Say what you want about Senator Joe Biden. But there’s no denying the fact he’s one of the more entertaining politicos in town. 

Looking for a guy who blurts out the occasional inconvenient truth? Then Biden’s forehead-knocker about the “terrible” Obama ad – the one that mocked John McCain as computer illiterate — certainly made your day. 

Are you one who goes for self-effacing humor? Then I’m sure you enjoyed his recent admission that “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice-president of the United States of America.” 

Do you take a liking to the occasional malapropism? Then Senator Biden’s introduction of his boss as “Barack America” no doubt won you over. 

Get a kick seeing a person stick his foot in his mouth? Earlier this month Mr. Biden shouted to Missouri State Senator Graham, “Chuck, stand up, let the people see you.” Senator Graham is paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair. 

Do you get a chuckle from overdone praise that borders on condescension? Then you cottoned to his description of Michelle Obama’s convention address as “the most remarkable speech I have heard in my life.”  

And let’s not forget Sen. Biden’s memorable description of Mr. Obama as “bright and clean.” 

Sometimes he takes hilarious liberties with historical fact, like when he spoke of Franklin Roosevelt going on television after the stock market crash of 1929. And you thought the guy wearing the “Buck Stops Here” sign was Herbert Hoover! 

And yes, Sen. Biden’s remarks provide pundits like me with a continuing supply of fresh material, assuring us of gainful employment and ample waistlines. 

Biden’s handlers nimbly shrug off the stumbles by saying they afford him credibility with the average Joe. “It would be a huge mistake to try to strip away the authenticity that’s been his greatest strength for 35 years,” argues spokesman David Wade. 

But authenticity isn’t exactly the right word to describe how the good senator paints his role in securing passage of the Violence Against Women Act. Biden often brags he is “proud” of the law he championed back in 1994. 

But by any measure, his signature legislative has been a bust. According to Angela Moore Parmley, PhD at the Department of Justice, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”  

Two Sundays ago on September 21, a woman from Linwood, Kan. was arrested for aggravated assault after allegedly trying to run over her husband. The next day, Sheral Lee Smith of Jackson, Miss. was charged with illicit sexual activities involving a 14-year-old boy. And on Tuesday Prena Louis of Visalia, Calif. was jailed for stabbing her boyfriend in the arm. 

All within a three day period. 

But under VAWA, these women simply don’t exist, and neither do their victims.

How can that be? It’s a combination of the name of the law — the Violence Against Women Act – and the fact that the whole shebang has been hijacked by a group that proudly calls itself the VAWA Mafia. 

Go to a VAWA-funded training session, and you’re more likely to hear to a neo-Marxist rant about patriarchal power than anything that resembles valid science. And if an abusive woman calls for help, the shelter worker will say her violent outburst was provoked by her boyfriend; ergo, there’s no need for her to sign up for anger management classes. 

In July I began my investigation of abuse shelters around the country. Over the last three months I have reported on a series of horrific incidents at these facilities.

These include the callous mistreatment of a blind woman at Womencare in Bellingham, Wash. and shady legal dealings by the SafeNet shelter in Claremore, Okla. In Florida, the situation has spun out of control: the tragic deaths of a 2-year-old toddler and a resident at SafeSpace in Stuart; a shelter director’s assault of an employee at the Naples Center for Abused Women; and the sexual assault of a four-year-old girl at Another Way in Lake City. 

I have also documented physical assaults, sexual exploitation of residents, child abuse, drug abuse, discrimination against male victims, employees with criminal records, misappropriation of assets, and lax oversight procedures. I have found that only one in 10 shelter residents is there on account of physical violence. The rest are there because they are homeless, drug-addicted, or simply are in need of a free baby-sitter. 

So which Joe Biden will show up at Thursday’s debate? Joe the Jokester? Biden the Babbler? Biden the Pundit-Pleaser? Or all the above? 

Just don’t expect to see much of Joe the Authentic, especially when the conversation comes around to the Pandora’s Box legislation that Sen. Biden says he is so proud of.

Would you want to trust your life savings to a group of people who can’t even manage their own budget? Would you trust your investments to a stock broker who has a record of consistent failure in the stock market and squandering the investors’ money on his personal interests and himself?

