The Sarasota Herald-Tribune (or "Big Green") is touting Governor Crist's proposal to buy 187,000 acres of land near the Everglades from U.S. Sugar for $1.75 billion dollars in their editorial, "An offer that's hard to refuse". This is really an offer that is hard to believe.

Big Green and our Governor are looking to take prime agricultural land that produces sugarcane off the market and put it under government centralized control and management. We believe the cost to Floridians will be much higher than the $1.75 billion, much higher. Big Green asks, "What becomes of U.S. Sugar's 1,700 employees and the South Florida cities like Clewiston whose existence is tied to cane farming?" What happens to all the tax revenue we Floridians lose forever, the jobs, the families, the cities?

But here is the real kicker. Big Green loves ethanol, except the corn based kind of course. Guess what sugarcane is a great source of? Ethanol and alcohol, both of which can be alternative fuels to replace Big Oil. So Big Green is taking fertile sugarcane growing land away from Floridians that could be used to produce ethanol and get us off of Big Oil.

Let's look at what sugarcane bagasse can produce. The fibrous material left over from pressing sugarcane is called bagasse. Bagasse is 35% of the chemical energy stored in sugarcane.

Brazil has since 1973 moved to producing ethanol and alcohol from sugarcane bagasse to fuel their cars and power plants. Here are some facts about their production of sugarcane based alternative fuels:

According to Wikipedia, "Part of the bagasse [in Brazil] is currently burned at the mill to provide heat for distillation and electricity to run the machinery. This allows ethanol plants to be energetically self-sufficient and even sell surplus electricity to utilities; current production is 600 MW for self-use and 100 MW for sale. This secondary activity is expected to boom now that utilities have been induced to pay "fair price "(about US$10/GJ or US$0.036/kWh) for 10 year contracts...The energy is especially valuable to utilities because it is produced mainly in the dry season when hydroelectric dams are running low [Florida gets 1% of its power from hydroelectric plants]. Estimates of potential power generation from bagasse range from 1,000 to 9,000 MW, depending on technology. Higher estimates assume gasification of biomass, replacement of current low-pressure steam boilers and turbines by high-pressure ones, and use of harvest trash currently left behind in the fields. For comparison, Brazil's Angra I nuclear plant generates 657 MW."

Brazil is a great success story and has reached energy independence by using ethanol and alcohol produced from sugarcane coupled with cars that use biofuels.

So Big Green wants us to not grow sugarcane which can produce ethanol, alcohol, and provide excess electrical power because they want us to preserve the Everglades. They do not want us to drill for oil and natural gas off of Florida's Gulf coast because it would damage the environment. They do not want us to use nuclear, coal, oil or natural gas fired plants because they harm the environment. However, they want us to use alternative fuels like ethanol but don't like corn based ethanol.

That leaves solar, wind and who knows what to fuel our transportation industry. Oh, I know we can conserve our way out of this self-imposed mess.

Does anyone else see the insanity of Big Green's ideology and the lack of vision of Governor Crist? We must as a state and nation become energy independent. Nothing can be off the table as we move toward that goal. It is a national security issue.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune using their best Rachel Carson scare tactics is worried about children exposed to lead 30 years ago in their editorial, "Lead's criminal connection".

We all know that the U.S. government banned lead paint and solder in 1978 and 1986, respectively. By 1996, leaded gasoline had been phased out. These efforts resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of U.S. children with blood lead levels considered "of concern" (from 13.5 million in 1978 to 310,000 in 2002). We clearly have a very successful program reducing children's exposure to lead.

Now we have a Cincinnati study of 250 adults that says lead leads to criminal behavior. You have to wonder if defense attorneys paid for this research study. I can see it now, "My client is not guilty because he was exposed to lead at an early age".

So why is the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and other liberal media up in arms about lead? Of course. In the environmentalist mind set they favor nationalization, central planning, and control. They want more regulations, more oversight and more bans of what you and I can and can't do. Today lead is their target.

But wait. There is a greater evil out there than lead. It is synthetic estrogen.

Synthetic estrogen is found in "the pill" and the "morning after pill" in large quantities. So how much are humans ingesting daily of synthetic estrogen? Brace yourself. The medicines used in hormone therapy contribute about 3,350 micrograms per day. The birth control pill contributes about 16,675 micrograms per day. The morning after pill contributes a whopping 333,500 micrograms per day.

So why should we worry about synthetic estrogen?

Estrogen according to a seven-year study funded by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the American Chemistry Council published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found, "Estrogen that goes down Canadian toilets -- some naturally from women, some from birth-control pills -- is enough to make entire fish species too feminine to reproduce."

Fish scientist Karen Kidd, who conducted the study, dripped small amounts of estrogen into a clean lake in northwestern Ontario over several years, just as if urine with the female hormone were running in via sewage from a nearby city.

This constant hormone bath made male minnows produce eggs in unnatural, part-female sex organs. And even after she stopped adding estrogen and the water turned clean again, the minnows almost completely disappeared for several years. Even small concentrations of estrogen can decimate wild fish populations, the University of New Brunswick biology professor concludes, even at levels found in some Canadian waters. She would not name individual rivers.

And while the minnows were prone to fast extinction because of their short lifespan (about two years), she says bigger fish such as trout or pike might also be hurt if they are exposed for long enough.

The first dramatic news of "feminized" fish came from British rivers in the 1990s where male fish near sewage plants were producing eggs and carrying reproductive organs that were partly female.

"A lot of follow-up studies showed it was the natural estrogens that women excrete and then the synthetic estrogens in birth control pills that were the main causes of feminization in male fish," Ms. Kidd said.

"The Pill is one of the most heavily prescribed pharmaceuticals in the world. There are over a million women on it in Canada."

