Roger Hedgecock: Perspective

The political party claiming the right “change” and “experience” to lead our nation and given by all pollsters the best chance to win the White House in November is decomposing right before our eyes. Only Eliot Spitzer (for different reasons) decomposed faster.

The Democrats claim they can best run the Federal Government, but can’t seem to run their own presidential nominating process. Consider the chaos:

In 1972, the Democrats jettisoned the smoke filled rooms where party bosses produced Hubert Humphrey’s nomination in 1968 in favor of modern open primaries where the popular vote would determine the nominee. To make the process even more “fair” and “democratic”, in most states delegates were apportioned according to the percentage of the popular vote a candidate received.

However, States retained the right to designate the method of delegate selection. By 2008, a patchwork of elections, caucuses, and state conventions meant each state had separate and complex rules presenting the candidates with, in effect, 50 separate elections. So, for example, a month after Hillary Clinton decisively won the popular vote in the Texas Democratic Primary Election, election officials there have only counted half the votes from the caucuses held election night after the polls closed. The caucus tally to date actually could lead to Barack Obama getting more Texas delegates than Hillary Clinton !

Then consider Michigan and Florida, two key states who moved their primaries up to January even though the Democratic National Committee and the Presidential candidates said that those state delegates would not be seated at the Convention if they did so. Both states voted majority for Clinton who was on the ballot in both primaries. In Michigan, Obama was not on the ballot, but “uncommitted” got 40% of the vote ! Now, does the DNC go ahead and seat these delegates even though a fair contest between the candidates did not occur, hold another election in these states, or continue to bar delegates from these critical states from the Convention ? What a mess !

With only a handful of state primaries to go (representing about 600 delegates), Obama has a slight delegate lead over Clinton, but if current voting trends continue to split the delegates about 50-50, neither candidate will get anywhere near the 2025 delegates it takes to win the nomination before the August convention in Denver.

In caucus states, which are mostly smaller and Republican, Obama has done much better than Clinton due to superior organization and grassroots volunteer enthusiasm. Clinton has done much better in larger, Democratic states. Obama has done better among men, higher educated, younger, and black voters. Clinton has done better among women, less educated, older, and hispanic voters. With no real policy differences between the two virtually tied candidates, the Democratic Party is on the verge of splitting in two on the basis of personality, race, gender, and generational divide.

Confident of Democratic victory in November, the battle for the Party nomination is playing out like a Shakespeare tragedy. Talk of a “dream ticket” combining Obama and Clinton has only increased the rancor between the two candidates with Clinton wondering aloud “who would be on top” and Obama wondering why the candidate with the most votes and delegates should have to consider being V.P. to “the loser”. Ouch ! Absent either candidate “running the table” in the handful of primaries left through June 3, how will this mess be resolved ?

The answer might be the “Superdelegates”. In the years since the “reforms” of 1972, Democratic Party bosses and power brokers have re-inserted themselves. About 800 unelected “Superdelegates” to the nominating convention have been named this year from the ranks of the Democratic National Committee, and from elected Democratic Mayors, Governors, and members of Congress. In past Presidential Election years, the nominee has wrapped up the 2025 delegates in the primary process and the superdelegates have rubber stamped the voters’ choice at the Convention.

In 2008, these UNELECTED 800 superdelegates hold the power to swing the nomination to Clinton or Obama. Given this is the modern Democratic Party, the power brokers and party bosses will meet in smoke free rooms to determine the identity of the “Democratic” nominee.

Imagine for a moment, the impact of the superdelegates selecting Clinton when Obama has more delegates and more primary votes. But the selection of Obama is just as problematical. Does anyone think the Clintons will enthusiastically support the upstart junior Senator who derailed her lifelong ambition and entitlement to the nomination ?

Is this any way to run the “Democratic” Party ? Is this the kind of “change” and “experience” the American Voter is looking for in November ? Democrats keep decomposing like this and the seemingly outlandish prediction by President Bush this week of a Republican victory in November could come true.