That is exactly what is now happening in our government with this gang of congressional incompetents debating the $700 billion federal bailout of Fanny and Freddie. None of them are economic experts; they’re just politicians who have been bankrupting the country and demonstrating their inability to grasp the basics of income versus outgo.

According to the latest Rasmussen polling, only 24% of the American people support this bailout. Why aren’t our elected officials listening to the people they are supposed to be representing? I strongly suspect that the consequences of not doing this bailout have been grossly over hyped. But whether the bailout works or not is not nearly as important as the question of taking our country on this giant leap into socialism to fix a temporary problem. The Democrat leadership sees it as a great opportunity for them to advance their socialist cause. Is that really what we want?

How much longer must this go on before the taxpayers say enough is enough and take back control of their money from these incompetents in Washington? The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy enough taxes to pay for the basic functions of government as outlined in Article I, Section 8, and to support the other articles of the document. It does not give them the power to use our money in any way they may see fit.

Even if it was done by the government as a loan, it would be a bad loan and never be paid back. And profits from the resale of the sub-prime loans could pay back only a fraction of the investment of our money. No investor in his right mind would touch this deal.

At least one Senator gets it. On the floor of the Senate on Sept. 23, Sen. Tom Coburn made the following statement:

There isn’t a family out there who doesn’t have to weekly or monthly make hard choices about how they spend their money. We, unfortunately, continue to make decisions on how we spend your children’s money and your grandchildren’s money on a parochial or political interest that benefits Members of Congress. That is what has to change.

If there is a lesson in what has happened to us in terms of the loss of confidence in the financial system in this country, all I have to say is Congress earned it. We created it. We expend 100 times more effort trying to create new programs and new ways of spending than we do managing the very Government you send us here to put under control.

I take the Constitution literally. It has a section in it called the enumerated powers. It is article I, section 8. It spells out exactly what the role of Congress is. If you look at how we got into this mess, every example of that goes back to the fact that Congress is violating what the Constitution says is our legitimate role, is doing something that is outside the legitimate role, and we rationalized it for the political benefits for either career politicians or party, one side of the aisle or the other. That is why Congress has a 9-percent approval rating, because we are more interested in us than we are the best interests of the country. And it shows.

This is only a portion of Sen. Coburn’s lecture to the Senate on Constitutional responsibility and spending. His full statement is only a page long and can be read… HERE.

The more I hear and read about this bailout, the more I am opposed to it. No, there should be no bailout by the government. There are other ways to deal with it through private investors like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, to name a couple. The mortgage bundles now held by Fanny and Freddie could be broken up and divided into good loans and bad loans. The good loans would be bought up by investors. The bad loans could be foreclosed on, and those houses resold to qualified buyers. There is no need for the government to involve itself in this. But then this government has constantly felt the compulsion to involve itself in everything the private sector does lately, and without any constitutional authority.

Those involved in this debacle, including those sub-prime borrowers who took out mortgages they couldn’t afford to pay back, and those who bought risky mortgages, should be made to pay the piper, not us the taxpayers. Everyone involved in crafting the policy that lead to this, and everyone who blocked attempts to reform that policy and profited from it - including Bill Clinton, Fanny Mae CEO Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Chris Dodd, Sen. Charles Schumer, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid, lobbyists for ACORN, professional campaigner Barack Obama, and other Democrats in Congress who brought this on us, should be held liable and accountable. To be fair, Obama only TOOK money from Fanny and Freddie. He didn’t participate in any viable legislation in the 143 days he actually spent on Capitol Hill.

It is truly mind boggling to see Obama criticizing John McCain for returning to Washington, to do his job for the country, and get involved in the bailout debate - while Obama does nothing but continue his campaign and take every opportunity to get in front of the cameras, pretending to be some sort of spokesman for what is going on in Washington. Is anyone really buying this deception? Why should we listen to this spurious blabbermouth when he hasn’t either the interest or patriotism to involve himself in the process?

Ever since 2004, Republicans in Congress and President Bush have repeatedly attempted to address this problem before it got out of hand, and every time they were blocked by Democrats in bed with Fanny and Freddie. Even John McCain tried to warn of the disastrous consequences of inaction as far back as 2005. Fanny and Freddy were on thin ice for many years with bad loans, cooking the books for big CEO bonuses and lying to Congress about it. Democrats refused to allow any congressional action and continued to sweep the evidence under the rug.