In 2004 researchers on the Potomac River downstream of Washington, D.C., found large-mouth bass that in most respects were males, but who had eggs in their sexual organs. This phenomenon is called "intersexuality". Scientists from the University of Colorado in 2005 examined the trout and other fish that populate Boulder Creek. They netted 123 fish down stream of Boulder city's sewage plant and found a tremendous imbalance: 101 female, 12 male and 10 intersex fish. One researcher told the Denver Post, "Its the first thing I've seen as a scientist that really scared me."

So why isn't the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and their environmentalist bed fellows raging mad about this clear and present danger to our fish populations and humans? Why aren't they calling for the banning of the use of estrogen? Why hasn't the EPA banned estrogen as dangerous to our environment and fishing industry? Why isn't the Sierra Club up in arms?

According to Iain Murray in his book "The Really Inconvenient Truths", "By any standard typically used by environmentalists, the pill is a pollutant. It does the same thing, just worse, as other chemicals they call pollution." Murray shows in his book that the EPA inexplicably refuses to consider the impacts of contraceptives because "pharmaceutical regulation is a function of the Food and Drug Administration". That is like the EPA saying I won't deal with lead paint poisoning in homes because homes are a function of the Federal Housing Administration.

Murray states, "So government bureaucrats, the enforcement wing of liberal environmentalism, officially refuses to do anything about the contraceptive pollution issue in the United States. All this in marked contrast to the United Kingdom's Environmental Agency, which at least has the decency to label the contraceptive pill a pollutant, even though it appears powerless or unwilling to do anything about it."

So what about environmental groups like the Sierra Club. Surely they must be concerned about the destruction of our fish population and its effects on us humans, right? Wrong.

Iain Murray points out, "The current head of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope, was once political director of the group Zero Population Growth."

Back in 1970, the Sierra Club adopted the following resolution which states in part: "Be it resolved by the undersigned organizations...That we must find, encourage, and implement at the earliest possible time the necessary policies, attitudes, social standards, and actions that will, by voluntary and humane means consistent with human rights and individual conscience, bring about the stabilization of the population of the United States and then of the world..."

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune and their ilk will not attack synthetic estrogen because they are attacking their own. Feminist organizations like NOW, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, Zero Population Growth and the World Wild Life Fund which states on its web site that, "We should supply contraceptives to all those 180 million people in the developing world...even if there is no population problem".

You see humans are the enemy not the environment. We must control the number of humans who are themselves "pollutants". By reproducing we are harming mother earth. So synthetic estrogen, which is destroying our fish populations and humans, is good because we are preventing more humans.

Does anyone else see how sick this ideology really is?

Iain Murray from the Competitive Enterprise Institute has written a most revealing book titled, "The Really Inconvenient Truths, Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want you to Know About - Because They Helped Cause Them".

The book is easy to read and drives home the point in the subtitle that the Environmental Movement has killed tens of millions of humans, done serious environmental damage, is a greater threat to endangered species, and threatens the health and well being of hundreds of millions of humans, primarily the poor, all in the name of helping "mother earth".

But how can this be you ask? Well it is actually so simple as to be obvious. According to Iain, "American values like property [rights], enterprise, and freedom work well to protect the environment; and that the environment suffers when these values are replaced by contrary values like nationalization, central planning, and control."

Iain's premise is straight forward. Historically, we humans take care of our land and its resources better than government.

Environmentalists, their supporters in Congress, at the State level and even those in our counties and cities believe that more nationalization, central planning and control is needed to protect us from ourselves. Environmentalists in the end place a higher value on "the environment" than on the humans who have domain over it. You probably have programs in your county to buy "environmentally sensitive" land. Ever asked is this really the best way to protect that land? Ever questioned whether it is better to have that land in the hands of a private owner who has a vested interest in keeping it valuable? When the government owns land, it and all that is on it is worth zero.

Iain uses a great example of protecting tigers in Africa and Asia. On government land a tiger is worth nothing so poachers take the animals for nothing, they just must avoid getting caught. A tiger skin is worth tens of thousands of dollars on the black market. The poacher has no sunk costs because the tiger was free. He just had to capture or kill it.

Now if someone owned those tigers, breeds them and sells them for a profit there is a vested interest in protecting and growing the population of tigers because they now have real market value. The free market system actually increases the population of an endangered species because the value of the species, in this case a tiger, is at the market rate. Good for the tiger, good for those wanting tiger products, good for the government who gets taxes from the sale of tiger products, and good for the entrepreneur who profits by raising tigers. Its a win, win, win for tigers. Its a lose, lose, lose for poachers.

But you see liberals and environmentalists despise businesses that use public land to make a profit. Substitute the word "tree" in the above example for "tiger" and you get the point.

Iain presents seven clear cut examples of ecological disasters that are directly linked to liberal movements and environmentalism. Some you may know about, some you may not. Many know about how the ban on DDT worldwide led to a dramatic increase in mosquito born malaria which killed tens of millions of innocent men, women and children, primarily in Africa.

However, did you know that the Feminist Movement and their Planned Parenthood allies push for birth control and the "morning after" pills containing estrogen is causing male fish across America to develop female sex organs? Funny how "pro-choice" and "environmentalist" liberals never talk about that.

I highly recommend Iain's book. It is an awakening to the real damage caused by those professing to protect the environment.

Florida is sitting on top of potentially billions of barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas. It is sitting there and we are doing nothing to go and get it. This not only makes no sense it is harming our environment, our economy, our residents and our future.

As we pointed out in a previous article China and Cuba are going after Florida's Gulf oil and natural gas. Why aren't we?

