This story and photograph is from USA Today. Amazing how images of Che Guevara and Barack Obama keep showing up together on the walls of Obama supporters. Get the picture?

Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge said Tuesday the state's lethal injection procedure doesn't provide the quick and painless death required by Ohio law.

Burge said Ohio must stop allowing a combination of drugs and focus instead on a single, anesthetic drug.

The ruling is likely be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Ohio has executed 26 inmates since it resumed putting prisoners to death in 1999.

Che Guevara background:

Here is an excerpt from an article about Che Guevara by Alvaro Vargas Llosa titled, "The Killing Machine: Che Guevara From Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand".

"In April 1967, speaking from experience, he summed up his homicidal idea of justice in his “Message to the Tricontinental”: “hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine.” His earlier writings are also peppered with this rhetorical and ideological violence. Although his former girlfriend Chichina Ferreyra doubts that the original version of the diaries of his motorcycle trip contains the observation that “I feel my nostrils dilate savoring the acrid smell of gunpowder and blood of the enemy,” Guevara did share with Granado at that very young age this exclamation: “Revolution without firing a shot? You’re crazy.”

At other times the young bohemian [Guevara] seemed unable to distinguish between the levity of death as a spectacle and the tragedy of a revolution’s victims. In a letter to his mother in 1954, written in Guatemala, where he witnessed the overthrow of the revolutionary government of Jacobo Arbenz, he wrote: “It was all a lot of fun, what with the bombs, speeches, and other distractions to break the monotony I was living in.”

What a difference three years makes: In 2005, I led the charge against a massive global warming cap-and-trade bill. It was a lonely battle with few GOP members willing to join me on the Senate floor to publicly oppose it.

Fast forward to June 2008: Not only was I joined by dozens of GOP Senators, but nearly 30% of the Democratic Senators rebelled against their leadership and opposed the Boxer Climate Tax Bill. In the end, Senator Boxer only had at most 35 Democratic Senators willing to vote for final passage on the largest tax bill in U.S. history. The Boxer Climate Tax Bill was so thoroughly disowned by Democratic Leadership that proponents of climate taxes will now be forced to start from scratch next year.

Republicans were prepared to debate the bill and were ready to offer amendments. But the Democrats did not want to debate, much less vote, on our amendments that were aimed at protecting American families and workers from the devastating economic impacts of this bill. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, it was Democratic Senators who wanted to see this bill die a quick death.

The Wall Street Journal aptly noted that environmentalists are “stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse.” The paper added, “The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face.” The paper quoted a political analyst, noting that “this issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan.”

Despite claims that we must “act now” to prevent a climate “crisis,” the Boxer Climate Tax Bill would not have resulted in any “action” whatsoever. The bill, often touted as an "insurance policy" against global warming, would instead have been all economic pain for no climate gain.

And Americans are suspicious of the need for “solutions” to global warming. A Gallup Poll released on Earth Day 2008 revealed that the American public’s concern about man-made global warming has remained unchanged since 1989. According to Gallup, “Despite the enormous attention paid to global warming over the past several years, the average American is in some ways no more worried about it than in years past.”

Just a few days after the embarrassing defeat of the climate bill, the Democrats were at it again. As the price of gas at the pump continued to climb, Democrats were proposing yet another energy tax as part of their “solution” to our energy challenges. The Democrats’ “no” energy bill would increase taxes by $17 billion for America’s oil and gas producers and increase government bureaucracy. Their bill does nothing to increase access to America’s extensive oil and natural gas reserves, does nothing for the promotion of nuclear energy, does nothing to increase refinery capacity, does nothing for electricity generation or transmission, and does nothing for the utilization of clean coal. They are attempting to ignore the basic concepts of supply and demand.

A major component of the Democrats’ “no” energy bill would reinstate the Windfall Profits Tax. Democrats want to impose the tax despite the fact that we tried this almost 30 years ago, with disastrous results. In 1980, under President Jimmy Carter, Congress imposed an excise levy on domestic oil production. According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the results of Carter’s Windfalls Profits Tax “made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil.” If the Democrats are successful in enacting their “no” energy bill, they will decrease domestic production and increase America’s oil imports -- the exact opposite of what we need to do

Until we explore and develop domestic energy resources and increase domestic refining capacity, the cost of gas at the pump will increase. As America faces mounting energy challenges, now is not the time for politics as usual -- now is the time for common sense solutions.

Oil and gas exploration and production are currently prohibited on 85 percent of America’s offshore waters. Among industrialized nations with shorelines, the United States is the only one not actively seeking new offshore oil and gas deposits. Canada allows offshore drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Great Lakes. Additionally, Cuba is also looking to expand drilling to within 45 miles of parts of Florida and with technology that may be much less environmentally sound than that used by American companies. Exploration and production activities are currently prohibited in the Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer Continental Shelf, which hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas. This is equivalent to more than 25 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.

