Britain's Prince Harry in Afghanistan

The secret is out: Prince Harry has been serving on the front line with his British army unit in one of Afghanistan's most lawless and barren provinces.

Harry is the first royal to serve in a combat zone since his uncle Prince Andrew flew helicopters during Britain's war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982.

British officials had hoped to keep the 23-year-old's deployment secret until he had safely returned, but they released video of Harry serving in Helmand Province after a leak appeared on the U.S. Web site the Drudge Report.

READ MORE

Fewer U.S. Dead = Less TV Coverage of Iraq

One year ago, liberal journalists depicted the surge of U.S. troops to Iraq as a certain failure. “A lot of people are going to go to bed tonight terrified,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews opined just minutes after President Bush announced the policy on January 10, 2007. Other journalists were only slightly more subtle. “Many experts warn, it’s too little, too late,” NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski argued on the January 8, 2007 Nightly News. The next morning on NBC’s Today, the network’s graphic describing Iraq was “Lost Cause?”

One year later, the President’s surge strategy is well on its way to succeeding. The Iraqi parliament has passed several laws meeting required political reconciliation benchmarks. Yet this good news seems to have diminished the media elite’s interest in broadcasting any news from Iraq.
While the amount of coverage has shriveled, the tone remains more negative than positive. So far this month, the three evening newscasts have aired just 41 items on Iraq, most (23) just brief items read by the anchor. A mere seven stories were field reports from Iraq. Only ABC’s World News (February 13) noted the passage of key legislation by the Iraqi parliament, followed by a unique story the next evening on the success of the surge. The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News offered no such stories.

READ MORE

Reid: Anti-war fight to continue

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pledged on Thursday to continue trying to end the Iraq war even though he lacks the votes to force a troop withdrawal. The Senate was on track to wrap up its first round of debate on the war this year with little fanfare. After two days of discussion, Republicans refused to continue. As a result, Democrats were forced to shelve proposals by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., that would have cut off money for combat and demanded a new strategy for defeating al-Qaida.[?]

[First the war was unwinnable - already lost as a matter of fact - when that turned around it no longer mattered: we were stuck in a civil war and had to get out - then the sectarian strife diminished to nearly nothing, so it no longer mattered: it was a failure anyway because the political benchmarks weren't happening - now two of three of those have been done, with the 3rd pending, so they no longer matter: it's now the cost of the war that's unacceptable - we need to get out now.
IGNORING that the 9B$/month cost of the war pales in comparison to the quarter Trillion in new spending being proposed by either democratic candidate, and contrary to Obama's 'plan' to leave Iraq and return if al-Qaida does {?!?} - IF money's {now} the issue, how smart do you have to be to realize that the most cost effective option at this point in time is to stay until victory is achieved and Iraq can stand on its own?
I.E., these folks are so vested in our failure in Iraq they're now incapable of thinking rationally on the subject - and how dangerous is that? In a presidential candidate?? ]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153ap_us_iraq.html

Senate Report: Over 400 Scientists Dispute Manmade Global Warming

According to a report just published at the United States Senate Committee on Environment, over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC.
[snip]
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK)
[snip]
This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution.

Though lengthy, readers are strongly encouraged to review this entire document to learn the truth about what real scientists - those not receiving Oscars, Emmys, and Nobel Peace Prizes [or grants] - think about this controversial issue.

[reminder: alarmists are in a hurry to get their laws on the books because time will increasingly prove prior predictions and scientific methods false - hence they're becoming shriller and shriller in demanding legislation now-right-now, for as we all know, a law that brings the government money and power once enacted is forever...]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Bill would require California's science curriculum to cover climate change

[meanwhile, in California...]

Reading, writing and . . . global warming?

A Silicon Valley lawmaker is gaining momentum with a bill that would 'require' climate change to be among the science topics that all California public school students are taught. The measure, by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, also would mandate that future science textbooks approved for California public schools include climate change.

"You can't have a science curriculum that is relevant and current if it doesn't deal with the science behind climate change," Simitian said. "This is a phenomenon of global importance and our kids ought to understand the science behind that phenomenon."

The state Senate approved the bill, SB 908, Jan. 30 by a 26-13 vote. It heads now to the state Assembly. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken numerous actions to reduce global warming, but he has yet to weigh in on Simitian's bill. Other Republicans in the Capitol, however, are not happy, believing the bill's intention is to inject environmental propaganda into classrooms.