According to Breitbart.com Senator John McCain today said the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling should be lifted, and individual states given the right to pursue energy exploration in waters near their own coasts. The current ban on offshore drilling covers an estimated 80 percent of U.S. coastal waters.

Florida needs to drill for its own oil and natural gas. We need to do it now, for our children and grandchildren.

According to a 2006 article by Humberto Fontova of Human Events, "It's high time these hotheads in Florida got with the national program. They need to shed their petty obsessions with the past and start assessing the national interest soberly and in light of current developments, not stale policies enacted in the heat of hysteria almost half a century ago. Most outrageous of all, their policies hurt the very people they claim to help.

I refer, of course, to offshore oil drilling, currently banned off Florida because of rich pressure groups. That shock and awe at the gas pump might wake up a few people. There's something called the law of supply and demand. Rant and rave all you want, bellow and whine all you want, throw as many tantrums as you want, hold as many rain dances as you want, hold as many séances with ghosts as you want, sacrifice as many virgins as you want, burn as many witches as you want -- but no amount of legislation or wishful thinking will abolish it."

When Humberto wrote his article a gallon of gasoline was just over $2.00 a gallon. Now it is over $4.00 a gallon. Oh, if only we had listened to Humberto in 2006!

Gulf drilling is good for the environment.

Actually drilling in the Gulf will reduce the possibility of an oil spill because all the oil spills in the United States to date were from tankers, not off shore drilling platforms. As Humberto points out, "In fact, Florida's gorgeous and tourist-packed beaches have suffered from an ugly oil spill. It happened summer of 1976 off Panama City and Destin, by far the most beautiful beaches in America. That sugar white sand and those emerald waters were fouled from a tanker spill. The current drilling ban will make another such spill more likely. The ban not only puts us at the mercy of shaky sheikdoms and Hugo Chavez for oil, it also means we'll need to keep transporting that oil stateside -- typically to refineries in Louisiana and Texas. This path takes those tankers smack in front of Florida's beaches."

There are 3,739 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico today and 3,203 lie off the Louisiana coast. There have been no oil spills from an offshore oil platform in the Gulf, none. Even during hurricane Katrina, when over 1,000 platforms were displaced, not one drop of oil was spilled.

Drilling is good for Gulf fish!

Facing high food prices and a growing demand for protein to keep us healthy we learn that drilling is good for Gulf fish. Oil companies have left in place in the Gulf of Mexico platforms from played out wells at the request of fishermen. Humberto points out that , "Marine life had EXPLODED around these huge artificial reefs. Louisiana produces on third of America's seafood In fact a study by Louisiana State University shows that 85% of Louisiana offshore fishing trips involve fishing around these structures and that there's 50 times more marine life around an oil production platform than in the surrounding Gulf bottoms. Louisiana produces one-third of America's commercial fisheries -- because of, not in spite of, these platforms."

According to America's Power Florida gets 29.2% of our power from coal. We get 16.9% from petroleum, 38% from natural gas and 0.1% from hydroelectric. If we had our own supply of natural gas from the Gulf we could eliminate totally our use of coal and oil. Florida power is the 13th highest in the U.S. We could become one of the lowest with our own resources lying a few miles into the Gulf of Mexico.

We believe that nothing should be off the table when it comes to energy production or fossil fuels. Every resource must be explored and developed. Wind, solar, natural gas, oil, coal, nuclear and biofuels are all needed to ween us off of foreign oil, bring jobs to America and provide us with cheap and reliable power. Cheap and reliable power drives our economy!

This is a national security issue. Energy independence is our goal. Energy exploration and exploitation are the clear path to that goal.

Hot Air blog points out, "When Barack Obama needed to win Pennsylvania, what villain did he use in his populist rhetoric? In the below video he chose Countrywide Finance. Countrywide, Obama said, paid off its executives while leaving homeowners with foreclosure notices." He particularly criticized the company's CEO for his excessive compensation and more generally "infecting the economy and helping to create a home foreclosure crisis," which he linked not only to the 2 million who lost their houses but to school districts that couldn't purchase supplies and pay teachers.



When it came time to selecting his VP, what hero did Obama choose? Jim Johnson, who got millions in loans from Countrywide. According to John Dickerson at Slate.com, "Now the man Obama has entrusted with what he has called the most important decision of his campaign is wrapped up in Countrywide and tied to the CEO. There are lots of unanswered questions about the Johnson deal, though no evidence as yet that he did anything wrong. But the Obama standard isn't wrongdoing. It's mere connection to the company. By that standard, this is bad news."

This week Obama was forced, due to media and public pressure, to throw Jim Johnson under the train. How many more people will Obama throw under the train? The list is long and growing.

Now we learn about two other prominent Democrats who are on the Countrywide take. According to Bloomburg.com, "[Democrat] Senator Kent Conrad said he was given preferential treatment on a mortgage from Countrywide Financial Corp. and will write a $10,500 check to charity. "It appears Countrywide waived one point on my mortgage,'' Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said in a statement today in Washington."

"Conrad and [Democrat] Senator Christopher Dodd, who [since 2006 and before the current housing crisis] oversees the U.S. mortgage industry as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, were among those who received loans through Countrywide's "V.I.P.'' program, which waived points, fees and borrowing rules for prominent people, Portfolio magazine reported June 12. Dodd has denied receiving preferential treatment." according to Bloomberg.com.

So much for Obama's rhetoric and promise of change. Obama, his party's leadership and his closest advisers are part of the old guard liberal Democratic machine.

What is that old saying, "Do as I say not as I do?"

Recently Senator John McCain at a town hall meeting talked about the need to put the "Country before Party". This phrase has drawn scorn from both the left and the right.