This last weekend, I broadcast my Saturday national radio show (rogerreport.com) from the Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, spoke to a conference of high school students at the Center, and got a private tour of the Reagan Ranch, Rancho del Cielo, in the mountains above and north of Santa Barbara.

The 600 plus acre Ranch was purchased and preserved by Young America’s Foundation (www.yaf.org) using private donations after the Federal and State governments declined to do so. It remains just as it was when Ronald and Nancy Reagan escaped from the pressures of the Presidency to do some brush clearing and horse back riding.

Reagan dug the post holes for the fencing around the ranch house himself, by hand, and with the help of two retired CHP officers who used to accompany Reagan when he was California’s Governor, brought in stone from around the ranch and created a covered patio area around the front door. An address plate reads “1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”– because the road leading up to the house was named Pennslyvania Ave. by the Reagans.

The ranch house is a simple 100 year old adobe whose porches were enclosed by Reagan to expand the house to about 1300 square feet. The two fireplaces provide heat; there’s no air conditioning and the rooms are small and plain but enlivened with western art and memorabilia–and pictures, oh what pictures.

There’s Gorbachov, with wife Raisa, looking somewhat stunned that the most powerful man in the world has invited them to his private retreat–and its so simple, plain, and remote. People who know western style hats immediately see that Gorby has his gift from Reagan (a western hat) on backwards in the picture ! There’s the Queen and Prince Philip who look more at home–and grateful to be with the Reagans. The meeting was just after Prime Minister Thatcher told the Queen (and the world) “Ronnie won the Cold War”. Only Thatcher and Nancy called him “Ronnie”.

Most of the rest of the pictures in the house and the tack barn out back are of horses Reagan rode english style and loved. There’s “El Alamein” the powerful grey, a gift from the President of Mexico, Lopez Portillo. Reagan’s first meeting with a head of state after being sworn in as President was with Portillo. Reagan presented the Mexican President a case of California wine which carried the label “The San Pasqual Winery” after the area of San Diego where it was made. As every Mexican is taught in elementary school, San Pasqual is the site of the only victory of the Mexicans (Californios actually) over the Americans in the War of 1848. Portillo was so impressed with this gift he sent “El Alamein” from his own ranch to Reagan’s soon after their meeting.

Reminders of the Cold War still remain at the Reagan Ranch as well. The now abandoned Secret Service headquarters, the miles of underground electrical cable, the hilltop bristling still with an antenna farm–and the small concrete room hollowed out beneath the door under the Reagans’ bed ! Tales are still told of Secret Service snipers in positions around the Ranch and U.S. and Russian submarines circling offshore when the President was there. A private pilot who violated the “no-fly” zone over the Ranch lost his license.

The Reagan Ranch today speaks volumes about the character of the man. Clearing brush and doing hard physical labor, living simply and close to the land, Reagan cherished his wife and his private life even while leading the most public life of any American. Here you can feel that Reagan’s political message championing individual liberty, responsibility, and opportunity came not from some focus group tested slogan, but from the man’s inner beliefs and actual lifestyle.

Journalism students are drilled in “who, what, when, where, why”. The essence of a free press is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Today’s politically correct media tells the truth that fits their political agenda; reporters too often tell the story according to a template of what’s acceptable. A free press cannot be a self censored press. Without a free press fully informing us, our democracy cannot function.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about.

Last week, the venerable New York Times smeared Senator John McCain in a front page article leaving the impression that the Senator had a romantic relationship with an attractive young(er) blond lobbyist and did favors for her client. In truth, there was no romance and no favors.

Lost in this confrontation was the much more serious (and factual) story of the “Reform Institute” started by McCain after his defeat for President in 2000 to keep his campaign team together and provide a base for lobbying for his legislative agenda. The “Institute” was funded, in part, by George Soros (of moveon.org fame) and Theresa Heinz Kerry–prominent leftists who provided the funding for McCain’s campaign in exile and for liberal legislation like McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal immigrants) and McCain-Lieberman ($.50 gas tax increase to fight global warming).