When Enron went down, it was quick and came without warning. Now those people are in jail. Congress has known about the problems with Fanny and Freddy for years and did nothing because the Democrats wouldn’t allow it. This was their pet project for the benefit of ACORN and their low income and minority voters, and they didn‘t care how much damage it would do to the rest of the country.

And to add insult to injury, now Barack Obama and the Democrats want to use taxpayers’ money from the $700 billion bailout to cover the mortgages of the low income, high risk borrowers who defaulted on their loans. They actually want us to pay off their mortgages. Those sub prime borrowers should be the first to go - to move into apartments - and those houses should be resold to qualified buyers. The borrower as well as the lender must share the blame and the consequences of the failure. The last thing we need is more welfare handouts to keep people in homes they could not afford in the first place.

This is outright socialism at it’s best. Ms. Pelosi said she wants to raise taxes on oil company profits and return that money to “the taxpayers.” Then in the same statement she said that money would then go to her own special interest alternative energy developers. The “taxpayers” would never see a dime of that money. Just remember that when Democrats refer to the “taxpayers,” they mean the government. And when Barack Obama talks about “the middle class,” he means the unions and union workers who vote Democrat.

But there’s more. Democrats are insisting that 20% of any future profits from the now worthless paper they hope to purchase for $700 billion must go to the Housing Trust Fund or the Capital Magnet Fund up front before any money is applied to the national debt. These are the organizations that provide a slush fund for political action groups such as ACORN, an activist community organizer group wrought with voter fraud and corruption, and the National Council of La Raza. In other words, just your typical Democrat Party sponsored groups. Democrats have consistently put party interests ahead of what’s best for the country.

There are no good solutions to this situation, so Congress is doing what they always do - writing complicated legislation to throw money at the problem. Putting all this on the backs of the taxpayers is not the answer. If we do it this time again, as we did with Bear Sterns, a pattern of unconstitutional socialism will become an accepted pattern by the government, just as it has in so many other areas of government spending. Every issue that comes up in Congress results in a battle and compromise between capitalism and socialism because too many Americans have forgotten, or never learned that the United States is a capitalist country, and it is capitalism that built this country and made it the best and strongest country in the world. You can’t get that with socialism.

Do we really want to turn the whole country over to socialism? Obama does. The Democrats in Congress do. Who’s going to stop them? And who decides who gets bailed out and who doesn’t? Lehman Bros. got passed over for bailout and was left out in the cold. Didn’t anyone tell the Democrats that Lehman was holding Al Gore’s global warming slush funds? I don’t know how they missed that.

We keep hearing that there has to be more oversight by Congress. Who is going to provide that oversight? The same people who got us into this mess in the first place with the oversight they already had? A incompetent Congress that can’t even manage its own budget is supposed to oversee Wall Street? Let’s get real, please! This just one more example of the obscene arrogance of the Washington elites whose egos are considerably larger than their brains.

The government should not inject itself into this issue with a bailout of any kind. In the first place, there is no constitutional authorization for this. It would be constitutionally illegal. Even the very procedure they are using to try to get this money from the public treasury is illegal and unconstitutional.

The legislation they are working on was submitted by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a liberal Democrat cabinet member of the executive branch of government, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, and close friend of Chuck Schumer. It is mostly being modified in the Senate Banking Committee under the direction of Chris Dodd, with input from other Senators and Congressmen. The Constitution states that all appropriations of the public money must originate in the House of Representatives. This legislation did not originate in the House of Representatives, it originated in the executive branch of government and is being debated and rewritten in the Senate.

In the second place, as long as the investment and mortgage industries think they can get easy money from the government, there will be no incentive or attempts by them to resolve the problem through the free market, as should be done. They are content just to sit back and wait for the government to rescue them like New Orleans victims of Katrina. It is this mindset and dependence on government that will condemn this country to socialism under control of the Marxists in the Democrat Party.

