The truth is non-partisan

As conservatives, we accept the position that less government is
better than more. Given a free market, all people benefit. Liberty is
our sanctuary from tyranny. The result of big government is tyranny.

We advocate this position as one that is good and right for America.

However, while on the one hand we say minimal government control is
good for our country, on the other hand we act the opposite in our
foreign policy.

First, the threat was communism. It gave us the excuse we needed for
exerting American control around the world and the posting of American
soldiers in every corner of the globe. Then, communism imploded on
itself.

In 9/11 we have found our new boggyman. We call our new enemy
"radical Islamic terrorism." It has given us the same excuse to occupy
countries around the world and to deprive people of their freedom.

Should we not advocate the same foreign policy as we do domestic?
Limited government intervention and freedom for all.

To have any other policy shows our hypocrisy. Yes, Glenn Beck, I said
it. You are a hypocrit.

Given time governments will take care of their own terrorists. Like
communism the terrorist movement will implode on itself.

In the meantime, let's keep our borders safe - and our country safe
from foreign and domestic terrorists. We can do that without giving up
our liberty and security.

Tax credits to new car owners are a government subsidy to people who can afford new cars and to the automobile producers. Hybrid buyers may be eligible for a federal tax credit up to $3,400. This amount reduces the amount you pay in income taxes. By inducing you to buy a new car, the tax credit really ends up being a transfer from government to you to the automobile manufacturer.

Here are examples of government subsidies to General Motors. If you are in the market for a new car, by purchasing a 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe Two-Mode Hybrid (or its GMC Yukon Hybrid cousin), you could get a $2,200 tax credit. For buying a 2008 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid, you could receive a $1,300 tax credit. Other GM vehicles that qualify for this tax incentive include the 2006-07 Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid, the 2006-07 GMC Sierra Hybrid, Saturn's 2007-08 Aura Green Line, and the 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line.

I have said I will never buy a new car again, so I guess this credit doesn't apply to me. However, before buying your next new vehicle (whether it be a Chevrolet or not) check out fueleconomy.gov to see if you can get on the government dole and benefit from buying a hybrid. Your contribution to the environment may not make a big difference, but at least the car manufacturer will like you.

A stunt is what Ken Wheaton of Advertising Age <http://adage.com/adages/post?article_id=125355> calls Starbucks' closure to train its people in response to complaints about its products. They think three hours of training will make the difference.

But who really cares? It makes no difference at our Java City that closes every afternoon at 4 p.m. Service has never been their concern. Nor products. Their products and service can be poor because they're the only choice in our small community.

Competition has always produced better products and service. Competition keeps business honest and responsive to customer demands.

I was off by one in my Academy Award predictions. The winners for
other awards were clearcut, but not for supporting actress. Tilda
Swinton won best supporting actress. I had considered the four other
nominees, because they were all mentioned as possible winners in
articles I had read. None mentioned Swinton.

This suggests a research process. Where one answer clearly is
correct, go with that result. However, where the results are unclear,
consider all alternatives. The answer may be in one the the least
likely possibilities. This rule applies in taking multiple choice
exams as well as in researching alternatives.

It may also apply in our political process. Where the front runners
are unclear, consider the least likely alternative - Ron Paul.

The Freedom Index rates Congressmen on their adherence to
constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal
responsibility, national sovereignty and foreign policy that avoids
foreign entanglements. An examination of the records of presidential
candidates during the first part of the 110th Congress shows that Sen.
Barrack Obama (D-Illinois) has a 0% rating. He voted nine times
against constitutional principles and missed one vote. In a second
look at the 110th Congress his rating was 15% overall. He voted twice
to support constitutional legislations, twice against and missed six
votes.

For the first part of the 110th Congress Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New
York) received a 10% rating, voting only one time of 10 for
constitutional legislation. In the more recent index she rated at 21%.
She voted twice for constitutional issues, twice against, and missed
six votes.

Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) first got 43% voting three times for good
legislation, four times against, and missing three votes. More
recently he voted once to support constitutional legislation and
missed nine other votes.

Only Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) got 100% ratings both times. He
missed four votes during each period examined by the indexes.

The index doesn't rate governors.

See ratings for all Congress at:
http://www.jbs.org/files/fi-110-1.pdf
http://www.jbs.org/files/Freedom_Index_110-2.pdf

By Chuck Baldwin
February 22, 2008

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080222.html

The last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House.
If the Presidency of George W. Bush proved anything, it proved the
hazard of electing phony Republican conservatives. At least one is
able to clearly see a liberal for what he or she is when they have a
"D" behind their name. But put an "R" behind the name and suddenly
their liberal, Big-Government, anti-freedom agenda is barely
recognized, which makes a liberal Republican much more dangerous than
a liberal Democrat.