If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today we would have one million additional barrels of oil coming from ANWR each day, which would mean lower gas prices for consumers and more energy security right now. ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil -- about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.

The climate tax debate and the Democrats’ “no” energy bill provide a stark contrast between those who believe the answer to solving our nation’s energy crisis is to raise taxes, regulate more, and drastically increase the size of the federal bureaucracy, and those of us who believe the path forward should develop and expand America’s domestic resources. Congress must reject the Democrats’ attempts to increase taxes and implement back door price controls.

As my home state of Oklahoma shows, tomorrow's energy mix must include more natural gas, wind, geothermal and renewable energy, but oil, coal, and nuclear energy -- the world's largest source of emission-free energy -- must also be included. Developing and expanding domestic energy will translate into energy security and will ensure stable sources of supply and well-paying jobs for Americans.

According to the Heritage Foundation:

High energy costs were a big reason why liberal efforts to institute a carbon tax failed earlier this month in the Senate. Now emboldened conservatives are moving to further help American consumers by pushing for the lifting of government bans on energy development. In April 2007 only 41% of Americans favored drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Today, 57% of Americans favor drilling in coastal and wilderness areas currently off limits.

The typical liberal response to calls for more domestic oil production is that drilling will not help lower prices significantly. For example, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says, “Even by their own standards, drilling in ANWR by the year 2030 would save 1 penny off the price per gallon.” While the estimated 10 to 13 billion barrels of oil currently off limits in ANWR may not drive down the price of oil by itself, liberals are vastly underselling the potential domestic energy possibilities currently off limits thanks to federal bans. Just last week liberals in Congress rejected a proposal to allow drilling for oil 50 miles of the U.S. coast. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf.

And there is also plenty of energy currently banned from production onshore, too. The Department of Interior estimates onshore energy in the West and Alaska contains 31 billion carrels of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That 31 billion barrels of oil represents U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia for 50 years and the 231 trillion cubc feet of natural gas is enoug to supply all of America’s households for 46 years.

Then there is the granddaddy of them all: the oil shale in Green River Formation, which goes through Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. According to a RAND Corp. study , there are 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels worth of oil shale in the Green River Formation. That is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. At $95 a barrel, it was not economically viable to develop these resources, but at $130 it definitely is. Furthermore, Shell Oil scientists have already conducted small-scale field tests that if replicated on a large scale would make developing the oil shale profitable at $20 a barrel. Are liberals in Congress anxious to see this oil help American consumers? No. Just last week they voted to extend their ban on oil shale development.

Want to know who is for Americans and who is against Americans. Just look at the numbers. Any questions?

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.

The Democratic Party has hired a group named Voting is Power (VIP) to register voters for the upcoming Presidential election. Voting is Power is under investigation by the Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne for voter fraud. So who is Voting is Power and why does that mean anything?

VIP is actually a Muslim American Society (MAS) organization. So who is the Muslim American Society?

The Muslim American Society is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood whose militant credo states: "God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations"

In May 2005, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross reported in The Weekly Standard that [the Muslim American Society] MAS is a U.S. front group for the Muslim Brotherhood -- a claim supported by a September 19, 2004 Chicago Tribune story -- and, as such, wishes to see the United States governed by sharia, or Islamic law. "The message that all countries should be ruled by Islamic law," writes Gartenstein-Ross, "is echoed throughout MAS's membership curriculum. For example, MAS requires all its adjunct members to read Fathi Yakun's book To Be a Muslim. In that volume, Yakun spells out his expansive agenda: 'Until the nations of the world have functionally Islamic governments, every individual who is careless or lazy in working for Islam is sinful.'"

Closely linked to MAS is the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, whose Executive Director is Mahdi Bray, a former Students for a Democratic Society activist now affiliated with International ANSWER, an anti-war front group for the Communist World Workers Party. "Our mission," Bray has written, "is to build an integrated empowerment process for the American Muslim community." Toward this end, Bray and MAS have been involved in a voter-registration drive and an effort to train 1,000 "activists" in the "skills necessary for effective activism."

MAS also has close ties to Islamic American University, an unaccredited university in the Detroit suburb of Southfield, which teaches Islamic law and other subjects. (One IAU faculty member is Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, who until at least June 2003 was also the Chairman -- in abstentia -- of the university's Board of Trustees. )

In addition, MAS operates programs for educating the young, providing fellowship for Muslim youth, creating its own network of Islamic schools, and sustaining a nationwide Council of Imams.

