Well as it happens the haves and the have nots are drifting further and further apart, according to a recent poverty analysis.

“Based on the latest available U.S. census data from 2005…almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars.”

USA Today

Once again we hear the tired argument that the gulf is widening between the so called rich and the poor. And naturally evil corporations and their obscene profits are to blame. It only stands to reason that record profits at Exxon could explain why a someone earning less than 10 thousand dollars a year would attempt to raise a family.

Surely Exxon’s profitably are to blame for the unbelievable stupidity of so many Americans who disregard their education by dropping out of school, surely Exxon is to blame for so many teenage girls having children, surely Exxon bares the responsibility for so many irresponsible people doing drugs and refusing to develop job skills and leave them permanently trapped in a cycle of poverty. Exxon and other profitable companies like Microsoft, Wal-Mart, etc…should be nationalized by the federal government and their profits distributed freely to the idol, the indolent and the idiotic, the very people who account for the poverty levels in this country.

So what’s the solution…well aside from punishing corporate America, the government must do more, the government must expand social programs and other wasteful entitlement programs, after all whenever people have a problem only the state has the wherewithal to save us from ourselves.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-25-us-poverty_x.htm

A recent issue of US News features a story ranking the worst presidents in US history, they also ask readers to rank where George W. Bush would rank.

According to US News the bottom ten are:
1. James Buchanan
2. Warren G. Harding
3. Andrew Johnson
4. Franklin Pierce
5. Millard Fillmore
6. John Tyler
7. Ulysses S. Grant
8. William Harrison
9. Herbert Hoover | Richard Nixon (tie)
10. Zachary Taylor

Quite frankly, is the American public truly capable of adding anything to this list. It would be a fair bet that most Americans know nothing of any of these presidents, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, and thus could not hope to offer an intelligent assessment. While US News is probably right on the money with the top three, there are a few who are noticeably absent. And why is Harrison in the ranking, he only served 30 days, hardly long enough to do much of anything? Some former presidents have been so glamorized by history, the reality of their colossal failures and misjudgments have been ignored, chief among them being Jefferson and Jackson.

There is no doubt that Bush will be judged poorly in many regards, but he is far from the worst. One future edition that is a foregone conclusion is future President Hillary Clinton, whose leadership of this country promise to eclipse all challengers as the worst in US history.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/magazines_list_.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070218/26presidents.htm

In America the battle for school choice has waged for decades…with advocates on one side calling for greater school choice and others, primarily leftists and teacher’s groups calling for a maintenance of the status quo. Perhaps if America’s schools were the envy of the world, perhaps in US school children excelled academically in comparison with the rest of the industrialized world, then perhaps one could side with the likes of the NEA and other anti-choice advocates, but America’s schools aren’t the envy of the world. Our schools are our shame. Our children are dead last by almost every academic measure, even in comparison with countries that spend far less per pupil than we.

Utah, in an effort to rectify the disgrace that is the US public education system, has endeavored to enact a voucher system….This system will take affect this fall allow students to use funds to send their children to a public or private school of their choice. Critics contend the subsequent loss of funds will harm schools (translation: these public institutions and the employees housed inside are more important than the children they supposedly serve and thus children must remained trapped in poor schools to save jobs).

Utah’s program is not unique and will surely be challenged by teachers and other advocates for stagnation who see nothing wrong with an entire generation of children falling further and further behind. Our children’s future’s are being sacrificed and our tax dollars wasted to placate and powerful lobbying interest. The fate that this Utah program is rather unique is unfathomable. Even in socialist leaning Europe, students have school choice with the money following the student affording parents the choice of sending their kids to a public or private such is also the case in many Asian countries, all of which excel in comparison with US children. Yet here in America choice and thus opportunity remains an elusive dream for most children, at least Utah gives may have a break from the Soviet yoke that is US public education.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/wm1362.cfm

Is George Bush planning an invasion of Iran? If so he will go down in history as the biggest fool in the history of the United States.

Is Iran supporting insurgents in Iraq? Most certainly, but then again what else is new, Iran has been a sponsor of terror for over 30 years. The solution is to close the border, but then again the US can’t even close its own border so what hope is there for Iraq?

Is Iran a threat to regional stability? Yes. Is Iran working feverishly to develop an indigenous nuclear weapons capability? Yes. Is Iran determined to destroy Israel and foment the growth of radical Islam? Yes.

Nonetheless, an invasion of Iran would be a terrible idea. No not because Democrats oppose the move and not because the war would further divide the nation. An invasion of Iran is a bad idea simply because it would fail miserably. As disastrous as the War in Iraq has been, a war with Iran would be far worse. Here we have a nation reared on radicalism, unlike Iraq. Here we have a nation bent on Jihad for more than a generation, unlike Iraq. Here we have a nation with plenty of home grown suicide bombers waiting in the wings, unlike Iraq.

Just has Iraq has been a focal point for radical Islam, war with Iran would unleash and global terror assault the likes of which the world has never envisioned.

So what is the solution? Some argue that radical Islamists can’t be reasoned with, they are determined to carry out Jihad and death is no deterrent. Critics contend that Iran is a vastly different enemy from the Soviet Union. Iran and the rest of the Islamic world of radicals and murdering savagery can be brought to its knees without pointless and unwinable invasions. To accomplish this task both the US and the rest of the western world must be united, recognizing the threat radical Islam poses for civilization. There can be no doubt in the minds of the Iranians of America’s resolve. Just as the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction , kept the Soviets at bay, MAD can reign in the Islamists.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy noted that an attack on any nation within the Western hemisphere would be regarded as an attack upon the United States by the Soviet Union. The Iranians must know that proliferation of nuclear weapons or other WMDs or any effort to strike Israel or any other nation will be regarded as an attack on the entire western world, requiring a full retaliatory response resulting in the complete destruction of the Iranian civilization and culture. These people understand one thing and one thing only force.