Let me say it straight out: a John McCain Presidency would be far
worse than a Barack Obama Presidency. With a Democrat in the White
House, conservatives and Christians suddenly find their principles and
are able to offer resistance. Put a Republican in the Oval Office,
however, and those same people become blind, deaf, and dumb to most
any principle they profess.

Nowhere is McCain's chicanery and duplicity more jeopardous than in
the area of the right to keep and bear arms. On issues relating to the
Second Amendment, John McCain is a disaster! For example, the highly
respected Gun Owners of America (GOA) rates McCain with a grade of F-.
McCain's failing grade is well deserved.

John McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that
would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows. According to
GOA, the provision would effectively eliminate gun shows, because
every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be
imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every "person
who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the
Brady Law]."

John McCain also sponsored an Incumbent Protection provision to the
so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" bill, which severely curtails the
ability of outside groups (such as GOA) to communicate the actions of
incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

The GOA report of the 106th Congress reveals that out of 15 votes
relating to the right to keep and bear arms, Senator John McCain voted
favorably only 4 times. Put that into a percentage and McCain's
pro-Second Amendment voting record is a pathetic 27%.

In addition, GOA warns that John McCain supported legislation that
would force federal agents to increase efforts in arresting and
convicting honest gun owners who may inadvertently violate one of the
many federal anti-gun laws, which punish mere technicalities, such as
gun possession.

For example, if John McCain's proposed legislation were to become law,
a gun owner who travels with a gun through a school zone or who uses
one of the family handguns to go target shooting with a 15-year old
could be sent to prison. And a person who uses a gun for self-defense
could be sent to prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.

But there is so much more to the McCain madness.

Former California State Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson wrote this
about John McCain, "He's [McCain's] proven his dislike for
conservatives and would gut us at every opportunity.

"Why do I say that? Because of three decades of experience as a
Republican California Senator and a fifty year activist in the
conservative movement. I have first hand, in-their-face experience
with elitist RINO's (Republican in Name Only) office holders. They are
biblically ignorant, power hungry, status seeking egotists who have no
difficulty aiding their liberal Democrat colleagues whenever their
arms are politely twisted. The one thing they have in common with
liberal Democrats is their dislike for all conservatives, especially
those who are Bible-believing. McCain, as president, would stifle the
voices of elected Republican leaders and try to legislate the
conservative movement out of existence."

Senator Richardson went on to say that he would in no way vote for
John McCain, if indeed McCain is the Republican nominee (which he
obviously will be).

I wonder how many gun owners and other professing pro-freedom
Americans have already fallen victim to McCain's phony conservative
campaign? Do they not realize that they are giving a rope to the
hangman? And that they--conservatives and gun owners--are the ones who
McCain will send to the gallows? What is wrong with the American
people these days? Have they not been betrayed enough by these phony
conservative Republicans?

For example, President George W. Bush recently nominated Michael
Sullivan to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives. Sullivan is one of the nation's most rabid
anti-gunners. GOA's Larry Pratt describes Sullivan as being "as
anti-gun as Ted Kennedy." Honest gun owners, lawful firearms dealers,
and law-abiding gun show operators could have no worse enemy within
the federal government than Michael Sullivan. We could expect no worse
from Hillary Clinton. And a John McCain Presidency would doubtless
give us more of the same.

Regarding the Second Amendment, the American people have no better
friend than Ron Paul. He has a 20-year proven track record of fidelity
to the right to keep and bear arms. The GOA rates Congressman Paul
with a grade of A+. According to GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt,
Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the
Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the
following: the Brady law; the requirement to lock up your guns; the
law permitting the U.S. to be part of the U.N (which, among other
attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transferred
firearms); participation in UNESCO; federal prohibitions on any pilot
wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and the so-called
"assault weapons" ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).

Ron Paul has also sponsored legislation requiring states to treat the
concealed carry permit of one state the same as they do that state's
driver's license. Dr. Paul also opposes a national ID card, which
would be a tool of government to identify gun ownership.

Gun owners (along with conservatives and Christians of all sorts)
should be ashamed of themselves for allowing an angry, gun-grabbing
liberal such as John McCain to become the presumptive Republican
Presidential nominee, while rejecting the candidacy of one of
America's most principled pro-life, pro-Second Amendment,
pro-Constitution, and pro-freedom legislators of this generation:
Congressman Ron Paul.

