by Lance Thompson

Just when you thought the world was wise to the global warming panic, Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner have introduced a bill to severely restrict carbon emissions from U. S. sources. Their bill is scheduled for Senate debate in June.

Debate about the causes and effects of global warming continue in the scientific community, but it is clear that global warming alarmists, particularly Nobel Prize-winner Al Gore, based their claims on short-term and cyclical climatic changes which may be wholly or largely independent of human influence. If this selective statistic methodology has been accepted by the portion of scientists who blame man for climate change, then I have a few more disturbing trends to report.

For example, since approximately 22 December 2007, I have noticed that the periods of daylight in any given 24 hour span have been increasing, while periods of darkness during the same interval have been decreasing. This is a steady and verifiable trend throughout the northern hemisphere. Computer models have shown that if this trend continues, and it shows no indication of doing otherwise, that we will soon have constant daylight and no darkness on the upper half of the Earth. This will result in drastically higher temperatures, widespread sleep deprivation, and extremely poor astronomical viewing conditions.

This is clearly a wake-up call to governments around the world to join in a global effort to stem the tide of expanding daylight. The use of artificial light should be outlawed, in order to preserve the rapidly diminishing resource of darkness as long as we can. Cities should be covered with vast sunshades, or moved underground to escape the soon to be eternal glare of the sun. Manufacturers of solar power technology, certain to benefit from this tragedy, should be charged a 90% sunfall profits tax, to be used to provide sunscreen, sunglasses and sun hats to those who can’t afford them.

A recent worldwide survey of healthy young people, from birth to age 16, shows that human beings are continuously expanding in the areas of height and weight–again, an undeniable and clearly observable trend. If something is not done to arrest this development, adult human beings will grow into grotesque giants who will be decreasingly adapted to our modern world. Humans will soon be too tall to fit into automobiles, too large to be accommodated by standard clothing and lawn furniture, and too massive to be housed in current domiciles.

Government regulations should stipulate that all new housing be designed to accommodate a vastly larger population. All doorways should be eight feet wide, and twelve feet tall. Floors above ground level should be reinforced and strengthened. Subway seats, cars, and tunnels will have to be doubled or tripled in size. Bathroom scales will have to be manufactured to the most rigorous standards. Restaurant servings will be mandated to provide at least 5000 calories per plate, with related mandates for mega-capacity refrigerators and wide-load bathtubs and showers.

Among long-term trends here in the United States, there has been an unmistakable and steady increase in government agencies and regulation from the beginnings of our republic to the present day. It is clear that if this trend continues, that every aspect, every experience, and every second of a citizen’s life will be dictated, proscribed or controlled by a government agency or regulation. This will result in the total loss of free will, initiative and personal responsibility.

The government should immediately appoint a commission to oversee and regulate the oversight and regulation of the American nation. It would have authority over all authorities, and would thoroughly investigate all government panels of inquiry. In addition, this commission would be charged with taxing government revenues and have the duty to make a full report on any federally-mandated report. Only by the prompt enactment of such a program can the proliferation of such programs be curtailed.

In comparison to these frightening prospects, the fluctuation of world temperatures by a degree or two certainly shrinks to insignificance. But if we all work together, we can leave our children a world they can share and enjoy–though it may well be exceedingly bright, uncomfortably crowded, and overly regulated.

-=-=-

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho and writes for lowdowncentral.com.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

As most of us sat quietly in the comfort of our homes on Sunday, March 2, at approximately 8:45 P.M., in the Arlington Heights suburb of Los Angeles, Jamiel Shaw, Jr. was murdered – shot in the head by two Hispanic gang members.

Sitting quietly at home once meant a high degree of safety. With the rate of gang infestations across America on an unstoppable rise, safety is no longer a part of our lives either inside or outside our homes. Like dogs marking their territory, inner city gangs are turning the American landscape into coast-to-coast shooting galleries and a canvas for gang graffiti. These are hardcore warnings for us to wake up and recognize who is taking control.

The violence and bloodletting by gangs portrayed in films often causes the faint-hearted ostriches among us to avoid seeing the problem on celluloid. But we cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand in reality. The local news pummels us nightly with grim statistics but has failed to impress those in a position to do something about it. City leaders – primarily mayors and liberal councilpersons – are failing miserably when it comes to facing down the brutalities inflicted within our cities and suburban neighborhoods, allowing gangs and illegal criminals to wreak havoc with impunity.