Presently, the Iranians and the rest of the Islamic world view the west as weak and unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices for victory, they laugh at negotiations and boast of their efforts to pull the wool over our eyes. They roam wild on the streets of various European cities and what do the Europeans do? Vacillate. They bomb, kill, behead and destroy and what do they get? A complacent American public that doesn’t even regard terrorism as one of the top 5 threats facing America. So can Iran be stopped? Surely. Will Iran be stopped? Probably not.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070215/D8NAD2T80.html

Everyone fears Hillary
Last week the all knowing Hillary Clinton proudly proclaimed that the GOP fears a Clinton presidency: "I know what Gingrich tells people privately, I know what DeLay tells people privately, I know what Karl Rove tells people privately." While Senator Clinton may wear this as a badge of honor, the reason the GOP fears Hillary is the same reason anyone familiar with the Senator should fear Hilary. As Dick Morris noted a President Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the worse in history. Far worse than Jimmy Carter or Andrew Johnson or any of the mediocre presidents from the late 19th century.

Clinton, a socialist in all but name would spell certain doom for those who cherish individual responsibility or economic liberty. Clinton would greatly expand the scope and intrusiveness of government as the Europeanization of US, as envisioned by the most leftist of Democrats. So yes Hillary they fear you as anyone in their right mind would.
www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Clinton_Rove_other_Republicans_fear_my_0212.html


Anna Nicole…Shmanna Nicole
As anyone with a TV, Newspaper or computer is aware. The so-called Blonde Bombshell Anna Nicole Smith mysteriously died over the weekend. Exactly why is this news? Why does anyone in America, except for the immediate family give a rat’s #@!%.

The obsession over Anna Nicole Smith highlights the stupidity of the dumb masses. Whores and prostitutes die all the time without so much as a whimper from the press, can someone explain the difference.
www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16689229.html

The Iraq War protest
This week House Democrats are debating the merits of a non-binding resolution to condemn the president’s proposed troop build-up, a proposal the very same Congressmen, supported only a few months ago. The Iraq War, however, more than any other event in the last 100 years as clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy and two-faced nature of American politics. A few years ago when a Democrat resided in the White House, one leftist after another made the same tired arguments now championed by the GOP for going to war with Iraq.

The fact that Iraq most certainly did possess WMDs is of no consequence. The Iraq War has proven a disaster and no matter what the end result is at this point, the inevitable result is an emboldening of the terrorists, inevitably more Americans will die because of this experience, and the actions of defeatist Democrats and a bumbling president…a perfect whirlwind of ineptitude and incompetence.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7394234

Country music star, Keith Urban has filed suit against Keith Urban, no its not a case bipolar disorder…Keith Urban the country singer from Australia is suing Keith Urban the painter from New Jersey. The New Jersey Urban owns keithurban.com and uses the site to sell his wares, a variety of oil paintings.

According to Country Keith, is accusing New Jersey Keith of trademark infringement and alleges New Jersey Keith is misleading site visitors, but is he? Are we to believe that country Keith is the only person in the world with the name Keith Urban?

New Jersey Keith registered his domain (keithurban.com) in 1999, one year before Country Keith’s American debut in 2000. So exactly who is misleading whom? Perhaps New Jersey Keith should sue Country Keith for disrupting his painting career.

By Country Keith’s reckoning only he can profit from his name and talent. This case is about as ridiculous as the Portland man who sued Michael Jordan for being a look alike and ruining his life…
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/07/michael-jordan-sued.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/06/people.keithurban.law.ap/index.html

Syndicated Libertarian Talk Show host, Neal Boortz, responded to a recent report from the UN declaring that without question, man is responsible for Global Warming. The assumptions, which are devoid of reason in many regards, have major flaws which environmentalists stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. Many of these complaints have been addressed in great detail on this site, but perhaps no one as summed up the flaws of the 21st century environmentalist movement more so than Boortz in a recent rant post.

* The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

* Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.

* Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

* The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

* It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

* It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

* How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.
* Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

* The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.

* The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

* Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

* Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

* What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

* Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

* Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

* In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

* There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

* Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

* Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

* Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

* Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

* During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

* Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

* Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

* On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

While Boortz isn't accurate by all accounts the facts are clear, those in support of initiatives like Kyoto have an ulterior motive and their alarmists accusations on Global Warming, relly heavily on ignoring contradictory facts.

Another unsubstantiated, unprovable, nonsensical report on the earth’s temperature has been released. This time the claim has been made that the earth is the hottest it has been in thousands of years. The mere supposition is laughable, and therefore will be fully embraced by many leftists. While at least this study does not use a reference renaissance paintings the scientists have made use of the study of icebergs. One still has to ask those who support such research, why the incontrovertible proof of increased solar activity is consistently ignored in study global climate change, is it scientific to ignore causations that do not support one’s hypothesis?
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/09/monday-round-up.html

Previous Posts:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/06/earth-hottest-in-centuries.html

http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/10/us-doesnt-use-its-fair-share.html

http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/06/abc-asks-for-global-warming-stories.html

http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/06/march-of-pseudo-science.html

http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/12/litigious-curse-strikes-yet-again.html

http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/12/china-chides-us-over-kyoto.html