In the third place, they took the risk and lost. They must pay the price for their actions, not the taxpayers, their children and their grandchildren. This same risk taking with other people’s money will continue if there are no consequences to the risk takers for losing. When the company fails, the CEO, board of directors, and others who were responsible for the failure should lose everything they have instead of walking away with big bonuses. Their assets should become a part of the organization’s assets and sold off. Maybe that would encourage CEOs to be more responsible with the money and companies that have been entrusted to them.

Will there be losses in the economy if a bailout does not happen? Sure there will, but it’s not the end of the world, or even the country. There will be a “credit crunch” and a lot of people will not be able to borrow money for a while. This is as it should be. Credit will have to be limited to only those people and businesses who can show a willingness and ability to pay it back.

No more flaky loans and risky credit card handouts. No more home loans to people with insufficient income and securities. Creditors will have to require proof that the borrowed money can and will be paid back on time and on schedule. In the end, the country will return to a more frugal, responsible, and accountable system of credit as it was before the Clinton administration.

Why should we believe that anyone in Congress has the sense, education, or expertise to tell the economic professionals how to do their job? Everything I’ve seen and learned about the members of congress tells me that the average I.Q. in Congress cannot be much over 90, if that. Now we entrust these people to resolve the problem that they caused in the first place as a consequence of blatant ignorance combined with incompetence? Furthermore, how can we trust our entire economy to a group of people who can’t even manage their own budget? If you’re looking to Congress for responsible money management, you’re looking in the wrong place.

The trouble with Congress is that they can’t see the forest through the trees. They spend all of their time focused on each tree while the forest burns. They write legislation for this group and for that group which always involve spending more money and offending other groups, then they write more legislation to try to appease those groups, and the whole cycle begins all over again. The trouble is, they keep spending too much money, over-extending their powers, and never see the overall problem.

That problem is that the government is trying to do way too much, provide too many services, support too many people with entitlements, healthcare, housing, education, jobs, and buy votes with handouts to anyone who will vote for them. It is their very attempts to solve problems for certain sectors of society that are causing the problems for everyone. They have lost the concept of what the federal government is suppose to be and what it’s suppose to do. They have turned their backs on the Constitution and replaced it with lobbyists demands.

The federal government has extended its powers so far beyond what the Constitution authorizes, that now it feels it has to trash what’s left the Constitution to save the economy from collapse. They just make it up as they go along, when they should have abided by the Constitution from the start. If you’re going to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to adhere to, and ignore others, then the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land becomes useless and the nation becomes lawless and incoherent.

We now see what this country has finally come to because of liberal socialists in the government. The Constitution has become worthless since Democrat socialists, and some Republicans, have been using it for toilet paper.

Yes, perhaps America has lost it’s collective mind when they allowed the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to set the agenda for Congress. This bailout and government takeover of the free market would be just another opportunity for Democrats to take a huge leap toward the advance of socialism in America. Any agreement Washington may come to for bailing out Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, will be just as irresponsible and absurd - as a rookie community organizer from Chicago with 143 working days in the Senate and no leadership experience - becoming a leading candidate for president of the United States.

JR Dieckmann is Editor, Publisher, Writer, and Webmaster of GreatAmericanJournal.com. He also works as an electrician in Los Angeles, Ca. He has been writing and publishing articles on the web since 2000. JR can be contacted at http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/contact.htm.

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

Senator Barack Obama once again reminded us during his Friday evening debate with John McCain at Oxford Mississippi, that his tax cut proposal will benefit 95% of Americans, omitting only the wealthiest taxpayers.

I have several problems with the ramifications of this statistic. First of all, far less than 95% of Americans pay federal income tax above the $1,000 level that Obama plans to return as a rebate. In fact, many pay no income tax at all, which means that his proposal would really amount to a transfer of wealth for those people, not a tax cut.

Now I’m not against helping the needy, but I don’t like the idea of the federal government playing the role of Robin Hood, or acting as a charity of first resort.

Another problem is that “one time payments” are far inferior to permanent tax reductions, particularly in terms of aggregate tax savings for each tax payer over the long haul. Offering a one time tax rebate is a pandering gambit for political gain, is not a long lasting economic stimulus, and is a proportionally small reduction for those who pay large amounts of federal income taxes.

Admittedly, Obama’s tax proposal is not limited to a lump sum rebate. However, that is the feature of his plan that he chose to highlight, so he obviously believes that aspect of his plan will attract the most votes.