MAS was a signatory to a February 20, 2002 document, composed by the radical group Refuse & Resist, condemning military tribunals and the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations.

MAS strongly opposes the Patriot Act, which it says “strips away the fundamental checks and balances that safeguard many of our basic civil liberties,” and has “drastically infringed upon every American's rights by giving the government expanded powers to invade privacy, imprison and deport people without due process, and punish political dissent.”

As of early June 2007, the Minnesota chapter of MAS featured the following anti-Semitic, pro-jihad quotes on its website, www.masmn.org:

• “The Holy Prophet (and through him the Muslims) has been reassured that he should not mind the enmity, the evil designs and the machinations of the Jews ...”
  
  
• “In view of the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and the Christians, the Believers have been warned not to make them their friends and confidants.”
  
  
• “If you gain victory over the men of Jews, kill them.”
  
  
• “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'”
  
  
• “May Allah destroy the Jews, because they used the graves of their prophets as places of worship.”
  
  
• “A Muslim must always worship Allah and wage jihad until death in order to reach his ultimate goal … Regularly make the intention to go on jihad with the ambition to die as a martyr.”

MAS's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood were confirmed on August 14, 2007, as The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported:

"As the terror-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) continued today, FBI agent Lara Burns testified that a phonebook found at the home of Ismail Elbarrasse -- un-indicted co-conspirator and former assistant to HAMAS leader Musa Abu Marzook -- listed the names and numbers of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the United States. On the first page of the phonebook under the title ‘Members of the Board of Directors’ were fifteen names. Among those names are Ahmad Elkadi, Jamal Badawi, and Omar Soubani: the founding incorporators of the Muslim American Society (MAS)."

The call for Jihad by prominent Muslim leaders such as Osama bin Laden has echoed throughout the international Islamic community, and continues to resonate in the hearts and minds of Muslims everywhere on earth – including those who live here in the United States. As much as it is a call to the future, Jihad is also a call to return to the past. As this global conflict continues in the years ahead, the time will come that every Muslim (specifically, those in the US) will be forced to make a choice. The choice they will be confronted with will be between their loyalty to the country they live in, verses their loyalty to the Islamic Ummah (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah ).

Stage One: In modern terms, we could call Stage One Jihad the period of establishment and growth under generally peaceful conditions. The new (largely immigrant) Islamic community is too small to exert very much direct influence on the majority government and/or the majority culture. Public relations and propaganda are the two main tools used in this form of Jihad.

Stage Two: In modern terms, we could call Stage Two Jihad the period of civil unrest. Though still in the minority, the Islamic community is now well established (somewhere between 15-20 percent of the population), and it begins to exert a great deal of pressure on the majority government and/or civilian culture. Usually, one of the first things to happen during this period of civil unrest is the demand for the government to recognize at least some parts of Sha’ria law (as in France, for example). Crime rates also tend to increase rapidly as disenfranchised and alienated young Muslims begin acting out their frustration and anger within the surrounding non-Muslim community.

Stage Three: In modern terms, we could call Stage Three Jihad the period of civil war. At this point, the Islamic community is no longer in the [political] minority, and it begins to overtly attack the established government, as well as any “unbelievers” who do not accept Islam. The Islamic community (or, in some cases, the local Islamic government) unilaterally imposes Sha’ria law, often with violent consequences leading to the killing of civilians (usually Christians and/or Jews) and civil war (as in Nigeria, for example). In turn, Sha’ria law justifies Jihad, which leads to a rapidly escalating cycle of violence.

Stage Four: In modern terms, we could call Stage Four Jihad the period of full-scale war & genocide. At this point, Sha’ria law has been fully imposed, and Islam is the only religion permitted in the land. Non-Muslim influence (either by people of other faiths, or by people of other ethnic groups) is held in great contempt and is not tolerated by the ruling authorities – even Muslims who do not appear to fully accept every portion of Sha’ria law are severely punished. The Taliban government in Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the situation in Darfur (Sudan) are three current examples of Stage Four Jihad. The history of Islam – from the time of Muhammad until the present day – offers innumerable other examples.

Article provided by Dr. Terri K. Wonder. Dr. Wonder has a Masters Degree and Ph. D. from the University of South Florida. Terri has studied at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. She is an intelligence analyst for a private security agency’s anti-terrorism unit charged with protection of critical infrastructure (e.g., power plants), including special investigations of suspicious activity tied to extremist networks in Tampa Bay and other regions. She does strategic intelligence estimates for a private defense contractor on potential reaction by jihadist adversaries to changes in armed forces doctrine.

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.

I am outraged by the editorial in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune titled, "American justice confirmed".

