Recently, I became aware of a Candidate Calculator supposedly this online tools is designed to align your views with those of one of the candidates running for president. You simply answer a series of yes or no questions and the calculator tells you which candidate best mirrors your position. Apparently, I should be supporting someone by the name of John Cox a Republican Businessman from Illinois.

I wasn't particularly happy with the calculator in that the questions are difficult to answer from a libertarian perspective...for example on the subject of same sex marriage, the calculator requires a yes or no or unsure answer, none of which apply, as this isn't a matter that should ever come before the president in any form in the first place what constitutional authority does the federal government have to define marriage and further more why is any government involved in what was up until the modern era...a private matter.

Secondly...John Cox, who is that even after researching the candidate I found it difficult to assess his views on anything, even after gleaning his website, which sounds typical of the average politician, on his web site I did find a letter to social conservatives, which throw up a red flag for me. But Phalanx Editor, you are an Evangelical Christian aren't you? Well the case could be made for that..but this Christian vehemently opposes any effort to use the power of the state to legislate morality or impose personal spiritual and moral views on others, I believe in leading by example not by force of arms or the police powers of government, which is a model favored by Radical Islamists and so-called social conservatives alike.

Who knows one could be wrong about John Cox, his position on the issues is unclear in my brief research...I suppose I should be happy that I wasn't aligned with Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton.

One more thing...
This guy has an AOL email address, not to be an internet snob, but what does that say about a person's fiscal responsibility to use an overpriced, subpar internet service provider to gain access to the internet, much less use it for email...that sure doesn't sound like much of a winner to me.

A federal judge in San Francisco tossed out a lawsuit filed by the state of California against 6 major auto manufacturers. In the suit the state of California was seeking hundreds of millions in damages for supposed damage caused by so-called greenhouse pollutants to the California environment. The suit targeted GM, Toyota, Nissan, Ford and DaimlerChrysler. So why not BMW, Hyundai, Volkswagen or a half dozen other automakers?

Fortunately common sense prevailed as Judge Martin Jenkins tossed the case on the grounds that it had no place in the federal courts. Never mind that there is no definitive proof of extensive manmade global warming, The fact remains that those who support the man-made global warming agenda have an agenda of their why, how else does one explain the FACT that there have been numerous periods n Earth’s history with higher temperatures, some of the hottest recorded temperatures of the past century were recorded over 6 decades ago, and of all the supposed evidence in support of manmade global warming no one seems to pay attention to the most obvious cause: the sun, or the fact that volcanic activity here on earth is responsible for as much greenhouse emissions as any automobile. Perhaps the State of California should consider naming the planet’s geothermal system or the sun itself in the next lawsuit.

In the last 400 years solar activity has increased significantly, following a period known as the Maunder Minimum in the late 1600s when solar activity declined significantly (incidentally the period immediately preceding the Maunder Minimum, corresponds exactly with the last period of high global temperatures, as determined by the National Academy of Sciences). During the last 100 years in particular solar activity has reached a zenith, with solar variation the highest since solar observation began. Can any reasonable, objective scientist seriously ignore such evidence when assessing the cause of global climate change?

Who is so foolish as to ignore the Sun in any study of the weather. To do so instantaneously relegates any climate study to the fiction section of the local library.

The Phalanx (June 22, 2006)
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/06/earth-hottest-in-centuries.html

Previous Posts:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2007/02/man-made-global-warming.html

Today, the long awaited (at least for some) memoir of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was released. Greenspan describes himself as a Libertarian Republican, which is the ultimate contradiction in term considering the undisputed fact that the GOP is no more a champion of limited government and individual freedom than the leftist opposition. So what did Greenspan say…as a matter of fact he said a great deal, most of which rings true. He pointed out the inescapable realty of the Republican loss of Congress in last year’s mid term elections. As Greenspan noted the Dems didn’t win the election, the GOP lost when they abandoned principles of fiscal responsibility in a mad dash to spend every last dime in the federal treasury (and then some)…naturally the left and the right both ignored this criticism. The GOP have yet to face the reality of their humiliating defeat and the Dems aren’t likely to recognize in critique of overzealous spending on the part of a reckless Congress.