I say again, the last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the
White House. John McCain may have an "R" behind his name, but he is
just another establishment liberal: one America cannot afford.

*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be
made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so
does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column
is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web
site address is included.

A Reuters poll of viewers puts Juno ahead at the Oscars, but that's not how the Academy Awards are decided. Apparently it's critics and insiders who make the choice - and also make this the biggest farce of the year. But since I have free rentals at stake from my local movie rental store, I'm going to choose to go with the critics.

I did a survey of 10 critics - the first ten that popped up in google news search. They were the New York Times, LA Times, AP Writers, CNN, National Post (Canada), BBC, Boston Herald, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, daimondbackonline, and the Flint Journal's Ed Bradley. Then I compared them with the Critic's Awards and made my selection.

From my research here is my first choice:

Best Picture - No Country for Old Men (6 votes, also Critic's Choice)
Best Director - Ethan and Joel Coen (7 votes, also Critic's Choice)
Best Actress - Marion Cotillard (5 votes and I want to see this one)
Best Supporting Actress - Ruby Dee (3 votes, a squeaker)
Best Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis (6 votes, also Critic's Choice)
Best Supporting Actor - Javier Bardem (6 votes, also Critic's Choice)

"It's time that we move from good words to good works, from sound
bites to sound solutions ... This campaign goes on!" — Democrat
Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking at a fundraiser at Hunter College in
New York.

A business associate who sells fuel additives recently emailed the following:

"Scientists from around the world now agree that global warming is a fact of life, and not only is it here to stay, if we continue with our current lifestyle choices soon it may be too late to save the planet. I have attached a link to a recent article from Time Magazine entitled "Can We Save the World by 2015?"

"Most people who read this article are stunned to discover that some of the biggest polluters in the world have done little to nothing to prevent global warming. This means that it is up to each and every one of us to start doing our part."

I don't disagree that we need to do our part to reduce to our "carbon footprint" and the waste of fossil-based fuels. It is only good sense that as stewards of the Earth that we would want to conserve and use its resources wisely. However, my colleague's argument is based on bad information. Time Magazine and the elite press, for whatever reason, are lying to us. And, so is Al Gore.

The recent edition of the New American interviews Dr. Arthur Robinson, who is a professor of chemistry and is cofounder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Read the complete article at http://thenewamerican.com/node/7009.

Robinson says that the earth is warming. However, "the current temperature is about average for the past 3,000 years. It was much warmer during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago. The climate, as we know from historical records, was just fine during that warm period. In fact, it was a little better."

The earth goes through normal warming and cooling cycles. Robinson says "the temperature, which is going up very slowly, is correlated with the sun's activity, not hydrocarbon use."

"Gore, et al., tell us that CO2 is a pollutant, and that humans have caused this terrible problem. But actually the atmosphere contains lots of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, water, and oxygen are required for life.... Human use has caused a transient increase during the past century - from about 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of atmospheric molecules."

"The human-caused increase [of carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere is not permanent, but temporary. This increase is only being maintained by our production and, as soon as we stop producing at some later time when our technology advances, it will go back to its naturally controlled level."

"When we use hydrocarbons, the resulting carbon dioxide goes through the atmosphere on its way to the oceans and biosphere, so there is a rise in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide has a very short half-time of about seven years in the atmosphere. However, while it is in higher concentration, it is wonderful for us because it makes our plants grow faster, which markedly increases the amounts and diversity of plant and animal life."

Robinson says the UN claims that they have about 2,500 people, including 600 scientists, that support the view that global warming is caused by humans. "We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition who've looked at the issue and concluded essentially the opposite of these United Nations people. This says nothing about the science. Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims."

"Human-caused global warming is a hypothesis that has failed so many experimental tests that it is clearly without merit."

Al Gore and others claim that glaciers are melting because of man-made global warming. Robinson says: "The glaciers started shortening long before we were using significant amounts of hydrocarbons, and, when we increased our use by six-fold, the shortening rate did not change. Therefore, human hydrocarbon use is evidently not the cause of glacier shortening or the mild natural temperature increase that is causing that shortening."

He says "the temperature goes up before the CO2 and goes down before the CO2. The CO2 lags the temperature. And the reason it does is that the CO2 rise is caused by the temperature rise rather than vice versa."

Why does the UN take its position that global warming is man-made in contrast to what most scientists say?

Robinson states: "The power to tax and ration energy is the power to control the world - to have life and death control over every human being on the planet. No government should ever have this power. The United Nations-IPCC process is not about the climate or saving the environment. It is about power and money - lots of it."