As Justice Antonin Scalia states, "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today." Five unelected members of the Supreme Court of the United States overnight gave legal status to radical Islamists that have and are trying to kill us. Abraham Lincoln said that the constitution is not a suicide pact. Five members of the Supreme Court made it just that.

According to Justice Scalia,"Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspen­sion [of habeas corpus] Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation­-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable 'func­tional' test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misde­scribes important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragi­cally, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner."

What does this mean in plain language? Ronald Kessler of NewsMax.com explains, "By this reasoning, illegal aliens should be given access to the federal civilian courts to contest their expulsion from the country. Nazi soldiers taken prisoner during World War II and held on American soil should have been allowed to argue their cases in federal court. Instead of shooting terrorists on the battlefield, American soldiers should read them their rights and ship them off to American jails."

"The level of due process they [the federal courts] require," said David B. Rivkin, a lawyer who served in the Justice Department in the Reagan administration, "will be impossible to meet and therefore will result in the release of a substantial number of enemy combatants." Kessler points out, "In fact, under the majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, suspected terrorists are given more rights than our own soldiers are afforded when charged with crimes. Their cases are restricted to the military courts."

So where do our two Presidential candidates stand on this critical issue?

According to Boston.com, Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said in a statement that the ruling validating detainees' rights "ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values."

The Boston Globe points out, "Obama has long advocated ending the justice system specially created for Guantanamo Bay. He said the detainees should be brought to trial in US courts or in military courts-martial, a proposal the Supreme Court ruling does not affect."

"The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," said Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, at a town hall meeting near McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey.

As PowerLine Blog points out, "[what] the Court's majority overturned was not a decree by the Bush administration, it was a statute that was passed by large majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2006. The Military Commissions Act passed the Senate on a 65-34 vote, with Democratic Senators Carper, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, Nelson (Neb.), Nelson (Fla.), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar and Stabenow voting with the Republicans. Likewise, in the House 34 Democrats joined with 219 Republicans to pass the statute."

As former Senator Fred Thomson said in his article "A Supreme Error", "Upon reading the opinion in Boumediene v Bush, one must conclude that the majority knew where they wanted to go and simply had to figure out how to get there. The trip was not a pretty one. How could it be when the justices seemingly wrote a map based on ideas cherry picked from over 400 years of established law and backfilled with justifications to create a new right for alien combatants that Americans themselves do not enjoy?

They could have saved us all a lot of time if they’d told us what was clearly on their minds.

They don’t trust military tribunals to deal with those accused of being enemy combatants, even if the tribunals are following guidelines established by Congress.

That the government has probably detained some prisoners at Guantanamo for longer than they should have.

And that Guantanamo should just be closed.

Though they are willing to give it lip service, they don’t really believe we are at war … at least not a “real” war.

Therefore, they should create a new right for our nation’s enemies commiserate with the displeasure that they and the rest of the “enlightened” people have with this “war,” Guantanamo and the Bush Administration."

What may be the reality of this decision? If you are a soldier in Iraq, Afghanistan or any of the over 100 countries we have our troops and you capture an enemy combatant what do you do? Do you have the evidence needed to convict this radical Islamist killer in a U.S. Court? Are you as a soldier prepared to be called as a witness in a public trial, like our police officers, and testify that yes this enemy combatant tried to or did kill your fellow soldiers? Can you prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? What do you do?

Putting our troops in this situation is both repulsive and outrageous. More importantly it is deadly. For you see our enemy understands what the Supreme Court just did and they will take full advantage of it.

"Detainees will be able to call witnesses and demand to see classified information, putting a tremendous strain on the court system and the Justice Department. They will shop for liberal jurisdictions to bring their cases. When capturing terrorists, our own soldiers will be burdened with accumulating the amount of evidence required by law enforcement." according to Kessler.

Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Quds Forces, the Mahdi Army, and the 20 other radical Islamist terror organizations world wide now have a friend in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and Senator Obama.

They have an enemy in Senator McCain. You decide who is right and who is wrong. While you are our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will be paying the price in blood as they decide "What to do".

Well, I told you so. In a 1989 trade journal article that not many thought was important I pointed out that global oil supply and demand were getting closer to balanced , and projected that prices would firm late in the 20th Century.

What I didn't know then was that the price of oil would be determined by others than the companies and countries producing the oil. Privately-owned oil companies no longer control the price of oil, despite the rhetoric in letters to the editor in local and national newspapers and cries of anguish from the halls of Congress.

Voters could cause the price to decline for the time being if they wished. That's because the price of oil and gas is not fully controlled by how much resource is left to drill. Political and social agendas have significant influence on the price of your gasoline.