Those of a politically liberal persuasion have a tough time understanding how a reduction in tax rates can actually bring in more revenue to the U.S. Treasury than higher marginal tax rates.

More revenue does not translate into balanced budgets, or budget surpluses, if increased congressional spending outpaces gains in revenue. That is what is never considered when conservative economic policies have been ridiculed as counterproductive.

Opponents have apparently never heard of the Laffer curve, an economic model constructed by economist Arthur Laffer to project the ideal rate of taxation for revenue maximization. Many liberals naively joke that if lower taxes mean more public revenue, then a 0% tax rate should bring in the most money.

As an aside, and with apologies to professor Laffer, I’m not sure that I want the government to procure more revenue than is necessary to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. Still, Laffer’s curve refutes the idea that you must increase marginal tax rates to procure more revenue.

With all of Obama’s fantasizing about new spending programs, and considering his apparent ideological rejection of tax policies influenced by Laffer’s model, I wonder how committed he actually is to reducing middle class tax burden? Let’s remember that Bill Clinton made the middle class tax cut a hallmark theme of his campaign. Even after the economy grew out of its previous deficits and budget surpluses were projected, Clinton balked at the idea of returning any money, based on the belief that the federal government better knows how to use and spend your own funds than you do. Given the track record and economic philosophies of his party, can we really trust Obama to offer anything more substantial than a Milk Bone biscuit to a pack of hungry dogs?

Liberals might reluctantly agree that wealthy people do indeed pay the lion’s share of income tax, but they will then point to the income caps on payroll taxes, or observe that a greater proportion of discretionary income for the poor and middle class are absorbed by other taxes.

Perhaps so, but it is also true that the effect of other taxes amounts to regressive benefits for higher income people. For example, the person with an average salary of $90,000 a year does not get twice the benefit from Social Security as a person who makes half as much, although they theoretically have paid twice as much into the system. Obama wants to raise the cap on payroll tax, but what about the corresponding level of benefits? If the payroll tax is subjected to a higher income threshhold without a raise in maximum monthly benefit, some will be required to pay into an economic black hole.

Higher income taxpayers also tend to benefit less from social services than lower income people, based on need and qualifications for benefits.

Keeping the Bush tax reductions for all income levels is more evenhanded and plays less into the destructive envy of economic class warfare. Making the tax brackets still more progressive is unfurling yet another unnecessary evil.

Aside from the fact the Democrats in Congress are trying to fool Americans into believing they are “lifting” the ban on off-shore exploration and drilling for oil, the opposition to our domestic oil companies by both Democrats and radical environmental groups lies at the heart of why America is so dependent on foreign oil.

At last report, Democrats decided to allow the quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire. That’s not the same as lifting the ban. Moreover, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md) is on record saying that, if the Democrats retain control of Congress, restoring the ban “will be a top priority for discussion next year.”

So much for so-called “energy independence.”  When Democrats say that, they are talking about wind and solar power, and biofuels, not oil, natural gas, and coal.

I cringe every time I hear the Democrats attack “Big Oil” because, as Michael J. Economides, co-editor of Energy Tribune, points out in the current issue, other than some small companies,  there are just three large U.S. oil companies left; Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. There are three other Western oil companies headquartered outside the U.S.; BP, Shell, and Total. Other than these six, all the others are national or state-controlled.

As Economides points out, “The truth is that even with record profits (but by no means record returns on investment) Big Oil is in a heap of trouble. And as Big Oil goes, so goes America.”

Data from the office of Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ) reveals how Big Green is trying to throttle any hope of Americans benefiting from our own vast oil reserves. In this case, it is 487 leases in the Chukchi Sea Sale 193 in February 2008. Every single one of the leases has been challenged.

Here are the names of those environmental organizations that don’t want you to pay less at the pump: The Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club. There are others, but these are the leaders in the effort to keep oil reserves off northern Alaska from ever being tapped. These are the groups that challenged the entire 2007-2023 five-year national outer continental shelf leasing program!

When the Bureau of Land Management issued leases in New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, the Western Environmental Law Center and the Wild Earth Guardians, preemptively, on July 1, 2008, challenged all 78 leases.