None of this made the New York Times or any other part of the media wing of the Democratic Party because to them the obvious conflict between the Soros/Kerry funding and McCain’s current claim to be a “conservative” is not news–they LIKE the Soros/McCain connection. Are we as a free society best served by this kind of selective “news” ?

Another example.

Last week brought tragic news in national headlines and lots of cable news coverage of a crash which killed 4 students riding in a school bus in Minnesota. Rarely mentioned, and only thoroughly explored in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, were facts concerning the driver of the van who caused the accident. She was an illegal alien employed in the local Hormel plant, with no drivers license and no insurance driving a vehicle she did not own. She sped through a stop sign, became airborne over a railroad crossing and slammed broadside into the school bus. She gave arresting police a false name. They called ICE (immigration) which is still investigating.

It has become routine in too many “news” reports of accidents like this one (or of other crimes) to omit the immigration status of the perp ? Why ? Isn’t this a part of the story ? Shouldn’t “we the people” know the facts–or is this information “too sensitive” i.e. too likely to lead to the conclusion that the Bush open border policy killed those kids ?

Another example.

The recent shooting at Northern Illinois University that left 5 students dead and a score in the hospital got plenty of national attention in the media. From the carnage and mayhem of the initial coverage to the final lament about the lack of gun control several news cycles later, this story again was filtered through a familiar liberal haze.

Only some days later did some news sources reveal more of the background on this 27 year old “ex-student”. Seems he had studied Arabic and had attended classes about “injustice” in the Middle East–meaning the existence of Israel. The “student” praised Hamas and greeted fellow students in Arabic at these classes. Was the shooting the product of some generalized problem or more particularly a product of American University leftist bias ?

As soon as this question was posed and this part of the “students” background exposed, the national media dropped the story like a hot rock. How politically incorrect to suggest a terrorist copycat inspired by leftist professors ! That’s not “news” !!

The examples could fill a book. You probably have many of your own. The point is–there is no free press where the press is self censored; where the whole truth dare not be reported if it contradicts the politically acceptable line.

The reluctance of a free press to report the whole truth no matter what the political implications is a blow to American Democracy.

John McCain may have the delegates to win the Republican nomination, but he has yet to win the minds and hearts of voters who are conservative first and Republican second.

John McCain has asked the American conservative voter to judge him by “the company he keeps”. Fair enough.

The company he keeps is precisely why conservatives distrust John McCain will carry Reagan Republicanism into the White House.

First, there is the now familiar litany of Senator McCain’s legislative “accomplishments”. McCain-Lieberman would add 50 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline to fight global warming. McCain-Feingold “reformed” campaign finance laws to restrict your first amendment rights in the last 60 days before an election. McCain-Kennedy would have granted instant amnesty through a “Z visa” to every illegal alien in the United States. For conservatives, this is not only bad company, this is bad law.

But, for conservatives, the bad company gets worse.

Following his defeat in the 2000 presidential race by George W. Bush, Senator McCain established what he called “The Reform Institute” in Alexandria, Virginia, just across the Potomac River from Washington, DC. The purpose of this “institute” was to provide jobs for his key 2000 campaign staffers to keep the team together for 2008 and to provide a lobbying mechanism for his legislative goals (see above).

Financing for “The Institute” came from George Soros and Theresa Heinz Kerry among others. For conservatives, this is as bad as company gets.

In 2006, Senator McCain disassociated himself from “the Institute” after it was revealed that a $200,000 contribution to it had come from a company seeking an FCC ruling which senator McCain, as chairman of the relevant subcommittee in the Senate, had sent a supportive letter. Shades of the Keating Five!

Senator McCain began his campaign to win over conservative voters he must count on if he is to win in November in a speech before CPAC, the conservative political action conference. Before about 6000 conservative activists last month, Senator McCain emphasized his genuine conservative credentials with regard to the budget, pro-life, and a strong military.