Why has oil, and thus, gasoline, become so pricey? Part of it is supply and demand, part is increased costs and capital requirements to find more oil, but much of it is due to speculation by traders on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the lack of access to the resource itself, owing to actions by groups claiming to be "environmentally sensitive."

Supply and demand are easy to diagnose. Global consumption is about 90 million barrels a day, nearly matching global production. Any interruption in the production process could shrink production to less than demand. Ergo, the price goes up. But oil is in trans-shipment across the ocean, so that the price should not be immediately reflected at the pump, but lags by a few days to a week or two. Consumer demand is easily manipulated among sellers by pricing. At one time, the global price was determined by the price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude at Cushing, Oklahoma, set by purchasers who bought oil for refineries. At that time the major producing companies were also the major refining companies. Now, the price of oil is set by traders in New York, who never actually touch the oil. They set prices by bidding on lots of oil in the pipeline or yet to be produced, and bid based on their assessments of production security (wars, insurgencies, political unrest, fires, etc.) and on new discoveries, announcements of production fall-offs, or recalculated reserve forecasts. Or, perhaps, on whether they have a hangover from the night before.

Media commonly hype that there are sufficient reserves of oil already discovered to solve any supply crisis, implying that the reserves could be tapped to meet any shortage. Nothing could be further from the truth. When a new well is successfully put on line, the maximum daily production of that well is established. Thereafter, every month it will produce at a lower rate. That is called its "decline." The total amount that the well will eventually produce is its reserve. Reserves can be produced only at the decline rate, so that there is no excess capacity to supply the world with additional oil unless production is purposely kept off the market. As far as I know, there is little surplus capacity left in OPEC, so we are looking at a constant decline in global production, barring any new discoveries and extension of existing fields. And demand is ratcheting up in India and China.

Reserves do not equal increases in production. Wells produce ever decreasing quantities of oil until they reach their economic limit, then are plugged.

Exploring for oil is risky. Many more wells are dry than produce. The capital costs of drilling are staggering and increasing, as the areas to which companies must go to find new oil are ever deeper, darker, colder, and violent. In the continental United States, wells that cost a million dollars a few years ago might cost three million now. If they are horizontal, then they might cost eight million. Wells that are drilled in water or in remote locations cost proportionately more. The requirement for high risk capital is huge. That's why there has been so much merger in the oil industry, and why names like Amoco, Arco and Texaco are gone. The profits of the large companies fund new drilling. Without new drilling, global oil production will fall. The profits also go to reward stockholders, including large pension funds, who have put up a lot of capital to own the stocks, and who get relatively small dividends in return for their risk.

New drilling is crucial to maintaining oil supply. But the drillers have to have places to drill where oil is likely to be found. And that's where you voters come in. The United States daily production has been falling for years, and not necessarily because we don't have the oil resources to drill, but rather drillers can't get access to resources. In a National Petroleum Council study a few years ago, it was demonstrated that trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil are locked up from use in the Rocky Mountains, Alaska, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and offshore east and west coasts of the United States. Some Congress members argue that we need to become energy self sufficient, but they continue the constraints placed on access to the resource base.

Why the constraint on access? Because some organizations litigate and politic to keep development of the resources from occurring because they believe that it is environmentally harmful. For instance, the recent litigation successfully sought to declare polar bears endangered because in the future they might be harmed by global warming caused by use of fossil fuels. In reality, the polar bear population is the largest it has ever been in history, they have survived several major warmer episodes in the past, including the Medieval Warm Event, and there is absolutely no published data showing that fossil fuel consumption actually has affected climate. The effect, and we assume, the intent, of the litigation was to stop oil drilling in northern Alaska. The rationale for not drilling offshore east and west coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico is that some don't wish to see the development from their ocean-side homes, but the development is likely to be more than 17 miles offshore and thus not visible. The 1002 area in Alaska could supply 5% of the nation's oil supply for twenty years, from an area the relative size of a Kansas University basketball poster in a Kansas wheat field.

The question voters must eventually consider is whether the development of resources will cause irreparable harm to the environment or whether lack of development will cause irreparable economic harm to all, especially the poor and the middle income people of the United States. You are seeing the first effects now. The petroleum exploration and production industry cannot supply you with the transportation and other energy you need without your concurrence.

Your choice. Make it wisely.

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, Senior Scientist Emeritus and retired Director of the Kansas Geological Survey, lectures widely about environmental impacts of natural resource development. He is an honorary member of several professional organizations, and a member of the Kansas Oil & Gas Hall of Fame. He can be contacted at leeg@sunflower.com.

