti-scientific nature of CO2 alarmism proves that it IS religion, not science. EPA regulations are supposed to be science based. Imposing restrictions based on an anti-scientific religious doctrine would not just violate the EPA’s mandate, but would violate the constitutional prohibition on state establishment of religion. Solar-magnetic warming: theory and evidence. The sunspot-temperature theory is actually looking pretty solid. A strong solar-magnetic flux is known to shield the earth from high energy cosmic rays which otherwise, according to the theory of Henrik Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, would ionize the atmosphere, seeding cloud formation. Thus the solar wind in effect blows the clouds away, giving the earth a sunburn. Whatever the precise mechanism, researchers have found that solar-magnetic activity “explains” statistically about 60-80 percent of global temperature change on all time scales going back hundreds of millions of years. On the millennial time scale, see the seminal 1991 paper by Christensen and Lassen (“Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate”) and the 2003 isotope study by Usoskin et al (“Solar activity over the last 1150 yrs: does it correlate with climate?”), which found: “a correlation coefficient of about .7 - .8 at a 94% - 98% confidence level.”
For longer time scales, see the 2003 paper by Shaviv and Veiser (“Celestial driver of Phranerozoic climate?”), which found that found that the cosmic ray flux explains statistically about 75% of global temperature variation over the last 550 million years. Omitted variable fraud. Solar activity was at “grand maximum” levels from 1940 and 2000 which, given the historical correlation between solar activity and temperature, could easily explain most or all late 20th century warming. When the IPCC and others omit the solar-magnetic variable from their models, any warming effect of solar activity gets misattributed to whatever correlated variables ARE included in their models. By sheer coincidence, CO2 reached its own “grand maximum” levels (at least compared to the rest of the Holocene) in the second half of the 20th century. Thus in the alarmist models, whatever warming effect the omitted solar-magnetic variable is responsible for gets misattributed to CO2. You can find rationalizations for this omitted-variable fraud in every IPCC report. For instance, section 6.11.2.2 of the Third Assessment Report does not question the correlation between solar activity and climate, but dismisses the cosmic-ray cloud THEORY as too speculative to include in their climate models:At present there is insufficient evidence to confirm that cloud cover responds to solar variability. But they don’t just leave solar-magnetic activity out of their models. Because their forecasts are based entirely on their climate models, they also leave solar magnetic effects completely out of their climate forecasts, despite knowing that there is SOME mechanism (even if the cosmic-ray/cloud theory turns out to be wrong) by which solar-magnetic activity is the primary driver of global temperature. The only solar variable they do include is solar output or Total Solar Insolation (from long to short-wave radiation), which does not include the solar-magnetic flux. The Fourth Assessment Report does the same thing, looking only at TSI, as do all of the analyses that follow from these reports. For instance, if you look at he “Natural Influences” subsection of the Obama administration’s new report, you will see on page 16 that the only natural influence listed is “solar output’ (or TSI), which is why it is shown graphically to be so tiny. Solar output is close to constant over the solar cycle (less than 0.1% variation), which is why it is called “the solar constant.” Because TSI is nearly constant, it cannot account for the many thousands of years of close correlation between solar activity and temperature. That must be coming from the one solar variable that DOES vary with solar activity: the solar magnetic flux. Every IPCC climate scientist knows this, yet they still omit the solar-magnetic variable. Proof of omission: page 16 graphic from the June 2009 report by U.S. Global Change Research Program (in effect, the NOAA). The only natural warming effect listed is total solar output, which does not include the solar-magnetic flux. Similar graphics can be found in each of the IPCC’s assessment reports, where this analysis originates. Religion, not science. When the alarmists omit solar-magnetic effects on the grounds that they are not satisfied with with existing theories of HOW these effects work, they are not just committing statistical fraud, but they are contradicting the very definition of science. Observation (the overwhelming correlation between solar activity and global temperature) is supposed to trump theory, not vice versa. Consider an analogy. Until Einstein developed his theory of general relativity there was no good theory of gravity. Newton had a description of the gravitational force (that it diminishes by the inverse of the square of the distance) but nobody had any sensible account for the mechanism by which massive objects were drawn to each other. Applying the standards of the IPCC, a pre-Einsteinian or pre-Newtonian scientist should have forecast that when a stone is released in the air, it would waft away on the breeze. After all, we understand the force that the breeze imparts on the stone, but we don’t understand this thing called gravity, so we should not include it, even though we observe that heavy objects fall. That is not science, and neither is CO2 alarmism. Data is supposed to trump Theory. By using theory (the proclaimed insufficiency of solar-magnetic theory) as an excuse to ignore the evidence (where solar activity is known to somehow warm the climate), warming alarmism perverts the scientific method. That makes it religion in the constitutionally barred sense. Not only is this belief system embraced by millions of people WITHOUT EVIDENCE, but it is embraced in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Alarmism about CO2 is not just a religion, it is a demonstrably irrational religion, equivilant to believing that rocks will waft away on the breeze. EPA is supposed to make science-based rulings. If you regulate CO2 based on demonstrably anti-scientific ideology, it will be an unconstitutional state establishment of religion. The current cooling trend fits the solar-magnetic theory, not the CO2 theory. All of the major temperature records show that the earth’s average temperature has been falling for ten years now (with the 21 year smoothed temperature falling for five). In this period, CO2 has continued to increase, while the sun has descended into a prolonged solar minimum. This turn in the sun (breaking the coincidental correlation between solar activity and CO2 that existed for the previous 70 years), is rapidly unmasking the hoax of anthropogenic global warming. It should not take a rare astrological event to unmask an obvious statistical and scientific fraud. Will the EPA now destroy its reputation by codifying the “green” religion at the very moment when the heavens themselves are exposing its dishonesty? If you choose this course, you will be destroying the nation’s economy and the lives of your countrymen in the service of your own anti-scientific religious beliefs, in violation of your oath of office. On the subject of state established religion. This is also the subject of our blogbursts, trying to stop the Flight 93 Memorial Project from stamping a giant Mecca-oriented crescent on the graves our murdered heroes: A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. (Some mihrabs are pointed arch shape, but the architypical mihrab is crescent shaped.)The Crescent of Embrace memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque, replete with a full complement of typical mosque features, like the minaret-like Tower of Voices that has an Islamic shaped crescent on top and turns out to be a year-round accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial. Outcry over the apparent Islamic symbolism forced the Park Service to make changes. They promised that they would remove the Islamic symbol shapes, but they never did. They call it a broken circle now, but the circle is broken in the exact same places as before. The unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca.