Booed when he mentioned immigration, Senator McCain vowed to secure the border. Savvy conservatives remember George Bush’s 2000 vow (”We gotta secure our border!”) and are not impressed. Without removing the magnet of illegal jobs, as Arizona and Oklahoma have done, no effort will ever “secure the border”.

It is on this point that Senator McCain especially fails his own test. On immigration, the company he keeps is Juan Hernandez. Senor Hernandez is a dual citizen of Mexico and the U.S. and was a former border policy advisor to Vicente Fox when he was President of Mexico. Senor Hernandez is an open border advocate. He is John McCain’s “Hispanic outreach director” in the campaign. For conservatives, this is the worst company yet.

There is some time between now and when voters will finally make up their mind on the candidate of their choice for President in November. It’s John McCain’s turn to convince voters, including conservatives. To date, judged by his own standard of the company he keeps, John McCain does not deserve conservative voters’ support.

The race for the Republican and Democratic party nominations has taken some strange twists and turns–none more strange than the presence of un-elected delegates at the Democratic party convention who may hold the balance of power between Clinton and Obama.

On the Republican side, all delegates will be elected in primaries or at state conventions or caucuses.

On the Democratic party side, un-elected “super delegates” made up of Democratic former presidents, governors, members of Congress, mayors, and other worthies, may make up 30% of the total delegates at the Democratic convention. These “super delegates” cast a vote for a nominee that is equal in weight to the vote cast by a delegate elected in a primary, caucus or convention. Most super delegates this year have been pledged to Hillary Clinton. These super delegates have the power to change their mind and vote for whomever they wish at the convention but currently continue to favor Clinton.

Many super delegates were pledged to Hillary Clinton long before Barack Obama began his successful “surge”. For example, in the California primary, super delegate Congresswoman Doris Matsui, a co-chair of the Clinton for President campaign in California stayed committed to Clinton even though voters in her district overwhelmingly supported Obama.

The startling possibility that unelected “super-delegates” could decide the nominee contradicts Democratic party reforms dating back to the 1972 election. In that year, anti-war McGovernite reformers forced through party nomination rule changes throwing out the power of the old party bosses and the smoke-filled back rooms in favor of open primaries and caucuses.

Before the 1984 election, Democrat party elected officials (including some of those same party bosses) staged a “counter reformation” creating the “super delegates” as a counter-weight to democratically elected delegates. In that year’s primary election, Vice President Mondale used the super delegates to fend off a challenge from Senator Gary Hart. Since then, the super delegates have not been a factor in any subsequent nominating contest. Until today. Barack Obama is winning the most votes, the most states, and now the most elected delegates. By some counts, however, Hillary Clinton still leads in total number of delegates because of the loyalty of these super delegates.

Many super delegates have adopted an “uncommitted” position and are now being furiously lobbied by representatives of Clinton and Obama. It’s just possible that in August in Denver, the Democratic nomination may come down to a (now smoke-free) back room and the decision of a majority of these unelected power brokers.

Last Saturday,on a day when a third undersea Internet cable serving the Middle East was cut, and on a day when Al Qaeda used two mentally defective women strapped with bombs detonated by remote control to shatter market places in Iraq, a remarkable, courageous group of people convened at the Ranch of the Lonesome Dove north of Dallas, Texas to describe Islam’s War for World Domination.

Sponsored by America’s Truth Forum (americastruthforum.com) and the Basics Project (basicsproject.org), the symposium was called “Exposing the Threat of Islamist Terrorism”. I broadcast my Saturday national radio show from the site and interviewed many of the speakers.

I also introduced my new book “The 2008 Conservative Voter’s Field Guide–#2 The War” Both a podcast of the radio show and information on the book are available at rogerreport.com.

Among the speakers I interviewed was David Schippers, a Chicago labor lawyer and Democrat who was chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment.