The left calls this statement a shallow and meaningless "mantra". The right sees it as further proof that Senator McCain does not care about conservatives. As a conservative I look at it differently. I believe that the country is tired of partisan bickering and wants the "needs" of the country to take center stage. Politics is about compromise.

I believe that putting "Country before Party" is the essence of John McCain.

As Senator Joe Lieberman said in a letter to McCain supporters, "Time and time again John McCain has put his country first. He refused early release when he was held captive in Vietnam. He continued to put his country first as a national leader in the U.S. Senate. He put country before party when he fought to pass campaign finance reform, sought a bi-partisan solution to the immigration problem, and consistently supported pro-environment policies. His courage to stand up to the failed Iraq war plan of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and lead the fight for a new strategy in Iraq will go down in history, and it saved American lives. These were not always the easy things to do. In fact, they were usually very difficult, and often threatened his political career. But John McCain did what was right."

While I disagree with Senator McCain on several issues, I believe it is time for America to have a leader that truly has stood for our country before party in actions and deeds, not just words.

The liberal Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board is fawning over the primary victory of Senator Barack Obama in their article, "Unforgettable milestone: Primary success for Obama and America".

The editorial board makes a startling statement in its editorial when they say, "This is a nation, after all, that once enslaved blacks. The country has been bent, molded and tempered by that fact and the quest to atone for it."

There you have the sole reason why the Democratic Party and the liberal media are fawning over Senator Obama. The primary victory of Senator Obama is due to the "quest to atone for it". And what is it? That this nation "once enslaved blacks".

The depth and breath of this statement is amazing but indicative of the belief system of liberal Democrats and those in the media. This nomination is in fact the "atonement" for all liberals.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune then points out that, "It is not the same government that once routinely denied people of color the right to vote." They are right. For you see it was Democrats who passed Jim Crow laws creating the status of "separate but equal" for blacks. It was Democrats that fought against giving blacks the right to vote and treating them equally. It was Democrats that overwhelmingly voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

How have Democrats atoned for their past evils? They created affirmative action. Promotion based on race not merit. A totally un-American concept.

The "selection" of Senator Obama by the Democratic party is based on their bedrock belief in and commitment to affirmative action. Affirmative action is the Democrats way of atoning for slavery. For Democrats and the liberal media the primary victory of Senator Obama is the "crown jewel" of affirmative action.

Americans when they apply for a job expect that their character, education, personal accomplishments and experience will get them hired, not their race or ethnicity. America was built upon the foundation of equal rights and equal opportunity. America has always been the haven for many fleeing from oppression because of religious beliefs, race or ethnicity.

My family came from Europe as have many other Americans. My family fled Communism. We never owned slaves and feel no need to atone for anything, let alone the slavery that took place in America 200 years ago. We certainly do not believe in giving any one race or ethnicity an advantage over another. Affirmative action is counter to the values and beliefs of America and Americans.

The Democratic Party in the end selected Senator Obama over Senator Clinton because they felt the need to "atone". The people who voted in the Democratic primaries did not elect Senator Obama. The Democratic Party via the Rules Committee and un-elected super delegates selected him over a highly qualified woman to be their nominee for President.

The Democrat Party has now nominated an unqualified, inexperienced but eloquent black man. As former President Bill Clinton pointed out this is the first time in history that a newly elected Senator with essentially "one year of experience in Congress" will be the Democratic Party nominee.

What we now see is the combination of achieving the "crown jewel" of affirmative action and the quest for "atonement" by the Democratic Party for their racist past. These two forces came together in the persona of Barack Obama.

But will American voters want to atone or not?

Will you vote for the next President of the United States because you feel the need to atone? Will you vote for Senator Obama because you believe in affirmative action? Will you vote for him even though he is not qualified for the position but because he must be given the Presidency to atone for past evils?

If you were picking your doctor, lawyer, financial planner or mechanic what would you base that decision on? If you were hiring someone to work in your company what would you base that decision on? When you fly and if you could pick your pilot what qualities do you want him or her to have? Would you make these decision based on the need to atone? We think not.

Most Americans do not feel a need to atone for slavery or anything else.

We believe the job of President must go to that person who has the experience, is best qualified and most accomplished. That person is John McCain.

What do you think?

You have got to love the sheer devotion of environmentalists to their cause no matter what the cost in human suffering. We used to call them "tree huggers" in an endearing way. When they used to just hug trees they were harmless. However, since then 1960s they have become dangerous. Their record is one of good intentions but deadly results.

In his Sarasota Herald-Tribune guest column "Florida needs more energy efficiency, not another nuclear plant", Glenn Compton, Chairman of Manasota-88 comes out against nuclear power.

Glenn's standard for building nuclear power plants is, "the nuclear power industry should prove that nuclear plants, fuel and waste would pose no significant danger before a new nuclear plant is built in Florida."

We love Glenn's high standard and wish environmentalists like Glenn kept to this standard themselves. Let us give you just a few examples of the "pose no serious threat" standard as applied to Glenn and his ilk.

The DDT scare of the 1960s. A nationwide hysteria followed the publication of Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring in 1962, in which she labeled DDT a dangerous chemical that might be causing cancer in humans. It was the Sierra Club that led the charge to ban DDT. The Sierra Club went from a little known group of activists to today an international environmental force. They pointed to research, later proven to be totally false, that bird eggs were thinning due to use of DDT. There has never been any research that has linked DDT usage with the death of any animal species or human illness. Their efforts, the banning of DDT here in the U.S. and overseas, particularly in Africa, have directly led to the deaths of tens of millions of men, women and innocent children from mosquito born malaria.

Environmentalists "posed a serious threat" to human life in their race to ban the use of DDT. It should be noted that the UN now supports the use of DDT, finally recognizing the horrible results of banning it.