It is instructive that, when President Bush began to talk about lifting the ban on offshore drilling, the global price of oil dropped precipitously. As of this writing, it has not begun to rise and, if U.S. oil companies are permitted to explore and drill, the purpose of those leases, it will not only remain at current levels, but it will drop even more.

It is the Democrat Party and radical environmental organizations that stand between the discovery and provision of new oil and natural gas. It is the Democrat Party that is trying to push through a bogus “energy” bill that would put billions in the hands of those involved in “clean energy” projects that would barely provide the electricity America needs now, nor future needs.

The Chukchi Sea is offshore of northern Alaska, one of several seas that border the Arctic Ocean. The potential of oil in the Arctic is such that Russia is making noise about extending its claims in the Chukchi Sea.

If Congress should ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, the United States would lose its claim to the vast reserves that potentially exist in the Arctic and you don’t need three guesses to figure out which political party supports ratification. That would be high on the agenda if it remains in Democrat control and if Sen. Obama were to be elected.

As outrageous as the effort is to stop exploration and extraction of oil offshore of Alaska is, the fact remains that environmental groups devote themselves to stopping Americans from having access to any kind of energy source.

Even with the expiration of the offshore ban, you can be sure environmental groups will challenge every single effort to access our national reserves of oil and natural gas, offshore or on. The now classic example is their opposition to drilling for oil in Alaska’s ANWR despite the potential for billions more barrels of oil.

An offshore, floating terminal that would be 20 miles east of Manasquan, New Jersey, has been proposed by Exxon Mobil. Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) tankers would use the terminal to link to the shore with an undersea pipeline. A Calgary-based conglomerate, Excalibur, wants to build an anchorage 15 miles off Asbury Park for a comparable pipeline.

The two projects will be officially proposed to the U.S. Maritime Administration and Coast Guard next year. An environmental group calling itself Clean Ocean Action has mobilized to insure that neither project comes to fruition.

The United States currently has only two offshore LNG facilities, one off Boston, and the other is116 miles off the coast of Louisiana. During hurricane season, the latter is subject to being shut down.

Instead, environmentalists in New Jersey, while opposing LNG terminals, love the idea of putting hundreds of wind turbines offshore despite the fact that this “clean energy” source is unreliable, would require back-up from onshore traditional plants generating electricity, and could only be built because they would be heavily subsidized with taxpayer and energy consumer dollars.

In the comic strip “Pogo”, the main character uttered the now-famous line, “We have met the enemy and they are us.” We have met the enemy and they are the environmental groups that are determined to keep the citizens of the United States from having access to affordable energy, no matter what or who produces it.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com. He blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.

The Somali pirates who hijacked a Ukrainian freighter carrying military weapons defiantly demanded $20 million in ransom despite being surrounded by three foreign warships on Sunday.

The spokesmen for the pirates, believed to be members and associates of Al-Qaeda, were contacted via satellite communications.  They confirmed that they were surrounded by three foreign warships off Somalia’s central coast and said that the captured freighter’s crew was “safe and not harmed.”

Ali admitted that the ship was surrounded, but he said the pirates would not surrender.
“One of these ships is from the United States and the other two are from European Union countries,” he said, without naming the European countries.

In spite of the news media distancing this recent attack on a ship off the coast of Somalia from global terrorism, intelligence experts believe this is just the latest operation initiated against the United States and the West by Al-Qaeda.

Recently a failed assassination attempt on the prime minister of Somalia, as well as the  attempt to hijack a luxury American cruise ship, has intensified apprehension and fear that the shaky Somalian government is losing to Al-Qaeda and Wahhabi terror groups.

Three people were mortally wounded in a terrorist attack on the Prime Minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi,while he was visiting the war-torn capital of Mogadishu. He survived the deadly encounter which entailed an explosion set off near his convoy, according to security experts. Mr Gedi was merely visiting since his government is in quasi-exile in Jowhar. The danger in the Somali capital is so great that the transitional government must avoid setting up their headquarters there.

Since 2003, Somalia has witnessed the growth of a brutal network of Jihad with strong ties to Al-Qaeda. In fact, when the US forces faced a bloody battle in 1995 during what became known as the Black Hawk Down incident, it was Al-Qaeda joining with a local warlord who killed and wounded US special operations soldiers.