I asked him about his investigation of the Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City. He concluded that a Republican Guard officer from Saddam’s army was in the Ryder truck with Timothy McVeigh, and that Nichols was the mastermind behind the bomb, receiving his bomb making training in the Philippines under abu Saif, an al Qaeda affiliate.

He told me that the Oklahoma City bombing was an attack by Radical Islam on the United States and proof of an alliance between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Mr. Schippers described President Clinton’s attempt to blame talk radio and right wing “nuts” for the attack as contrary to the affadavits of 22 eye witnesses.

I also interviewed Dr. Wafta Sultan, a Syrian born Muslim woman now practicing psychiatry in Los Angeles.

She called her journey away from Islam a “choice for freedom” after personally witnessing the brutality of muslim jihadists. She cited the Koran on the role of women, challenging Islamic rules that result in “honor killings” and female mutilation. Dr. Sultan has spoken out on Al Jazeera and other Arabic media against these brutal Islamic practices, acknowledging that death threats are “constant” but she is unafraid.

I also interviewed Dr. Bruce Tefft, who served in the CIA for 21 years, including 17 years abroad, many as CIA Station Chief, and was a founding member of the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center in 1985.

I asked Dr. Tefft what really happened to TWA flight 800 which went down in the Atlantic soon after take off from New York. He said that the plane was downed by a rocket and that, in his opinion, it was an attack by Iran on the United States that was covered up.

He also said that the Islamic jihadists had shifted tactics–a direct attack like 9/11 might still happen, but that it ran the risk of uniting Americans to fight back as the U.S. did in Afghanistan and Iraq. The preferred tactic now was infiltration–of the Pentagon, of the prisons, and of the schools, for example.

I also interviewed Lee Boyland, a nuclear engineer and former member of the Defense Atomic Support Agency (DASA)’s Nuclear Emergency Team.

Mr Boyland described easy to obtain nuclear technology and further described a nuclear explosion’s horrific impact on an American City. In his view, the likelihood of a an Islamic nuclear device being detonated in America in the next 10 years “is 90%”.

These and other remarkable and disturbing statements by expert speakers at the symposium again can be found in a podcast of the whole 3 hour radio show at www.rogerreport.com.

In previewing my book “#2-The War”, I told the audience at the Symposium that my own research led me to the conclusion that the Koran commanded Muslims to convert the whole world to Islam–to the rule of Allah–by force if necessary.

History, as taught in the West, is too often seen through the focus of inter-european great power rivalries and post discovery of America developments. Since the attack of 9/11, the history of Muslim conquest and past European and American victories over Islam deserves more attention to help us understand the threat we face today and how to triumph over it.

Not according to a listener e-mail I received during last Saturday’s national radio show; see www.rogerreport.com.

My listener was referring to Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution which states in relevant part “No Person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President”.

John McCain was born in 1936 on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone to American citizen parents. There is no question he is a citizen of the United States; the question is whether John McCain is a “natural born citizen” “eligible to the Office of President”.

Earlier in the campaign season, devotees of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger touted him for President. It was widely accepted that, absent a Constitutional Amendment, the Governator was barred from running because he was born in Austria but now a naturalized citizen of the U.S. So, not all citizens of the U.S. are eligible to be President.

The origin of the “natural born citizen” clause can be traced (says wikipedia) to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote (in that polite 18th century style) “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen”.

The “natural born citizen” qualification was introduced in the draft Constitution by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

In 1790 Congress passed the first naturalization law, which in part stated “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”.

With that, McCain clearly seems eligible to run for President–as was Barry Goldwater in 1964 even though he had been born in Arizona before Arizona became a state.

Not so fast, says my e-mailing listener. What about the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? Passed in 1868, it states in part “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

Thus, the Constitution itself (in the 14th Amendment) defines “natural born citizen” as “born…in the United States” and all other citizens made so by laws of Congress as “naturalized” citizens.