Greenspan also noted that oil was a major factor in the Iraq War, the simple fact is the stability of the world’s petroleum resources, which are primarily controlled by tyrants and dictators is essential to the world economy, a reality not lost on Mr. Greenspan. The question is…does a country have a legitimate right to wage war in pursuit of natural resources? If the world’s oil supplies are threatened does the US have a right to war on one nation or another to secure those supplies? If the answer is yes, then how is the world justified in condemning the actions of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany during the Second World War? In both cases the Axis powers waged aggressive war in pursuit of land, natural and human resources…is this any different? Just because one nation possesses a vital resource that is desire by another does not justify the use of force to wrest those resources from the hands of a sovereign nation. No more than governments are justified in using the police power of the state to redistribute the wealth of citizens. Does it matter if a sovereign nation is ruled by a tyrant and murderer like Saddam Hussein? Certainly the US would be justified in resisting an attack waged from afar by a nation on extracting or “securing” our resources for their national interests. This reality underscores the heart of the freemarket, not a coerced market system. If resources aren’t available and can’t be obtained through trade then a nation must pursue alternatives or simply go without.

Does this mean a nation is unjustified in defending itself in the event of an overt threat, even when taking preemptive action? Certainly not, preemption is entirely justified, whether it applies in the case of Iraq is a matter for debate, and whether invasion was the best course to deal with an on going threat like Saddam Hussein is equally debatable. One thing that cannot be debated, though quite a few politicians on the left may beg to differ, Iraq most certainly did possess a vast WMD program. Only the most ignorant and foolish amongst us could ever believe otherwise.
Link to Washington Post article

Thank goodness we have Cuba’s Fidel Castro to set us straight on the ways of the world. Apparently its all a lie…September 11th the War on Terror its all a farce, apparently cooked up by a vast conspiracy in Washington. For those of us who lack much confidence in the abilities of our government, it is truly hard to believe that our government bureaucracy has the wherewithal to pull off such a feat, but then again it must be true because Fidel Castro told us so…

Whatever you may believe regardless of what Osama Bin Laden and the leaders of Al Qaeda may claim the true architects of the September 11th tragedy was the US government, don’t believe the witnesses, don’t believe the terrorists, don’t believe the investigators because Castro told us so…

Not only is September 11th and the War on Terror a farce but apparently so too is every other act of Islamic terror going back over three decades, its all a figment of our imagination. The first Trade Center attack, the USS Cole, Kobar Towers, the Achille Lauro, the numerous hijackings of the 1980s, the numerous murders and massacres in ever corner of the globe from Thailand to Russia to India…its all a vast conspiracy, there is no such thing as radical Islam. Even the word terrorism is a farce, probably invented by Karl Rove, sure you may remember hearing of terror attacks in previous years , but that is likely a result of memory implants.

So what’s the motivation? Why this vast conspiracy why have the vast resources of the United States been mobilized? Surely the masterminds behind this conspiracy have some grandiose objective, what that maybe Castro does not say, but I’m sure once he creates a motive in between murdering and oppressing his own people he will let us know.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,,2167354,00.html

By the way we also know this is a conspiracy because according to Rosie O’Donnell steel doesn’t burn and thus the fact that the WTC Towers collapsed confirms that it was a conspiracy that destroyed the towers…for those of you who were C average students I’m sure you will believe such drive, those of us with intelligence or any degree of common sense will know the premise that steel can’t burn or melt is laughable.

Previous word on other terror attacks:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/04/islamic-terrorisma-reality-check.html

If ever there were justification for the US government, businesses and private citizens to embrace energy independence, a recent report by the US government citing continued Saudi links to terrorism should encourage that move. Six years after the 9/11 terror attacks and the nation that produced the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers is still funneling millions upon millions into the waiting hands of Al Qaeda.

In essence because Americans consume more energy that is produced domestically, we are essentially funding our own destruction. Naturally, any libertarian worth their salt supports the premise of free and unmolested trade, but at the expense of the very liberty we cherish?