Unless we sever this rotting limb from our collective tree of life, it will claim more and more innocent victims. As long as these factions exist and multiply, people of all ages, especially the young with aspirations for success and leadership (like Jamiel Shaw, Jr. – “Most Valuable Player” at his Los Angeles High School football team and an excellent student) will always be in the random crosshairs of this psychopathic sub-species.

Domestic terror is here, ladies and gentlemen. The impartial and systematic damage it causes now begs for military action within our borders. To bring this into more stark perspective, the number of American lives lost and attributed to gang violence more than exceeds yearly the loss of American treasure attributed to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To add insult to injury, the gang crime syndicates are, by and large, guided and directed from within the American prison system. Supposedly, that is where gang members and criminal illegal aliens are sent to be punished, not to prosper.

The war on terror is presenting us with yet another startling fact which discloses the depth and breadth of the gang problem. An estimated 2% of U.S. armed forces are now recognized as gangbangers. They have joined up with a singular purpose: to “learn how to use military tactics and learn how to kill. …They are using their overseas deployments to spread tentacles around the globe.” The loosening of enlistment standards can very well be the “cause and effect” of the presence of gang members in the military.

We are not saying that each and every illegal immigrant is a gang member. There are several of them who are shining and exemplary lights in that they have elected to serve their adopted country by joining our Armed Forces to earn early citizenship, knowing there is the distinct possibility their American dream might be cut short. We salute those individuals and are forever grateful for their courage and sacrifice.

The mainstream media, however, has lulled us with carefully selected words and images into believing that the loss of a U.S. soldier, while tragic, is more significant than innocent children killed from gunfire, either from rival gangs firing at each other, or at the innocents themselves. The liberal media have used, and continue to use, the deaths of soldiers to distract from the problems they have perpetrated on society through which gangs and illegal immigrants have been given free rein.

Political lip service about factual gang statistics and the unconscionable granting of sanctuary city status (particularly by some of our most immigrant-heavy cities, like Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco), must be checked, and sooner rather than later. However, by denying the existence of gang activity, the community is doing the gangs a favor - they are allowing the gangs to develop, grow stronger in numbers and develop a power base. That power base is increasing via illegal alien membership, and as previously set forth, turning into our most deplorable U.S. export.

The question is — what do we do about it? Cities and states chronically shift the blame to the federal government. When the federal government proposes new legislation or tries to impose existing federal law, the same cities and states reject those proposals and legislation out of hand. A case in point is the continued stupidity of Special Order 40, which unfortunately also “protects” criminal illegal aliens, giving them a powerful incentive to flaunt U.S. law.

Citizens are just as liable for the increase of gang activity. Whether it is ignorance, apathy or both, they sit out their voting privilege election after election, thereby fully and forever guaranteeing the status quo by re-electing incompetent politicians. The solution must be mandatory or incentivized voting to weed out those who seek to perpetuate this national disgrace. The second and no less important aspect is the acceptance of responsibility and blame by Americans that represent the market for illegal drugs — the primary source of gang income. With tongue in cheek, we say: grow your own grass and cut out the middleman.

We can sit back quietly and be an indirect part of the disintegration of our society, or we can wait for the less desirable alternative – a police state to restore normalcy – whatever “normalcy” might mean in the future.

As a reminder, if our children could dodge bullets the way liberal politicians dodge truth and their own cowardice to take that quantum leap to fix this mess, the miles-long list of teenagers, youngsters, toddlers and babies killed by gangs would still be alive today.

by Lance Thompson

Senator Barack Obama has tried to bolster his peacemaker’s image by castigating Senator John McCain for favoring a "hundred years of war in Iraq." This was an intentional distortion of McCain’s commitment to keeping American forces in Iraq indefinitely, to bolster an emerging democracy, just as American troops have remained in Europe, Japan and South Korea, long after the fighting ended. McCain was not calling for a century of war, but Obama has consistently called for an immediate end to the conflict (though he is vague about when that could take place).