John McCain was born outside the United States in the American territory of Panama on an American military base. The laws of the United States dating back to 1790 make him a citizen–there’s no question about that–but does the Constitution itself define John McCain as a “naturalized” citizen equal to any other citizen except that he is ineligible to occupy the Office of President ?

I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. I think the e-mailer/listener raises a legitimate point.

It’s true–Consumers have cut back and are apprehensive, real estate prices are down, and few businesses are planning expansions, but the real panic over the possibility of a recession has hit the political class first.

No politician wants to be tagged with blame for any downturn in the economy. Avoiding blame is now the name of the game.

Supply side advocate President Bush now vows ” the (Keynesian) check is in the mail” to restore consumer confidence. Democrats are clearly in a panic too–supporting similar tax cuts to the kind they deplored as “only for the rich” just a few weeks ago.

Insiders predict that Democrats and Republicans will support a bi-partisan plan that merges both spending for the poor and unemployed AND tax cuts for the rich and everyone else too ! Now that’s Panic !

I don’t hear anyone asking why the economic signals have turned bearish. Yes the stock market indices are in free fall; the real estate “bubble” has burst, businesses are getting as nervous as consumers are–but why ?

Why is the stock market turning in its worst January performance in decades ? Stock investors respond to perceived bullish and bearish trends and events from 6 to 24 months out into the future. Only one event just over the time horizon could have such a dramatic bearish effect on the market–the 2010 expiration of the Bush tax cuts which translates into a $2 TRILLION tax INCREASE !!

Remember the Bush tax cuts ? Across the board cuts in income tax rates for everyone paying income taxes; immediate cuts in the capital gain rate for investors (and 49% of us invest in property/stocks/bonds etc subject to the cap gain tax); and the phase down of the estate tax (an unfair tax at death on money the deceased already paid tax on) which even Whoopi Goldberg applauded on “The View” !

What an effect these Bush tax cuts have had ! The resultant economic boom has added 25% to the total wealth of the U.S. in just the last 6 years. The U.S. share of world manufacturing value has increased, although manufacturing jobs are fewer due to productivity gains. Offsetting job gains have kept unemployment rates at the definition of “full employment” although wages at the lower end are depressed by the illegal alien work force. World trade, inspired by a host of free trade agreements, has lifted the economies of our trading partners and millions of their citizens out of poverty AND given the U.S. consumer more choice, better quality and cheaper prices.

The prosperity of the 2002-2007 era was driven by President Bush’s notion that you are better capable at spending the money you earn than the government is.

Now every one of the Democratic candidates for President are vowing to let these tax cuts expire falsely claiming that the tax cuts only benefit the rich. Polling data and political pundits point to a Democratic election year. President Hillary Clinton or President Obama would both let the cuts expire hoping the tax paying public wouldn’t notice due to a media focus on “tax cuts for the middle class” rhetoric.

The media wing of the Democratic Party has already replaced the “America is losing the War” template (now that we’re winning–it’s “never mind”) with the Recession template with the intention of blaming Bush (again–for everything) ! Hence, Bush’s panic at accepting the “check’s in the mail” so-called “stimulus”–a tactic tried before with little real economic effect.

The real question is whether the Democrat’s threat of a $2 Trillion tax increase (now causing the downturn in the economy) will be reversed and the Bush tax cuts extended. If not, it is the Democrats who will be blamed for the Recession.

Last month’s Energy Bill passed Congress by wide margins and was enthusiastically signed by the President.

As every motorist knows the problem is gas costs too much. This “Energy” Bill does nothing to bring gas prices down–in fact, HIGHER gas prices are assumed for the future justifying the jihad against the personal car and freedom of mobility.

This “Energy” Bill taxes the companies who produce energy, won’t allow new drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico where the oil is, subsidizes conservation and “alternative” fuels, does nothing to promote the “tar sands” in the Rockies where a Saudi Arabia size reserve of oil is locked away, does nothing to promote clean, non-CO2 emitting nuclear power plants, and nothing to promote coal de-gasification which could make clean burning our 400 year supply of American coal.