Marks Last Letter

Marc's Last Letter HomeGlory is something that some men chase and others find themselves stumbling upon, not expecting it to find them. Either way it is a noble gesture that one finds bestowed upon them. My question is when does glory fade away and become a wrongful crusade, or an unjustified means by which consumes one completely?

I have seen war. I have seen death, the sorrow that encompasses your entire being as a man breathes his last. I can only pray and hope that none of you will ever have to experience some of these things I have seen and felt here.

I have felt fear and have felt adrenaline pump through my veins making me seem invincible. I will be honest and say that some of the things I have seen here are unjustified and uncalled for. However for the most part we are helping this country. It will take more years than most expect, but we will get Iraq to stand on its own feet.

Most of what I have seen here I will never really mention or speak of, only due to the nature of those involved. I have seen a man give his food to a hungry child and family. Today I saw a hospital that most of us would refuse to receive treatment from. The filth and smell would allow most of us to not be able to stand to enter, let alone get medicine from. However you will be relieved to know that coalition forces have started to provide security for and supply medicine and equipment to help aid in the cause.

I have seen amazing things happen here; however I have seen the sad part of war too. I have seen the morals of a man who cares nothing of human life…I have seen hate towards a nation’s people who has never committed a wrong, except being born of a third world, ill educated and ignorant to western civilization. It is not everybody who feels this way only a select few but it brings questions to mind. Is it ok for one to consider themselves superior to another race?

Surprising we are not a stranger to this sort of attitude. Meaning that in our own country we discriminate against someone for what nationality they are, their education level, their social status. We distinguish our role models as multimillion dollar sports heroes or talented actors and actress who complain about not getting millions of dollars more then they are currently getting paid.

Our country is a great country, don’t get me wrong on this, otherwise none of us would be living there. My point of this is how can we come over here and help a less than fortunate country without holding contempt or hate towards them if we can’t do it in our country. I try to do my part over here, but the truth is over there, United States, I do nothing but take.

Ask yourself when was the last time you donated clothes that you hadn’t worn out. When was the last time you paid for a random stranger’s cup of coffee, meal or maybe even a tank of gas? When was the last time you helped a person with the groceries into or out of their car?

Think to yourself and wonder what it would feel like if when the bill for the meal came and you were told it was already paid for.

More random acts of kindness like this would change our country and our reputation as a country.

It is not unknown to most of us that the rest of the world looks at us with doubt towards our humanity and morals.
I am not here to preach or to say look at me, because I am just as at fault as the next person. I find that being here makes me realize the great country we have and the obligation we have to keep it that way.

The 4th has just come and gone and I received many emails thanking me for helping keep America great and free. I take no credit for the career path I have chosen; I can only give it to those of you who are reading this, because each one of you has contributed to me and who I am.

However what I do over here is only a small percent of what keeps our country great. I think the truth to our greatness is each other. Purity, morals and kindness, passed down to each generation through example. So to all my family and friends, do me a favor and pass on the kindness, the love, the precious gift of human life to each other so that when your children come into contact with a great conflict that we are now faced with here in Iraq, that they are people of humanity, of pure motives, of compassion.

This is our real part to keep America free! HAPPY 4th Love Ya

Marc Lee

P.S. Half way through the deployment can’t wait to see all of your faces