I have the greatest respect for Tom Tryon from the Sarasota Herald -Tribune. In his column, "Age-based stereotypes go unchallenged as campaign unfolds", Tom comes to the defense of Senator John McCain.

As a conservative and supporter of Senator McCain I appreciate that. Thanks, Tom.

However, as an America I am not concerned by comments made by late night comedians about Senator McCain's age as I am about them not being able to talk about Senator Obama's race. Why can't late night comedians make stereotypical jokes about Senator Obama being black? The answer: Political Correctness.

David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, once said, "The test of democracy is freedom of criticism." This is the problem. Don't get me wrong. I do not want hate speech or name calling. Certainly not cursing. Rather I want "freedom of criticism".

There are groups in America that have made any public criticism about them off limits. These groups include blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, Muslims, and others. We have seen well known talk show hosts like Don Imus fired because of one critical statement about black women. We have seen a Senator not reelected due to a joke using the word "macaca". We have seen people of honest background and with good intentions called racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and bigots.

What we have in America today are "thought police". The "thought police" invoke their "code of silence pogroms" on those that criticize them. A pogrom means to "to wreak havoc, to demolish violently". That is what the 'thought police" do. They destroy the critic by invoking the pogrom of "political correctness".

It is forbidden to say Radical Islamist but it permissible to say dirty Zionist. It is just fine to produce public art that displays Jesus Christ's image in urine but it is forbidden to desecrate the Koran. It is alright for journalists and commentators to to curse the President of the United States but journalists and commentators cannot identify the killer of a mother and unborn child as a black man or the child molester of a 8 year old boy a homosexual when writing or reporting a story. It is applauded when we joke about Jews, Christians, Evangelicals, and Red Necks but forbidden to joke about Allah, print cartoons of Mohammed, or punish those that curse America from the pulpit. It's just not politically correct.

Tony Perkins wrote an article on how our neighbors in Canada have created their own form of "thought police" and named it the Human Rights Commission. Here is the sad and shocking story of political correctness gone amuck:

"Nowhere have politicians more miserably failed that test than in Alberta, Canada, where the gatekeepers of political correctness--the Human Rights Commission (HRC)--have sentenced a pastor to a lifetime of silence. The case was initiated in 2002, when Rev. Stephen Boissoin published letters to the editor opposing same-sex "marriage" in the Red Deer Advocate.

At the time, Canada was embroiled in a debate over whether to legalize counterfeit marriage across the country. When Professor Darren Lund of Calgary read Boissoin's editorials, he filed a complaint with the Alberta HRC, alleging that the content of the articles was "hateful." The Commission appointed a tribunal to investigate Boissoin, led by an unelected bureaucrat Lori Andreachuk. Last November, Andreachuk found Boissoin guilty of discrimination and, without the benefit of his testimony, forbade him from uttering "anything disparaging about homosexuals."

Notice that Andreachuk does not ban him from speaking about anything "illegal" but bars him from any negativity toward gays and lesbians. The official punishment, issued without so much as a public hearing, includes everything from personal emails to congregational sermons. As if the lifetime speech ban were not tyrannical enough, Andreachuk also ordered Boissoin to compensate Professor Lund, who was not a victim of the so-called "hate crime," $5,000. Under the terms of his sentencing, the Reverend must "cease publishing...remarks about homosexuals" and submit a written apology to Lund for publication in the Red Deer Advocate.

Ezra Levant, who is under similar scrutiny for printing cartoons about Mohammed, notes in a new column, "[Boissoin] has to publicly humiliate himself, by publicly declaring his contrition--a contrition he does not feel--and his abandonment of his deeply-held religious beliefs."

With all respect Tom I really wanted you to say that so long as the discourse is civil all topics are on the table. With freedom of speech comes the freedom to criticize without retribution.

Tom, as a journalist, you should be more worried about the limits put on you and your fellow journalists by the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage.

What America has is not "freedom of criticism" but rather "political correctness".

This article consists of excerpts from a recently declassified intelligence assessment from Canada's Integrated Threat Assessment Center written on June 29, 2007.

A "lone wolf" is an individual who is inspired by a terrorist ideology or organization to conduct attacks, but acts independently, without established ties or accountability. Lone wolves do not associate with fellow-conspirators.

The Internet has become an important catalyst for inspiring homegrown extremists, including "lone wolves", by providing ideological motivation, encouragement, justification, target information, and instruction on techniques, all in an anonymous environment. Lone wolves motivated by Islamist extremism are a new concern. Several incidents carried out or planned by these extremist-inspired individual attackers have occurred in the US.