In other words, the politicians gave the country an “Energy” Bill with no energy in it–a global warming driven, politically correct plan to continue down the disastrous path to higher consumer prices, slower economic growth, and even more dependence on foreign sources of energy. How stupid can they get ? How stupid can we be to let them be this stupid ?

There is an alternative: the Brazil model…

I visited Brazil several times in the late 90s and early 2000s. At that point Brazil was heavily dependent on OPEC oil and rising oil prices were hobbling economic growth there. The government devised an action plan that worked. This year, Brazil announced that it would no longer need to import any oil for its fast growing economy.

Here’s what Brazil did.

Sugar cane is an abundant crop easily grown in Brazil. It also makes an excellent ethanol with more power than the corn-based ethanol currently driving up the price of food AND gas in the U.S. Brazil mandated that all cars built in, or brought in to Brazil be flex fueled. Sugar cane based ethanol did not drive up food prices, was cheap to grow (little or no irrigation required due to abundant rainfall in the tropics), and soon was used in every Brazilian’s car, lessening the use of imported oil and gas.

But the Brazilians knew that conservation and ethanol alone would not solve the whole problem–a lesson our Congress has yet to learn.
The Brazilian government oil company ramped up a vigorous exploratory drilling program at a time when experts said that Brazil had no potential new reserves. Shazaam ! For the last few years, Brazil has announced one new oil discovery after another. If this keeps up, Brazil could become a net EXPORTER of oil.

Brazil has offered to help the U.S. problem by exporting the better sugar cane-based ethanol for use here. President Bush, in his visit to Brazil last year, turned the offer down. Sugar cane growers in the U.S. are protected from cheaper imports and the price of their product is artificially kept higher than the world market price as part of the welfare for rich corporate farmers provisions of the “Farm Bill”.

Bush protection of U.S. cane growers helped keep Louisiana a red state. His push for corn based ethanol continues to keep corporate American farmers in the Republican column. Politics trumps national interest.

Here’s an even simpler way to understand how seriously stupid this “Energy” Bill is.

The Bill outlaws the 100 watt bulb by 2012 ! That’s right–the light bulb as we know it is bad for the environment. The 80 cent bulb must be replaced by the $3.50-$4.00 compact fluorescent lamp (CFL).

125 years ago, lamps were burning whale oil. Whales became scarcer, the price of whale oil skyrocketed. In those days, politicians did not believe that government should solve this problem–the free market was the best way.

Without government “Energy” Bills, without subsidies, without bans, the rising price of whale oil inspired businessmen to make a new oil to burn in those lamps from the gooey stuff coming out of the ground in western Pennsylvania. PRESTO ! The industrial, oil based age was born without any government action at all–an age which has given us a standard of living dramatically better than any human society ever.

One of the ingenious inventions of that age was Thomas Edison’s light bulb which meant that you didn’t have to burn oil at all to produce light. If the light bulb can be in turn eclipsed by some better, cheaper, longer lasting way of producing light–let the market produce it.

Ban the Bulb ? NO. Ban the government meddling that limits the future and makes it more expensive too.

12/30/07

Just back in San Diego after three days of radio broadcasts from the Marriott in Des Moines, Iowa. Working from a “Radio Row” set up by F.A.I.R. (Federation for American Immigration Reform) alongside 20 other talk show hosts, I got an up close and personal look at the final stretch of the Iowa Caucus Campaign. Here’s a summary of my notes:

¨WOW… is it cold in Iowa ! 28 degrees was the HIGH on Friday ! I know I’m a wuss from Southern California, but even the (overfed) natives were complaining. Speaking of Iowans–they’re polite, all white, and there’s only about 3 million of them–about the population of San Diego County !