Next came the nuclear scare of the 1970s with the founding of Greenpeace. As Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace said, "In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands."

The result of Greenpeace's efforts, a total shutdown of the then budding nuclear power industry. This led to the U.S. move to fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) to meet our ever growing demand for cheap and reliable power.

Today, Patrick Moore admits the error of his ways and supports nuclear power. Patrick states, "Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."

Glenn in his column uses the old Greenpeace scare tactics when he without proof states, "The cumulative health effect from all of the daily individual safe doses of radiation exposure on humans is not known." What Glenn fails to point out is that we have had U.S. Navy nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines for decades with no incidents and no human caused health problems. Our sailors and Marines are living, eating and sleeping just yards away from nuclear power plants with no ill effects.

Finally, we have the big Kahuna of environmental bad boys - Global Warming. This is the greatest environmentalist political movement of all time. It has joined all environmentalist groups with the far left in a coalition to stop the use of oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power. They actually believe that burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming.

We say political movement because the science behind human caused global warming has been debunked. Go here, here, here and here to learn why human caused global warming is a hoax. Global warming stopped in 1998 even though CO2 emissions have increased dramatically since then.

The human caused global warming hoax promoted by Glenn and his fellow environmentalists have brought us corn based ethanol. Environmentalists and their Democratic partners in Congress were behind the energy bill passed in December 2007, which mandates a huge spike in the biofuel production requirements from 7.5 billion gallons in 2012 to 36 billion in 2022. This means approximately 20 million new acres of U.S. farmland will have to be dedicated to biofuel crops to meet this mandate. What is interesting is that it takes more than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol. Go figure.

What has the environmentalist solution to reduce carbon emissions by using ethanol done? This good idea has caused the price of food to rise. The skyrocketing cost of food staples like grain has caused protests involving thousands of people in places such as South Africa, Egypt and Pakistan. These protests turned deadly in Haiti and even led to the ouster of Prime Minister Jacques-Edouard Alexis. Rice is being rationed in the U.S. According to the UN the worst is yet to come as we take more and more farmland away from producing food to producing fuel.

So what is Glenn's new solution to stop global warming. Given all the previous great ideas of environmentalism that have killed millions, polluted our rivers, streams and the Gulf of Mexico, caused food riots, destroyed the nuclear power industry, taken coal, oil and natural gas powered plants off the table, raised our gas and energy prices? Conserve.

We love the childish innocence of this solution. We can save the planet by conserving. Sounds so simple, wonderful and naive.

The real solution is nothing is off the table.

When it comes to the production of energy our economy and the global economy demand cheap reliable power. That means we need to develop and wisely use all the resources we have been blessed with. Oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind and solar.

Given their dismal and deadly record it is time for environmentalists to step aside and let the best interests of the human race take precedent.

While the veterans community throughout the United States and Florida get ready to hold Memorial Day services and in our own Sarasota County we will dedicate a new national cemetery to honor those who gave the last full measure of devotion, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune decides to run a story on a dysfunctional, dishonorably discharged Iraqi war veteran who is a felon.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune should be ashamed of themselves for publishing "The spoils of Iraq war". It is one thing to be against the war against Radical Islam. It is another thing to, at this haloed time with malice and forethought, present a story of a dysfunctional former soldier who has a bone to pick with our military.

This smacks of the infamous 1971 Winter Soldier Conference in Detroit hosted by Senator John Kerry. The purpose of the conference was not only to discredit the war against communism in Vietnam but to discredit America's soldiers. It was highly successful. At the conference Vietnam veterans were called baby killers, murders of civilians, guilty of war crimes, portrayed as dysfunctional drug users and psychologically damaged because of PTSD.

All of these false accusations have been proved wrong. But the myths persist even to today.

This article is the Sarasota Herald-Tribune's Winter Soldier Conference part two. Here they are trying to paint soldiers who have served honorably as dysfunctional and shamefully use Private Earl Coffey to do so.

We have hundreds of Iraqi veterans in our community who have not stolen money while on active duty, have never been court-martialed, are still serving or were honorably discharged, came back to the United States and began a life working hard, supporting loving families and raising children.

As a Vietnam Veteran, I know how these brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who served honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan must feel when they read this story. I felt it in the 1970s.

The anger that wells up and disbelief that any newspaper would want to highlight the dysfunctional over the true heroes. The heroes that they and we left behind in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, WW II, WWI, the Civil War and the American Revolution.

We will continue to recognize our local Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who gave the last full measure of devotion on Memorial Day, May 26th. We will dedicate our new national cemetery on June 1st. We will recognize those that serve and all veterans as the heroes that they are.

We will continue to support our military, our veterans, their families and their orphaned children.

As Abraham Lincoln said on November 19, 1863 a cold winters day in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania when he dedicated a new national cemetery, "But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow - this ground...It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that theses dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

God Bless our military, our veterans, their families and orphaned children.

We have published many articles and reports about Senator McCain, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. We have not come out and actually said why we support Senator McCain over Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Well here is a partial list of reasons. We hope you will comment on our take on issues and present your own ideas.

1. Senator McCain will make the Bush tax cuts permanent and cut the size and growth of government at the Federal level. Senators Clinton and Obama have both said they will let the Bush tax cuts expire. Senators Clinton and Obama have proposed at least $600 billion in new or expanded government programs when they take office.

2. Senator McCain has never requested an ear mark and said he will veto any bill with an ear mark in it. Senators Clinton and Obama have used ear marks extensively, with Senator Obama obtaining an earmark in 2007 for the hospital that his wife works at, right after the hospital gave her a raise from $190K to $300K.