For the purpose of this assessment, a "lone wolf" is an individual who is inspired by a terrorist ideology or organization to conduct independent attacks. They may receive support from friends, but plan and conduct the attack alone. Lone wolves in North America have traditionally taken their inspiration from right-wing groups, single-issue causes, or national liberation movements. Lone wolves motivated by Islamic extremism are a recent development. Islamist terrorist strategists are now advocating that Muslims take action at a grassroots level, without waiting for instructions. Non-ideological factors, such as personal revenge, greed or coercion, do not appear to be motivators.

Lone-wolf attacks stem from the strategy of Leaderless Resistance (LR). LR emphasizes having no organizational structure and no formalized leadership. Small cells, or individuals, are self-sustaining, driven by ideology and capable of independent judgement and action. Fictionalized scenarios of LR, written by right-wing theorist William Pierce in his books, The Turner Diaries and Hunter, inspired lone wolves. Scenarios described in Hunter were later acted out by individuals such as:

Timothy McVeigh (1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City - 168 killed, hundreds injured)

Eric Robert Rudolph (1996 Atlanta Olympic bomber, also targeted abortion providers and gay bars, killing two and injuring over 100)

James Kopp (targeted abortion providers, killing one doctor in Amherst, New York)

Bufford Furrow (targeted a Jewish community centre in Los Angeles, killing one and injuring five)

Right-wing "lone wolves" have also attempted to obtain and use chemical and biological agents in their attacks. In April 2006, white supremacist Demetrius "Van" Crocker was convicted of trying to obtain Sarin nerve gas and C-4 explosives, which he intended to use against black residents in Jackson, Tennessee.

Extremists motivated by single issues such as the environment or the animal rights movement have also adopted the lone-wolf strategy. Radicals within these two movements have claimed responsibility for more than $100 million in damage in North America during the past two decades. Activists can become part of the eco-terror movement simply by carrying out an illegal action on its behalf. David Barbarash, a supporter of the Canadian Animal Liberation Front (ALF), claimed that the ALF "is not a group or a club that you can join, but a concept which is only realized when an action takes place under that name". Modeled after ALF, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) consists of people described on its website as "anonymous not only to the public but also to one another".

Growing Regard for Lone-wolf Tactics among Islamist Extremists

Similar to the shift that occurred in right-wing groups to lone wolves and small cells, the success of counterterrorism security forces against AQ and its affiliates may be bringing about another evolution in Islamist extremist strategy. Islamist extremists now promote a model that encourages independent, grassroots extremists to conduct their own attacks.

One of the most important advocates of acts of terrorism carried out by small, autonomous cells or individuals is Abu Musab al-Suni (Mustafa bin Abd al-Qadir Setmariam Nasar), a prominent terrorist lecturer, trainer and military instructor. In his book The Call for an International Islamic Resistance, al-Suni outlined a strategy for a global conflict on as many fronts as possible and taking the form of resistance by small cells or individuals, rather than traditional guerrilla warfare. To avoid penetration and defeat by security forces, he advised that organizational links be kept to an absolute minimum.

Other more anonymous calls for spontaneous Islamist extremist action (which may include lone-wolf attacks) appear on the Internet. For instance, in a 2003 article on a extremist Internet forum, Sada al Jihad (Echoes of Jihad), Usama bin Laden sympathizers were encouraged to take action without waiting for instructions.

As a subset of homegrown Islamist terrorism in North America, lone-wolf attacks or planned attacks seem to be on the increase. Several such cases have been recorded since 9/11:

Extremists and terrorists worldwide use the Internet for a variety of purposes. For the lone wolf, it provides instruction and provides inspiration and motivation, all within an anonymous environment.

Islamist extremist web sites offer not only theoretical and religious instruction but also practical on-line training courses that urge visitors to take action on their own. For example, the comprehensive Encyclopedia of Preparation for Jihad is available online. Professional, video-formatted instructional materials detailing various explosive manufacturing recipes have also begun to circulate widely on the web in the past two years, along with at least 22 other separate audio-visual terrorist manuals.

Lone-wolf Attacks in Canada

So far there have been no Islamist-inspired lone-wolf attacks in Canada. However, a number of lone-wolf and small-cell attacks motivated by other causes have occurred since the 1970s. Ideologies motivating attacks in Canada are primarily: race-based hate; eco-terrorism; animal rights; and the anti-abortion movement. Political and religiously motivated issues in the Sikh, Armenian and Sri Lankan communities, stemming from their countries of origin, have also inspired lone-wolf attacks. The religiously motivated "Sons of Freedom" Doukhobors have inspired uniquely Canadian lone wolves. Canada has been named on at least four occasions, by AQ or its affiliates, as a legitimate target. Further, in June 2006, Canadian police and security forces disrupted an AQ-inspired homegrown cell (the Toronto 17).