¨Iowans treat the Presidential caucus as their own permanent political Olympics. Brings in about as much money as the Olympics and gives Iowans something to do in theWinter. I can’t even guess what they do in the Winter in non-caucus years…

¨Turns out a “caucus” is a night community meeting where you have to group with neighbors with your candidate preference, listen to speeches given by your neighbors extolling the virtues of their candidate, then bargain to add votes to your group (”switch yer vote and I’ll shovel snow outtayer driveway next week”)–and all of this fun on Orange Bowl night when the outside temp will hover in the low teens ! No wonder actual expected voter turnout is less than 20%.

¨All that said, the pompous, egotistical, typical Presidential wanna-be gets taken down a couple of notches campaigning in Iowa. And this is a good thing–for them and for the Country. All those diners; all those plaid shirts; all those plain spoken english questions–people from the beltway and the Big City hate it even as they smile through it. It reminded me of campaigning for local office in San Diego–people in Iowa are not impressed by anybody. Beneath their ever cheerful, ever so polite exterior lurks the earned self confidence of people who actually thrive through their winters.

¨For all Dem presidential candidates and most Reps, “Illegal Alien” is a phrase from Federal Law that they will never utter and “illegal immigration” a subject they will only discuss under threat of waterboarding. Yet, at every stop, these perfectly coiffed, botoxed, and preternaturally tanned candidates get some pig farmer in their face asking about border security and all the illegals taking jobs in Iowa.

¨In Iowa ?? Yup. Turns out (Not reported in the MSM) that “illegals” number at least 55,000 in Iowa (Census Bureau) and could be closer to 250,000 (Congressman Steve King estimates). FAIR did a study of impacts and found that the net Iowa taxpayer cost for the privilege of this invasion was about one-quarter Billion dollars per year ! Big money in Iowa–about the cost of illegals to California taxpayers in one week !

¨Don’t think Iowans haven’t noticed just because Katie Couric hasn’t reported it either. A Des Moines Register poll indicated in November that 81% of Reps and 67% of DEMS said border security was a “significant campaign issue”. Among Reps, the issue was tied for #1 with the War. And the ultra liberal Register was so disgusted at this turn of events that they treated Radio Row as the second coming of the Klan !

¨The candidates have indicated what an important issue immigration is to voters in their traditional way–by ignoring the issue, or by flipping position and claiming they were with the Minutemen all along:

¨McCain is now pro-border control. “We hear you”, he said. He is the co-author (with Ted Kennedy) of the failed amnesty bill and called opponents as recently as last July “racists” for opposing drivers’ licenses for illegals–even after the 9/11 Commission documented how the 9/11 attackers got on those planes with drivers’ licenses issued by states who did not verify legal status. No matter, the Minutemen are no longer vigilantes, just another “neighborhood watch”. Right, John. Won’t work in Iowa–you’ll come in 4th or 5th.

¨Huckabee is another big flipper. (or fibber if you’re speaking Iowan). As Governor of Arkansas, he (represented the chicken plucker Tyson Foods) wanted all the illegal workers he could get, gave the Mexican Government a $1.00 a year lease in a state owned building for a Little Rock Consulate, and championed in-state tuition and scholarships paid for by citizen taxpayers for illegals in AK schools ! Less than 2 years later, he has a 9 point program to solve the illegal problem and the support of Minuteman co-founder Jim Gilchrist. Right.

¨The Baptist pastors like Huckabee (and so does Chuck Norris) and the evangelical Rep vote is 30% plus of the anticipated Rep caucus turnout. But other Reps are looking at the illegals issue (and tax and spend issues as well) and not liking what they see. Mike–you may win here, but nowhere else. Your naming the birds you shot for your opponents didn’t play well the day Bhutto was assassinated either.

¨Romney has spent about a zillion dollars in TV and radio ads, mailers, robo phone calls, etc, and has the support of Iowa’s Mormons.
If he doesn’t win here politically, a few more million and he could buy the whole state ! I think Romney wins here and faces the resurgent McCain in New Hampshire as Giuliani fades and Thompson shuffles on.

But, what do I know ? I’m still thawing out at the beach in San Diego. Let the Iowa Voters decide.