As long as this nation produces fuel inefficient vehicles and refuses to embrace alternatives we will continue to remain vulnerable, but once we are able to cast of the shackles of radical tyrants and their petroleum noose these radicals will loose a valuable source of revenue, striking a severe blow to Al Qaeda and like minded savages…

Whether someone is an environmentalist or not is of no consequence, all those who value their freedom should embrace the call. As gas prices have crept upward, more and more Americans have purchase smaller or more fuel efficient cars, Individuals like John Edwards have called on Americans to abandon their SUVs, but is that the answer? Do we have to give up our SUVs? Certainly not, the supposition that Automakers can’t produce fuel efficient vehicles unless they are the size of a breadbox is absurd. Automakers, however, need a friendly push…

Producers need an incentive to produce more fuel efficient vehicles and embrace fossil fuel alternatives, at the same time consumer need an incentive to purchase these products. It would be foolish to embrace a one tiered strategy as no single solution will save us from the strangle these tyrants hold over us.

Step One: Produce more
Rather than placing obstacles on domestic production, the Congress should encourage domestic oil exploration be it in ANWR, in the Gulf o anywhere else, the environmental impact would be minimal in this modern era…

Step Two: Encourage fossil Fuel Alternatives
Up to this point federal and state authorities have only paid lip service to the notion of supporting (or at the very least, un-inhibiting) the development of fossil fuel alternatives. If the nation of Brazil can virtually eliminate its dependence on petroleum through sugar based ethanol, then surely the United States can do the same. Through tax breaks and other market based incentives the US could quickly develop an alternative energy infrastructure to rival the oil industry’s 100+ year hold. Not only should ethanol alternatives be explored but natural gas, bio-diesel and so forth, all of which have great potential.

Step Three: Encourage New Technology
There are a number of alternatives that could spell the end for the internal combustion engine. One such development is the Fuel Cell, used by NASA in space exploration for over 40 years, fuel cell powered vehicles produce no exhaust leaving only water in their wake and would completely eliminate petroleum dependency. At the very least technologies which boost fuel efficiency should be encouraged. Hybrid technology is one such option allowing SUV loving soccer moms to keep their automotive behemoths without writing weekly checks to Osama and company…Through tax incentives that eliminate much of the cost differential between standard and alternative vehicles, their would be few impediments to their production.

Step Four: Embolden the Consumer
By providing consumers with incentives to purchase alternatives, such as reduced ad valorem taxes and so forth consumers would be further encouraged to pursue a new path toward energy independence.

While we may differ on the means, the fact remains that something must be done and soon. As a libertarian the premise of using government as the vehicle for change is distasteful at the very least, but using an incentive system rather than government mandates in order to protect and secure our futures the bad taste doesn’t linger quite as long…
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=22147
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-29474720070912

Previous Articles:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/09/major-oil-discoveryperfect-time-to.html
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/04/oil-and-economics.html
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/04/china-and-oil.html
http://thephalanx.com/2006/02/bush-cautions-against-foreign-oil.html
http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/11/is-this-best-they-can-do.html
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/02/if-brazil-can-why-cant-us.html

Once again a new report about the life expectancy of the average American. Apparently many of us will live to age 78 and the rest of us killed by car accidents, drunkenness, murder, heart disease and so on and so forth. Of course the media has been quick to point out that while we are living longer than ever, we lag behind a number of countries…

Does this sound familiar?
http://www.thephalanx.com/2007/08/woe-is-melife-expectancy-in-us-lags.html

Look at the statistical difference between America’s 78.2 and France’s 80.7 or the UK’s 79.4, is this earth shattering. How would these stats differ when comparing Americans and Brits or Americans and Frenchmen with similar lifestyles, are we to believe that it is somehow an inherent weakness of are fee market system that so many Americans embrace poor health habits?

Thanks to Wikipedia, we do have the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy


Is it one’s imagination or does the media actually get a thrill from denigrating the United States or manipulating and distorting the facts at every turn?
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-09-12-voa35.cfm