3. Senator McCain will appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. Senators Clinton and Obama will appoint judges that make public policy from the bench, something that goes completely against our constitution and the role of the judiciary.

4. Senator McCain understands the global war against radical Islam and the imperative to win in Iraq and Afghanistan. The consequences of losing and pulling out are catastrophic. He wants to end the fighting quickly but continue to have a presence in Iraq for the long term to stabilize the region. Senators Clinton and Obama simply want to pull out, regardless of the consequences or implications.

5. Senator McCain will be a very formidable negotiator and free trader. Senators Clinton and Obama want to scrap NAFTA and are anti-free trade. Senator Obama has said he will meet with dictators and rogue leaders with out preconditions.

6. Senator McCain wants to fix the economy by allowing it to right itself. He is for cutting regulation, lowering taxes on businesses, funding research and entrepreneurship. Senators Clinton and Obama want more regulation, higher corporate taxes, they want to tax profits and are for more government control.

7. Senator McCain wants to provide all Americans access to heath care via affordable, transferable, and cheap health care insurance. He wants to give individuals a $5,000 tax credit like we do to corporations to allow them to buy their heath coverage. He is for a market based system and getting government and insurance companies out of the way of the medical decision making process. Senators Clinton and Obama want socialized medicine, which has been proven not to work.

8. Senator McCain is pro-gun and pro-life. Senators Clinton and Obama are anti-second Amendment and both support late term abortions with Senator Obama supporting the killing of babies who survive an abortion even if they are out of the womb.

We strongly disagree with Senator McCain, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama on two issues.

1. Human caused global warming. Scientific research has now proven that CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are not the cause of global warming. The Global Warming science has been debunked. Global warming is no longer a scientific theory it is a political movement much like we saw with DDT. The science behind the DDT scare was debunked however the political movement went on and it killed tens of millions of innocent men, women and especially children mostly in Africa. We are seeing the same thing with the global warming political movement and ethanol. People are starving so we can feel good about filling up our SUVs.

2. Torture. Senators McCain, Clinton and Obama want waterboarding taken off the table as a method of interrogation. We believe strongly that waterboarding must remain on the table as the "nuclear option". The President must have the authority in specific cases to personally authorize our CIA to waterboard an individual or individuals for high value, time sensitive intelligence. For example, should we capture Osama Bin Laden the President must have the authority to waterboard him, if deemed necessary.

That it our say. What say you?

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune in their editorial, "Guantanamo's tainted trials" uses the words of yet another decorated veteran to falsely accuse the military of a, "political agenda [that] has compromised the justice system at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

To prove their case they quote decorated retired Air Force Colonel Morris D. "Mo" Davis. First we thank Colonel "Mo"Davis [pictured here] for his service to this great nation.

The editorial board uses this respected veteran as a hammer to strike at the administration of President Bush. The editorial board states, "Abusive interrogations, imprisonment without charges and broken rules of evidence are some of the ways that the White House, Justice Department and Pentagon have compromised traditional American principles of justice following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."

What they don't tell you is what Colonel Davis said in his June 26, 2007 New York Times op-ed article, "The Guantanamo I know".

In his op-ed piece Colonel Davis states, "LINDSEY GRAHAM, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is right: “The image of Guantánamo Bay and the reality of Guantánamo Bay are completely different.” It is disappointing that so many embrace a contrived image. Reality for Guantánamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centers and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying war criminals. It is a reality that has been all but ignored or forgotten."

Colonel Davis goes on to say, "Some imply that if a defendant does not get a trial that looks like Martha Stewart’s and ends like O. J. Simpson’s, then military commissions are flawed. They are mistaken. The Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

"Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees."

According to Wikipedia, "[Colonel] Davis called the Supreme Court's intention to review the Military Commissions Act "meddling": "This constant uncertainty and meddling certainly takes a toll on people, It would be nice to have some certainty for a change."

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board does not explain why Colonel Davis resigned as chief prosecutor. They state, "Davis resigned last fall as the Pentagon's chief prosecutor of terrorism cases. He said at the time he felt pressure from superiors to win convictions before U.S. elections this November so the administration could say the Guantanamo trial system works.

This is not true, which means it is a lie. Colonel Davis resigned because he did not like his new boss.

In October 2007 Colonel Davis resigned from his position as Chief Prosecutor and became the Head of the Air Force Judiciary stating that "The guy who said waterboarding is A-okay I was not going to take orders from, I quit", hours after he was informed that General Counsel William Haynes would be his superior.

Finally, Colonel Davis has been highly critical of other officers who have used their positions to make political statements.

In a March 5, 2007 New York Time article by Raymond Bonner titled, "Terror Case Prosecutor Assails Defense Lawyer" states, "The prosecutor, Col. Morris D. Davis, said that the lawyer, Maj. Michael Mori of the United States Marine Corps, should not be making public appearances in Australia in uniform on behalf of his client, David Hicks, and that he faced possible prosecution for some of his remarks."

The article goes on to state, "He [Major Mori] compared Colonel Davis’s statements with remarks made last year by a senior Pentagon official, Charles D. Stimson, who was then the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, who said that corporations should consider not using law firms that represented Guantánamo detainees pro bono. His remarks brought a torrent of objections, and he was forced to resign."

Colonel "Mo" Davis was a fierce prosecutor of terrorists. He said, "Remember if you dragged Dracula out into the sunlight he melted? Well, that's kind of the way it is trying to drag a [terrorist] detainee into the courtroom."

We again thank Colonel "Mo" Davis for his service. We have tried to provide the full story and background on this issue, unlike the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

We are concerned that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is in a precipitous retreat from journalistic and ethical standards as they push their single-minded political agenda.