"I find it disturbing that this mandate to teach this theory is not accompanied by a requirement that the discussion be science-based and include a critical analysis of all sides of the subject," said Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, during the Senate debate.

the Governator: 916-445-2841, email: http://gov.ca.gov/interact
your state Assemblyman email: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
then your friends and fellow parents...

READ MORE

RUSSIA'S FLAT TAX

In 2001, Russia enacted a flat tax rate of 13 percent; a reform so popular it has since been adopted by countries such as Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Slovakia and Macedonia. But is the flat tax a good thing? According to the authors of a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, it is:

> Studying Russia, the authors found that the flat tax lead to a significant decrease in tax evasion.

> This is likely due to the fact that lower marginal tax rates decreases the incentive to avoid reporting income.

> Further, if there is a decrease in tax evasion, policy makers can lower the marginal tax rate further while still collecting the same amount of revenue.

Overall, it seems that the flat tax is not only attractive according to economic theory, but may also work well in reality -- at least in terms of reducing tax evasion.

[it would also make all citizens - in perfect proportion - taxpayers, and so counter the class-warfare tactic of wealth redistribution through our nonsensical tax code]

READ MORE

OBAMA'S 'PATRIOT' ACT

[instead, we get...]

Last year, along with Democratic co-sponsors Sherrod Brown and Dick Durbin, Sen. Barack Obama laid out a plan for favoring "patriotic" companies. Unfortunately, if elected to the presidency, he'd bring the program to the White House, says the Wall Street Journal.

The legislation takes four pages to define "patriotic" companies as those that:

> Pay at least 60 percent of each employee's health care premiums and have a position of neutrality in employee union organizing drives.

> Maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in the United States relative to the number of full-time workers outside of the United States.

>Pay a salary to each employee not less than an amount equal to the federal poverty level and provide a pension plan.

In other words, a "patriotic employer" is one which fulfills the fondest Big Labor agenda, regardless of the competitive implications, says the Journal. The proposal ignores the marketplace reality that businesses hire a work force they can afford to pay and still make money. Coercing companies into raising wages and benefits above market rates may only lead to fewer workers getting hired in the first place.

Put another way, U.S. companies would suddenly have to pay a higher tax rate than their Chinese, Japanese and European competitors, says the Journal. According to research by Peter Merrill, an international tax expert at PricewaterhouseCoopers, this change would "raise the cost of capital of U.S. multinationals and cause them to lose market share to foreign rivals." Apparently Obama believes that by making U.S. companies less profitable and less competitive world-wide, they will somehow be able to create more jobs in America.

READ MORE

GOVERNMENT'S NEW MINIMALIST MISSION

[what we need...]

With the unsustainable growth of government, there is an immediate need to rebuild from the ground up -- on a much smaller scale and with a new mission: Keep us safe and leave us alone, say Ernest S. Christian and Gary A. Robbins, former Treasury Department officials.

A set of minimalist guidelines may be useful:

> Tell voters the truth about the high cost of taxes weighed against the often low benefit of spending and force Congress to adhere to a cost-benefit budget procedure, conducted in the open with full public notice and voter participation.

> Give everyone a "tax cut dividend" when spending reduction targets are met -- and send them a bill for additional taxes when spending goes up; government will shrink, the economy will grow and, with a large base of prosperity, America will always have plenty of money with which to meet any crisis.

READ MORE

Americans feel better about future: Reuters poll

Growing confidence in the future and slightly warmer views of President George W. Bush and Congress put Americans in a better mood this month, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday. The Reuters/Zogby Index, which measures the mood of the country, rose sharply to 99.3 in February from last month's 94.2, putting it at the highest level since August. Approval ratings for Bush climbed to 34 percent from 31 percent last month, and positive ratings for Congress inched up from 14 percent to a still-low 17 percent...

[it's only when asked about distant events on which folks rely on media reporting that attitudes turn sour. Wonder why...]

READ MORE

...................................Always, always file a flight plan.

SPECIAL-LONG:

[HT:GC - too good to cut up...]

Becoming Illegal

(Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his senator)

The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC , 20510

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue
Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the
Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for
becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen
to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate
and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is
accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five
years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and
income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see
one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it
out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay
taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of
taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can
apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for
me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local
emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped
paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save
almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter
would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school
applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges
throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the
burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car
insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have
college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become
illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I
would be most appreciative.


Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington , IA