Somalia has been without a functioning national government for 14 years, when they received their independence from Italy.  The transitional parliament created in 2004, but has failed to end the devastating anarchy. The impoverish people who live in the ruined capital of Mogadishu have witnessed Al-Qaeda operatives, jihadi extremists, Ethiopian security services and Western-backed counter-terrorism agents engaged in a bloody war that few support and even fewer understand.

In an incident that gained some  American press attention, Somali-based terrorists armed with rocket-propelled grenades launched an unsuccessful attack on Seaborn Spirit as it rounded the Horn of Africa with American, British and Australian tourists on board. For unexplained reasons, the attack is being treated as an isolated incident and the terrorism link is being all but ignored by journalists. The term “pirates” is routinely used with only a few reporters calling the attackers “terrorists.”

The ship came under attack during the early morning hours when the heavily armed terrorists in two speedboats began firing upon the ship with grenade launchers and machine guns. They assailants were repelled by the ships crew who implemented their security measures which included setting off electronic simulators which created the illusion the ship was firing back at the terrorists..

According to passenger accounts of the attack, there were at least three rocket-propelled grenades or RPGs that hit the ship, one hit a passenger stateroom without inflicting injuries. 

There are now some counterterrorism officials who wish to deploy a naval task force to try to prevent attacks, and kill or apprehend these modern-day pirates in Somali waters. Most travel advisories issued by nations throughout the world recognize this area as being among the most dangerous in the world.

There are some who oppose this combative approach fearing the opening of a new front in the war on terrorism. But these opponents of using force have no suggestions for dealing with these dangerous terrorists and thugs who prey on people on land or at sea.

During the 1990s, a group of Saudi-educated, Wahhabi militants arrived in Somalia with the aim of creating an Islamic state in this dismal African country. Also, the renowned Al-Qaeda established an operations base and training camp. They would routinely attack and ambush UN peacekeepers. In addition, they used Somalia to export their brand of terrorism into neighboring Kenya.

Leading members of Al-Qaeda continue to operate, mostly in secrecy, in Somalia and have built up cooperation with some of the warlords who control food, water and medicine. And the people of Somalia starve, mourn and die.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

**UPDATE - 09/28/08 PM**

Barack Obama played the “me too” game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son’s name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.

Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show “Route 51″ asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama’s positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son’s name on the campaign trail.

Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because “she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan’s name.” Jopek went on to say that “she wasn’t looking to turn it into a big media event” and “just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself.” Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.

But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son’s sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte. This begins at about 10 minutes into the radio program. (Download radio show HERE)

TRANSCRIPT

Brian Jopek: Because of some of the negative feedback she’s gotten on the Internet, you know Internet blogs, you know people accusing her of… or accusing Obama of trying to get votes doing it… and that sort of thing.

Radio Host Moberg: Yeah

Jopek: She has turned down any subsequent interviews with the media because she just didn’t want it to get turned into something that it wasn’t. She had told me in an email that she had asked, actually asked Mr. Obama to not wear the bracelet any more at any of his public appearances. Which I don’t think he’s…

Moberg: It has been a while since he’s brought it up.

Jopek: Right. But, the other night I was watching the news and he was on, uh, speaking somewhere and he was still wearing it on his right wrist. I could see it on his right wrist. So, that’s his own choice. I mean that’s something Barack Obama, that’s a choice that he continues to wear it despite Tracy asking him not to… Because she is a Barack Obama supporter and she didn’t want to do anything to sabotage his campaign, so, if he’s still wearing the bracelet then, uh, that of course is entirely up to him.

Moberg: Maybe there’s a difference between wearing it and making a point to bring it up in your speeches?

Even the snow job that the radio host tried to pull off to cover for Barack’s refusing the wishes of the family of the KIA soldier who’s bracelet he wears doesn’t pass the smell test. After all, now that Obama has made it a big point in the debates, I guess the silent observance of Sgt. Jopek is no longer so silent and Obama is back to exploiting the death of a soldier even when he was asked NOT to do so by that soldier’s parents.

To pile insult onto injury here, the Mother doesn’t even want to force the issue of telling Obama to stop exploiting her son because she wants to see him win the election. Obama is not only taking advantage of this brave soldier’s death, he is taking advantage of the good wishes of the man’s Mother who doesn’t want to hurt the campaign.