How would you like a job that didn’t require you to have a high degree of accuracy, and not be held accountable for wrong decisions or opinions? A job where expressing a point of view or an opinion based more on conforming to a certain form takes precedence over fact-based observations and accuracy of predictions? Think of it: you wouldn’t have to be burdened by the same tiresome, worrisome standards as the rest of the world, namely, that failure to adequately predict what is going to happen costs you your job and reputation.

Well, welcome to the world of liberal commentating. In this job, you need not be burdened ever again with the annoyance of being correct in your predictions, or explanations of the way things work. In fact, you will be supported by colleagues and associates who, using various means, will adhere to these same opinions irrespective of reality, and distort objectivity in order to create reverse justifications for a principle or a broadly held set of views and ideas that are considered above the requirement of having to be proven or demonstrated to actually work.

You will be joining an elite group, allied against the mundane and pedestrian multitudes of those whose work necessitates that they are highly correct in their prediction and execution of duties, validated by real measures, and have an accuracy rate above 50%. You will enjoy the unearned luxury of opining and criticizing from a position of automatic moral superiority, based on nothing more than supposition and assumption that any Leftist position or opinion emanating therefrom is to be taken not only as one with extra bonus points (no matter how intrinsically illogical or phantasmagorical), but also, the burden of proof, the standard of didactic will be lower, the breadth and width of allowable self indulgent piffle shall be of a greater amount allowable to you.

Another not inconsiderable benefit to liberal commentating is the deliciously rare privilege of not having to show appropriate wisdom and experience commensurate with your actual chronological age. You can freeze your public persona through your work at your previous pubescent or barely legal drinking age. Your worldview can remain at a static college freshman level, with all the naiveté, excitement, and warm thrill of adolescent confusion and idealism. The pressure of growing up, and the labor of reconciling the real world with your insular college indoctrination need not occupy your time and pursuit of perpetual insulation from the pain of expository and corrective experience.

Upon acceptance, you will be given a tutorial package of various tools and concepts, such as French political, social, and moral rationale that can derail any principled attempt to hold you to account or justification for your positions. We provide more than just the liberal standard bag of neutralizers of criticism, such as dismissing those “Real World” types as “simplistic”, “unsophisticated”, “parochial”, “unimaginative”, and so on. Your cover and evasive strategy will be the posture of the “World Citizen” and adopting European attitudes (moral equivocation, ambiguity, relative ethics), with vagueness and evasiveness pretending to be depth and profundity. You will learn various rhetorical “tricks” and deflections that are necessary and essential, due to the shallow, easy and intellectually non-rigorous nature of your educational background in journalism, education, social sciences, and similar “ethnic” studies curricula. We in the “Cause” know that these require little demand on the intellect, and that making good grades depends on the “right” responses and “correct” points of view.

Send your résumé to begin an exciting career excepting yourself from the work necessary of the rest of the world. And prepare for a of life sneering at your intellectual and moral betters.

In their editorial, "The honor and the burden" the Sarasota Herald-Tribune just can't keep from taking the opportunity to hate President Bush using the pretense of honoring the death of an American hero.

I do not know if any member of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board has ever lead men and women in combat or served in a military leadership position, other than Command Sergeant Major USMC (Ret.) John Annis, or had someone under their command killed.

Well we have. We can tell you that the burden felt at the loss of a fellow soldier by those non-commissioned officers and commissioned officers in the chain of command lasts a life time.

General Peter Pace, USMC (Ret.), former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, traveled to the Vietnam Memorial Wall in Washington, D.C. immediately after his retirement ceremony on October 1, 2007. When he arrived at the wall he went to the name of Guido Farinaro where he stood for a while, then bent down to place a small card (pictured above) against the Wall. This card said,"For Guido Farinaro, USMC. These are yours, not mine. With love and respect, your platoon leader. Pete Pace."

This is the life long burden all military combat leaders carry.

When Vice President Cheney said, "He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans." and bears the greatest burden. He was right.

Of all the Commanders in our Armed Forces the Commander in Chief bears the greatest burden of all. President Bush was crying when he presented the Medal of Honor to the parents of Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor.

We know the President will never stop crying in his heart as he remembers the 4,000 plus men and women who have paid the ultimate price in the defense of our great nation.

We cry with the Monsoor family, with his chain of command, and especially President Bush. But we also are thankful and proud of those like Michael who volunteered to keep us safe.

We are ashamed of the Herald-Tribune and the editorial board for using his death as a cheap political tool to attack President Bush. That is truly hateful and sickening.

The liberal media loves to beat up on the salaries of CEOs that run large multi-national companies. I am not sure if it is envy or just their idea that everyone should get the same salary, like in communist North Korea or Cuba, except for Kim Jung Il and Raoul Castro, of course.

In today's liberal Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial, "Golden safety nets" they lament that former CEO of Merrill Lynch Stanley O'Neil, "managed to take home $161 million -- money O'Neal was owed from prior years."

According to the salaryphobes on the editorial board, "Any way you slice $161 million -- with due respect to O'Neal's long and productive career at Merrill Lynch -- that's quite a mountain of clams. His farewell check is 47 times more than what the average Ph.D. holder earns through his or her entire work life."

Is the editorial board saying don't get a Ph.D. and go into business for yourself because you can make much more by not even having a college degree, like Bill Gates?

What the Herald-Tribune doesn't tell you is the obscene salaries that others make who have no responsibilities for the lives of thousands of employees, run companies that are global and provide meaningful products and services that create jobs and keep America great.

Who are these people with obscene salaries, who do very little, provide no useful product or service and for all practical purposes are simply making money off us poor citizens with no return on our investment? The liberal media's favorites - sports figures, rappers and the Hollywood elite.