It is clear that Americans are divided about the war, but there is certainly no debate that there is a war, that Americans are engaged in it, and that once said must prevail. It is equally clear that Senator McCain is determined that the United States commit itself to attaining victory, and that Senator Obama intends the opposite.

Senator McCain demonstrated his commitment without qualification, time limits or political cost. He proved this by supporting the war effort even when almost every Democrat and many Republicans in Congress were losing faith and vacillating. Conversely, Senator Obama has been against the war from the beginning, and has called for bringing the troops home as soon as possible, regardless of the effect of withdrawal on the outcome of the war.

Senator Obama’s supporters see his consistent opposition to the war as proof of his sound judgment. But whether the war in Iraq is worthwhile or not, there can be no argument that pulling our troops out means that the enemy will prevail. Additionally, knowing that the policy of the Democrat candidate for the presidency is immediate withdrawal cannot help but encourage the enemy to keep fighting, at least until November, when he stands to be aided greatly by an American government that will no longer be committed to victory.

That same enemy would be devastated if, in November, the newly elected President of the United States has an open-ended commitment to support the democracy of Iraq, fight terrorism throughout the Middle East, and attack Islamic jihadists wherever they congregate. The enemy will know that he will get no help from the White House, that he faces an indefatigable opponent who will not quit.

The enemy pays very close attention to our politics. In recent conflicts, American casualties rapidly influence American public opinion. Public opinion exerted pressure on our political leaders to withdraw our forces from Somalia after the harrowing battle in Mogadishu in 1993, from Lebanon after the attack on the Beirut Marine barracks in 1984, and most famously from Vietnam in 1973 after a long and divisive conflict. The enemy thus considers American public opinion an important, if not preeminent, front in any war, and devotes tremendous resources to shape it.

It is noteworthy that in none of the above conflicts were American forces defeated militarily. In Mogadishu, American losses amounted to eighteen dead and dozens more wounded in a battle in which American troops were surrounded by vastly superior enemy forces, none of them wearing uniforms, mixed with a civilian population that was supportive of the enemy, and conducted under rules of engagement that prevented the application of overwhelming force that could have prevented many of our casualties. Estimated losses to the enemy were 500 dead and over 1000 wounded.

The attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 was a terrorist attack against a peacekeeping force which was strictly prohibited from operating on a combat footing. According to US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who ruled on the case in 2003, the Marines "were more restricted in their use of force than an ordinary U. S. Citizen walking down a street in Washington, D. C." The death toll amounted to 241 Americans, including 220 Marines.

The Vietnam war was a loss for Americans, but our military was never defeated in the field. Even in the most desperate battles, American forces prevailed. The Marines, though surrounded and heavily outnumbered, were never overrun at Khe Sanh. The Tet Offensive was a surprise to the American military, but one which they rapidly recovered from to deliver a defeat so decisive that it eliminated the Viet Cong as an effective combat force. The junior officers of that war became the leaders of the Gulf War–Generals Powell, Schwartzkopf, Horner and others.

Despite an enemy who was militarily no match for the United States, in each of those cases, we failed because our political leaders found withdrawal preferable to sustaining more casualties and more public disapproval. The enemy knew the will of our political leaders was our weak spot, and brought to bear on that target the unconventional weapons of American media and public opinion.

Now we have a presidential candidate who promises withdrawal, buoyed by anti-war media and activists. If Senator Obama wins in November, the enemy knows that our forces will be weakened, our troops brought home, the battle won without any further effort. They know they cannot achieve this result militarily. As in all wars, American tactics and technology improve over time. We have learned our enemy’s weaknesses and how to exploit them. Our military is experienced and professional, a force without equal. Our enemy’s only hope is that our commander in chief will call off this highly effective force before it reaches victory.

John McCain has many faults, but on the war he has been resolute. He is committed to the defense of democracy and freedom no matter how much or how long it takes. His stance echoes one established by a previous president, one who pledged the United States to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." As a young naval officer, John McCain was inspired by and committed himself to President Kennedy’s inaugural pledge, and paid dearly for it.

But an even greater price will be paid by the Democrat party for abandoning those principles, and supporting candidates who no longer know the value or meaning of victory.

==-=-

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho and writes for lowdowncentral.com