This all makes Obama look pretty calculating and blood chillingly callous, doesn’t it?

And, why is the media not playing this story? The radio show on which this interview is heard happened all the way back in March. How is it the media missed this? Is it because they are also don’t want to hurt Obama’s campaign?

I can only say that if the parents of the soldier whose bracelet John McCain is wearing had said in public that they want him to stop wearing their son’s bracelet the news would have been coast to coast, and wall to wall, not just ignored in Madison, Wisconsin.

Obama’s use of this soldier that fell in the line of duty is tainted by his ambition and callousness. And the media is letting him get away with it.

**UPDATE**

Jopek Mother Confirms She Asked Obama NOT To Use Bracelet in Campaign

This afternoon the Associated Press was at last able to contact Tracy Jopek, mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, the KIA soldier on the bracelet that Barack Obama is using on the campaign trail. Ryan’s Mother is confirming that she gave the bracelet to Mr. Obama, but is also confirming that she asked him to stop using her son’s name on the campaign.

After Tracy Jopek gave Sen. Barack Obama a bracelet in honor of her son who was killed in Iraq, she asked Obama not to mention the bracelet on the campaign trail.

She did, however, claim that she was “satisfied” with how Obama discussed the bracelet in the presidential debates last week.

But, we have another little mystery with these AP reports. The original headline for this report was “Soldier’s mother ‘ecstatic’ about Obama’s bracelet,” released at about 7PM the evening of the 28th. But a few hours later, the AP changed it to “Soldier’s mom defends Obama’s mention of bracelet.”

Apparently, Jopek’s mother did NOT say she was “ecstatic” about Obama continuing to use her son’s name on the campaign trail even after she told him to stop. The AP had to change its headline to reflect the truth.

The fact remains, the woman has repeated that she asked Obama not to mention her son on the campaign trail and this AP report confirms that. Will Obama stop using her son, now that we are sure she said she wanted him to stop?

(H/T Level_Head of www.dehavelle.com)

(Photo credit: Washington Post)

1. First place winner, hands down, is PETA, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals. After hearing of a Swiss restaurant that started using human breast milk in their soups and sauces, PETA sent a letter to Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc., urging them to start using breast milk in their ice cream products. Yum.
2. Unfortunately, this idiot terrorist is unable to savor his award. As he was mindlessly lobbing bombs and chanting Allah Akbar, he accidentally blew himself up. (Warning: graphic video) I wonder if he finally got those 72 virgins he was promised.
3. Father Earth, Algore, gets the

top eco-idiot award. Last week, he urged young people to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants. Translation: Break the law for Mother Earth.
4. Also, in the eco-idiots category: Bette Midler, who cancelled her latest tour in order to save the planet. The aging 62 year-old diva felt the fleet of 14 trucks she used to ship her show from city to city caused too much pollution. I’m sure low ticket sales had nothing to do with her decision.
5. A Michigan Court of Appeals deserves a place on our list for

ruling that a man who pleaded no contest to sodomizing a sheep doesn’t have to register as a sex offender. Would someone please let PETA know.
6. The winner of last week’s top idiot award is back. Democrat VP candidate Joe Biden stated on CBS Evening News, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’” Only problem is, FDR wasn’t president during the 1929 crash, Herbert Hoover was. Oh, and there was no television in 1929. Duh.

7. Former American Idol star Clay Aiken gets our Idiot Parent of the Week award. Clay was pictured in People Magazine holding his infant son as he announced to the world that he is gay. Clay threw in some advice on parenting, stating, “I cannot raise a child to lie or hide things.” Another example of idiots transforming bad behaviour into moral-self righteousness. Bravo.

8. Kudos to the idiot who managed to rack up nearly $2 million in traffic fines before being caught by Brazilian police.
9. Last, but not least, is the idiot former judge who was disbarred by the Oklahoma Supreme Court last Tuesday. His crime? He actually got caught, and served prison time, for using a sexual device while presiding over trials. Hey, maybe some lawyers just complained about how hard it was to get a rise out of him. Ya think?

Thought for the week: To err is human, but being an idiot takes something special.

RightBias publishes the Top Idiots Awards every Monday.
This article may be reprinted, with attribution to RightBias.com