The highest paid 25 athletes in the National Football league got from $11,100,000 to $30,750,000 a year in 2007 according to USA Today. That is an average salary of $13,876,800.

For the NBA's New York Nicks according to SI.com the total team salary for 2006-2007 was $117,024,192 for 19 players. That is an average salary of $6,158,168.

The top three female actors Reese Witherspoon, Angelina Jolie and Cameron Diaz, according to the Hollywood Reporter make $15,000,000+ a movie.

Rappers 50 cent and Diddy made $50,000,000 and $36,000,000 respectively according to New York magazine.

These NFL and NBA players, rappers, and actresses have responsibility only for themselves and perhaps a few staffers and personal handlers. They do not run large corporations that provide work to millions of Americans. They entertain. They do not deal with foreign governments and run international corporations. They play football, basketball, rap, and play act (like when we were kids). I have not heard of a one with a Ph.D. Have you?

We are not complaining about the outrageous salaries of entertainers. We are all for those with talent getting paid whatever the market will bear. We also agree with CEOs of major corporations getting what they deserve as determined by their Board of Directors and shareholders.

We quote Oprah Winfrey who made $223,000,000 last year, "I don't think of myself as a poor deprived ghetto girl who made good. I think of myself as somebody who from an early age knew I was responsible for myself, and I had to make good."

That is what America is all about, "the pursuit of happiness".

This Friday I attended an event convened by Sarasota Openly Promotes Excellence (SCOPE). It was titled, Summit for Environmental Action or SEA. I signed up for the summit on the SCOPE web site and was vetted by the staff before I was issued an invitation.

Sponsors of the summit were some rock solid businesses in the Sarasota, Florida community including two developers. When I arrived I went around the room to meet new people and say hello to many there who I knew. There were a number of politicians there from the state, county and cities in Sarasota County and beyond.

The introduction was given by good friend, brilliant future thinker and SCOPE Executive Director Tim Dutton. Tim pointed out the diversity of the group. People from business, neighborhood associations, environment groups, government, old, young and us retired.

The opening speaker was Nick Gladding, who's idea it was to hold such a summit. Nick said the purpose of the summit was to come up with an actionable environmental plan for our area.

The issues selected for discussion at the Summit were Florida-Friendly Landscaping, Water Issues, Living Locally and Energy Use.

Each of us participated in small-group sessions about two of the four issues. At the end of the day, all participants came together to hear a review of all issues and voted on the action plans they think are the best.

I was part of the Energy Use session in the morning and the Water Issues in the afternoon. The process was designed to brain storm new ideas and reach consensus.

As I got further into the summit I recognized that while the group was diverse demographically it was generally of one mind environmentally.

I came to the summit as a "bright green". Bright green environmentalism aims for a society that relies on new technology and improved design to achieve gains in ecological sustainability without reducing (indeed, increasing) the potential for economic growth and attending to human needs.

I came to advocate two solutions: for water, the use of Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) systems to solve our water problem and nuclear power to help us conserve our precious fossil fuels. I also came as a believer in global warming but a serious skeptic that it is human caused. I came not believing in carbon footprints, carbon credits and the need to reduce our carbon emissions. I also came believing that individuals and markets create change, not government.

Well I found myself almost alone and my ideas out of the environmental mainstream thinking at the summit. This is why I was disappointed in the summit and am skeptical of its outcomes.

Let me give you some examples.

1. The keynote speaker was Godo Stoyke. He has written several books about how to use technology to save energy, that is good. What is bad is that he is doing it to reduce carbon emissions and part of his belief system is carbon credits, taxes on carbon and carbon trading. All of these are what I call eco-socialism. I went up to Godo after his presentation and asked him what percentage of all green house gases were CO2. He said 70%. This is completely false. In fact, 95% of all green house gases are caused by water evaporation, of the remaining 5% only 1% is CO2. Of that 1% only 3% is produced by using fossil fuels. Human impact is negligible. Godo did not want to hear that.

2. I asked Godo about the many recent studies finding that global warming is caused by activity on the sun. He categorically dismissed these studies as not scientific because they have not been published in journals like Science. This, of course is not true. Godo has a vested interest in carbon based global warming, that is how he makes his money.

3. In casual conversations with some local distinguished environmental activists my idea for solving the water problem using ASR technology was dismissed. One local water expert brushed it off with the comment that when you extract the water for reuse it can have contaminants in it. My comeback was we remove the contaminants. He raised the cost of doing so, I raised the cost of not doing so. So much for ideas to solve our water problem from a local "expert".

4. In the above conversation I said that nuclear must be on the table to provide our long term power needs. I was immediately put upon. When I pointed out that my friend and environmental proponent Dr. Meg Lowman believes as I do the group was taken aback.

5. When I participated in my assigned working group I found the majority favored policies forcing environmental compliance, most wanting to teach their idea of environmental orthodoxy (via education) to our children and citizens, one member advocating tripling the price we pay for water to force conservation, another advocating a building moratorium (he is an elected official) and consensus for more government intervention, policy, and regulation.

6. The vast majority of attendees were, from my observations, committed environmentalists and therefore came with baggage.

7. After the noon break we lost about half of the morning participants. In the morning opening session we had about 190 attendees, by the closing voting we had around 96 attendees. My concern is those who stayed for the afternoon session and final voting were environmental group thinkers. They ended up presenting the final issues and voting on them. As expected the vast majority (75%+) voted "strongly agree" or "agree" with the actions to be taken.

My voice for individual responsibility for environmental behavior, market driven solutions, use of technology and innovation was drowned out by the din calling for more government and a control growth agenda.

I await the published results and action plan. When I have it I will comment again.

I remain concerned that those in attendance only re-enforced their belief system. They will sadly continue to do the same things and expect different results.