"Should Gore and the UN succeed, the effect will not only be diminished prosperity in the United States. In underdeveloped countries, billions of people are lifting themselves from poverty by means of hydrocarbon energy. If their energy supplies are rationed and taxed, they will slip backwards into poverty, misery, and death. This fits the population control agenda of the United Nations."

Robinson warns: "If the misuse and falsification of the scientific method that drives the human-caused global-warming mania succeeds, it will cause the greatest acts of human genocide the world has ever known. It must be stopped."

Read about "The Recovery from the Little Ice Age and Global Warming" at http://thenewamerican.com/node/6973.

John McCain's campaign for president was failing until Time Magazine and the New York Time editors decided they wanted him to be the Republican candidate.

Like other journalists, I have sat in editorial meetings where we discussed what positions our paper would take on an issue or slant we would give to the news.

Editors at these publications followed a similar approach in crowning McCain. They looked at all the other candidates, their electability, their positions, and decided they liked candidate McCain's positions (left of center) and felt he could be electable. Romney was a Mormon and so he could be elected; Huckabee appealed only to a narrow religious right; Giuliani carried too much baggage; and Ron Paul had too many unconventional ideas.

McCain fit the bill because he supports globalism, a strong military industrial complex, and liberal domestic policies.

Romney did America a disservice by suspending his campaign. If he had stayed in the convention would be deciding the Republican candidate.

Huckabee has surprised everyone by showing he has a broader appeal than the religious right. However, that is likely because some conservatives felt without Romney that they had no other choice by Huckabee.

The independents, not the Republicans, have been voting for McCain. (Republicans booed McCain when he appeared before the conservative caucus. The public didn't see that because conservative Republicans were in a back room, while only patsies and McCain supporters listened to his speech.)

Ron Paul is the only true conservative , but he continues to be ignored by the media. As long as he is ignored by the media, the public (including conservative Republicans) won't hear or understand his message. By isolating Paul the media give the impression that there is something wrong with his campaign and ideas. They give the impression that he is not to be taken seriously. However, he gets 6% of the vote in primaries, without media support and Ron Paul has done very well in states with caucuses.

BYU friend Congressman Tom Lantos died yesterday of cancer at 80 years old. As the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress, he was the Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and was the House's staunchest supporter of human rights around the world.

In Spring 2001 he received an honorary doctorate of humane letters from Brigham Young University. According to BYU professor Earl Fry, "Tom always welcomed interns from BYU's Washington Seminar program.... In addition, whenever a government in Eastern Europe threatened to remove [Mormon] missionaries from its country, Tom would call in the ambassador from that country and urge him in very stern words to make sure the policy was changed. In almost all cases, Tom was successful."

Congressman Lantos was a great friend of the LDS Church and an advocate of human rights throughout the world regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. He will be greatly missed.

See article about Tom Lantos:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/12/MNIDV09VH.DTL

I went tonight to hear Johnny Cash, but was disappointed. It seems no
one can duplicate Cash's work. His voice has a unique tenor that
can't be replicated. Listen to him sing Walk the Line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7K4jH7NqUw&feature=related

What I heard was a program created by Richard Maitby Jr for Phoenix
Entertainment called Cash: Ring of Fire. Not much of the music
sounded like Johnny Cash. The performance was mediocre at best, and
loud. The best part was a fiddler, who really could fiddle. The rest
of the program could have been produced by a good college glee club.

Sorry to lose you Johnny.

Ron Paul is still in the race, but is not even mentioned by the big
media when they report on primary results. Even the Conservative
media are ignoring him. It is as if they had made a decision that he
is not running anymore. What happened to media ethics and the public's
right to know?

I'm saving my Time magazine where "Phoenix McCain rises from the ashes" just to remind me that once again the media coronated and chose our next president. Sad that the coronation occurred before America voted.

With Romney's departure from the race, he left only McCain to run against Democrats Obama and Clinton. So once again it doesn't really matter who we choose. They are all so close in viewpoints that they could have been cut by the same cookie mold. (And the recipe must have been written by the Council on Foreign Relations.)

The only difference between McCain and the Democrats is that McCain supports American involvement in Iraq for the next hundred years. Wait that's what I heard the Democrats saying too. "We'll remove the troops little by little but leave a small force there as long as we
need (or want) to." Like we left a small force in Germany and Korea.

On immigration they all agree on - amnesty.

No incentives for business. (McCain voted against giving tax cuts to entrepreneurs.)