ITAC Assessment

Lone wolves act without established ties or accountability to leadership. As they are self initiating and carry out their attacks individually,

The Internet is helpful to an individual who may be preparing to conduct a lone-wolf attack, providing ideological motivation, encouragement, justification, all within an anonymous environment.

Remember all the headlines about how HIV/AIDS was going to destroy all of us? Remember the hough and cry for funds to combat the spread of the AIDS virus? Remember the HIPPA laws that restricted even family members from knowing if a spouse or child had AIDS? Remember the rush by the media to say that AIDS wasn't just about homosexual behavior but about heterosexuals too? Remember the concerts, Hollywood elite wearing pink ribbons, and the politicians spending billions of our dollars to help prevent the spread of AIDS?

Well guess what, forget about it. According to Fox News, the World Health Organization admits the threat of a global AIDS epidemic is over.

The head of the World Health Organization’s HIV/AIDS department has officially admitted for the first time that there will be no global epidemic of the disease among the heterosexual population outside Africa, The Independent reported.

Kevin de Kock said global prevention strategies to address AIDS as a risk to all populations, among the WHO and major AIDS organizations, may have been misdirected. It is now recognized that, with the exception of sub-Saharan African, it is confined to high-risk groups.

These groups include men who have sex with other men, drug users who inject with needles, and sex workers and their clients, The Independent reported.

“It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries,” de Kock is quoted in The Independent. “Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalized epidemic in Asia — China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas.”

However, AIDS still kills more adults than all wars, and is winning against current efforts to address it, The Independent reported. A WHO/U.N. AIDS report published in June shows less than a third of people in developing countries who need anti-retroviral drugs are receiving them. There were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007.

Some AIDS organizations, including the WHO, U.N. AIDS and the Global Fund have been blasted for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, taking much-needed funds from other diseases like malaria, spending it on the wrong efforts such as abstinence programs rather than condoms.

One result of the WHO’s admission may be that the vast sums of money spent on AIDS education for people who are not at risk may now be concentrated on high-risk groups.

There you have it. The effort was "misdirected". We spent billions on what? Wait, now WHO says we can now spend those billions on "high-risk groups" meaning homosexuals, prostitutes, and intravenous drug users. Great news. NOT!

Let's spend those billions on building strong traditional families. Anyone thinking of that???

Today the Sarasota Herald-Tribune again uses the war against Radical Islam to bash President Bush and his administration.

In their editorial, "Connecting the dots", they tell the same old story that, "Before the war in Iraq, President Bush and his chief associates claimed they knew about a solid link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, the international terrorist organization that attacked New York and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001." This statement is meaningless, irrelevant and myopic.

What the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, liberals, anti-war proponents and the Democratic Party are missing is that Radical Islam is at war with the West. Radical Islamists want to kill you and me. The question is will we fight back or capitulate.

Tom Trento, Director of the Florida Security Council put it best when he said, "When 'obsessed' people supported by historic precedent and philosophic foundation proclaim war against you and plot your death and destruction you better damn well take them seriously. Sadly, Americans are divided, some for political reasons, some out of ignorance, as to whether radical Islamism is indeed America’s number one problem."

"This division hastens our demise." says Tom.

Tom points out, "In order to be victorious in this global war on terror - which has two primary targets, the 'Great Satan,' America and the 'Little Satan,' Israel - we need a unified and united effort by a majority of Americans over a protracted period of time."

Tom goes on to say, "Currently, there are a significant number of Americans who understand this ideological battle and fully comprehend the deadly desires of our Islamist enemies and the catastrophic consequences of not properly responding at all required levels. Conversely, there are a significant number of Americans who do not understand this ideological battle, have no real comprehension of the related cataclysmic consequences and do not believe our Islamist enemies either desire or are capable of our complete destruction."

"As with most controversial issues, a considerable number of Americans are in the middle trying to figure out if we should conform ourselves to a cultural mindset that attempts to appease and befriend our enemies, or if we should adapt a resilient transformational posture preparing for an ideological war underscored by military battle," according to Tom.

Those who oppose the war do so at the risk of America and Israel. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board, either out of ignorance or ideology, have "no real comprehension of the related cataclysmic consequences and do not believe our Islamist enemies either desire or are capable of our complete destruction."

Radical Islam looks at Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Europe, Israel and the United States as simply fronts in their global war against western ideals and ideas. When we stop focusing on minor past details and come to grips with the global nature of this "clear and present danger" can America and our allies win. Otherwise we are doomed.

The war has already come to our shores. If we leave Iraq and Afghanistan the next battle will be in our homeland. Radical Islamists have said so. We must listen to them.