Instead stimulate the economy with rebates for low income earners. (As Glenn Beck says borrow from the Chinese to buy cheap Chinese goods.)

And the final coup de grace - bring us all together in a North American Union. (At least Romney followed Ron Paul's script here. They are both against a North American Union.)

In suspending his campaign Romney said he loves America so much that he doesn't want to give it to the terrorists. I guess he figures McCain won't give it to the terrorists, but the Democrats will.

Romney, your problem is you just don't get it. A good foreign policy is non-interventionist with a strong defense against terrorism and foreign invaders. Romney, you should read "A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship" by Ron Paul. You might learn a thing or two about foreign policy and government.

Look at Lew Rockwell's preface tp Ron Paul's book.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/ron-paul-pf.html

I don't know if you remember me. I served in the French mission at the same time you did. I arrived in Paris in June of 1968. You were the Assistant to the President.

Since that time, I have watched your career with interest and admiration.

However, I'm a little disappointed with your campaign for president.

It seems to me that you ran a dirty, divisive campaign. I don't think your attack ads helped your cause. People are tired of that kind of politics and your ads smeared rather than informed. I think the Biblical quote "you reap what you sow" may apply here.

I know that you are a person of great integrity. However, in your campaign, you came across as lacking strong principles. Your message and your life practices seemed to be out of sync. You need to base your campaign on solid principles, defend those principles, and not change your position with every "wind" from the pollsters and every "whim" of your advisers. Sometimes you have to take positions that are not popular.

I don't really believe you understand the Constitution. If you did, you would see that it provides a solid foundation and path for how government should operate. It can provide the principles on which you can base your political life just as the scriptures can guide your spiritual life.

I think you might have been a good president had you run a principled and clean campaign.

One benefit will come from your campaign. You have made it easier for another Mormon to run at another time. I hope we have someone in the upcoming generation who also sees it is worthwhile to run for president.

So thanks. I wish you well. John Fisher

My wife worked hard to get our county to support Ron Paul. She spent hours on the phone, delivered fliers, and put out yard signs. In fact, the only phone calls and yard signs in our town are for Ron Paul. However, when it came down to it only 81 people voted in the county for Ron Paul, 4.5%. She was disappointed.

I tried to buoy her up, by reminding her that this after all is about a movement, not a candidate. Ron Paul represented a viewpoint of small government and individual liberty. It was the basis on which our Republic was founded.

Today Americans laugh at Ron Paul's ideas - stop supporting an American Empire by bringing all the troops home from Europe and Asia and the Middle East, start reducing government spending by reducing the size of government, and return the country to the principles of liberty found in the Constitution. However, in another eight years maybe Americans will realize that the only way to have their cake and eat it too is to produce it themselves.

If we don't take drastic action by 2040 the U.S. will bankrupt and we will be living in a second tier country. This is the reason that the Ron Paul movement is so important. Not this year, but someday Americans will say that crazy guy made sense.

So, keep out your yard signs. This battle is not yet over. We have only just begun.

Go to http://knowbeforeyouvote.com/ to compare Ron Paul with the other candidates.

A McCain/Huckabee Repubican ticket would leave Utah voters in a quandary. Utahns have supported Republicans since FDR. Although he is a liberal wolf masquerading in a sheep's clothing, Utahns will support McCain, but Huckabee carries different baggage.

Huckabee is unsuitable because he has offended Mormon sensibilities too many times. He has used the anti-Mormon card too often in his campaign against Mitt Romney. It may have won him Evangelical votes, but it has turned off another important segment of the Republican party. Mormons are the 4th largest religion in America, with almost 6 million members, most of whom vote Republican. Their votes make a difference particularly in the largely Republican west.

See politico.com for an understanding of how Utahns view Huckabee.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8322.html

It looks like John McCain and Mike Huckabee are the big winners from
Super Tuesday.

McCain takes the popular vote and Huckabee a respectable third - the
ideal running mates. A liberal president who is acceptable to the
Republican establishment and a Southern Baptist vice-president who is
acceptable to the religious right.

The victim is America, because we will have more of the same. McCain
has promised us 100 years in Iraq, more of a fed controlled economy,
and business as usual in Washington. The lobbyists are cheering.
Huckabee will temper, but not change the McCain presidency. He will
make sure that the southern Republicans are placated - but not
satisfied.

Maybe the best thing that could happen to the conservative movement in
the United States is a Clinton-Obama victory in November. Then maybe
they would realize they need to listen to sanity - a voice like Ron
Paul.