Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times columnist, who has been pushing for higher gas prices for the last several years, is promoting a new book, “Hot, Flat and Crowded.” No, the book is not about the oxygen bar at a ballerina convention. It is about, you guessed it, global warming, or “destabilizing climate change,” as Friedman calls it. Proponents of global warming theories have had to change the branding because of recent scientific evidence that there is little, if any, warming actually occurring.

I confess I have not yet read the book, but I will, because Friedman’s last book, “The World is Flat,” was one of the most amusing books I ever read. Until his latest book makes it to a library near me,  I  will have to base my comments on hearsay, what Friedman himself says about his book. (Buying his book would not be Green.) Friedman seems to be an unassailable source, because on his website, Friedman proclaims himself to be “fearless, incisive, forward-looking, and rich in surprising common sense about the world we live in today.” I guess he forgot to mention modest.

He told David Letterman during his appearance on the show, that one of the chapters in the book is entitled, “China For A Day.” The concept is simple. If Friedman could become the tyrannical, human rights abusing dictator of the United States for just a single day, he could forever change the dynamic that underlies energy policy in the US. With an impish Robert Barone grin, Friedman says, “China for a day, but not two days.”

How reassuring!

It is an interesting notion. If we made Mahmud Ahmadinijad the dictator of the US for a day, we could forever end the threat of nuclear war. He would simply launch an all out nuclear war, thus replacing the threat of war with the reality.

But, back to the ballerina convention. Friedman is frustrated that the American public will not see the logic in his lifelong desire to see gas prices at $5 a gallon, at least. If the free market (UGH!) cannot establish and maintain that level, Friedman wants a tax to be levied to assure that gas will never again be cheap enough for people to actually be able to afford it. He reasons that prohibitively high prices for fuel will provide an incentive to move to greener sources of energy that cannot compete with gas on price.

No, I am not making this up. The only thing more remarkable about lusting after high gas prices is that the New York Times actually keeps running Friedman’s column. Maybe in New York City, nobody but cab drivers care about gas prices.

I am not a psychiatrist, but I can see that Friedman has a Freudian angst about free markets. In his mind, free market dynamics keeps getting in the way of what he calls “Geo-Greenism,” his name for the national energy strategy that will restore the competitiveness of the US, our image abroad, save the planet from overheating, make America “healthier, richer, more innovative, more productive, and more secure,” at the same time, bring a second perfect NFL season back to the Miami Dolphins. OK, I made the last part up, but as long as we are dreaming, why not?

His theory is that, if the US leads the way to higher energy prices, the world will see that we are not only geniuses, but are leading the revolution “with the first Green President and a Green New Deal, spurred by the Greenest Generation.” Maybe this should be called the Irish Revolution, but Friedman has coined a new word, ET, Energy Technology, for his next technological revolution.
The hitch in Friedman’s giddy up is that being Der Führer of the US for a day is not nearly enough to start his Green Revolution. He needs to be the Emperor of the World for an indeterminate period of time. Anything short of that, and it just won’t work. Because of free markets. There’s that term again, but if countries like India, and, oh, yeah, China, don’t decide to risk their economies, political stability and futures on unproven theories about green house gases, they will gain a tremendous competitive edge on those that do.
In fact, many countries will probably see a Green USA as an opportunity to gain on the big boys. The choice that Friedman offers is crystal clear, economic prosperity or Green. And, the bet is based on odds that have yet to be determined, since Al Gore decided that the debate over global warming was over.

Friedman’s proposition nicely sums up the frustration that all global warming – oops, climate change – advocates feel. When gas prices are too low to launch a revolution, it is difficult to convince people to pay more, when they can pay less. Friedman and other Green Revolutionaries do not understand this phenomenon at all. They also have trouble understanding why truck drivers prefer black coffee over a double mocha caffeine free latte with artificial whipped cream.

But, don’t worry, Friedman’s next book will deal with that. It is to be called, “Lukewarm, Watery and Sweet.” In it, the award winning author suggests that caffein laden coffee be raised in price to $5 a cup. That will teach those truck drivers to do things right. Friedman just can’t trust free markets to get the job done.

"Dear God, you made many, many conservatives.
I realize, of course, that it's no shame to be a wing nut.
But it's no great honor either!
So, what would have been so terrible if I had a been a liberal?"

If I were a liberal,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd prattle prattle pum.
If I were a liberal man.
I wouldn't have to think straight.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a snooty, snotty lib.
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.

I have a confession to make, I have liberal envy.

I watch my liberal friends and colleagues and covet what they have. They are so confident in their beliefs, unencumbered by any need to ground them in reality. How liberating this must be! I have agonized over my closely held beliefs, and constantly challenge them when events and new information becomes available. My liberal friends have no such constraints; they are free to cling tenaciously to their beliefs, no matter what.

Even more disturbing is that I have to actually process new information before I can form an opinion. This puts me at a great disadvantage, and causes a significant delay between my learning something new, and my reaching a conclusion on what I think about it. I see liberals in the same situation, and they have no such catharsis; they are immediately able to find their position, quickly, efficiently and always on target. Why, I ask?

And, finally, left wingers have a remarkable ability to hold beliefs that appear to me to not only contradictory, but mutually exclusive. They are against the death penalty for vicious murderers because any taking of a human life is immoral, but a helpless fetus, incapable of even feeding itself, is fair game. Liberals can decry the supposed repression of George Bush, but scream to high Heaven that we have barred dictator Fidel Casto's cigars from our shores. Most liberals would never let a cigar touch their precious lips anyway. Now that I think about it, maybe they don't “scream to high Heaven,” either.

The secret to this ability to immediately discern the appropriate liberal stance on an issue so quickly is due to several tools that liberals have in forming opinions that most conservatives lack. The first tool is intuitive, if there is a traditional view available, simply take the contrary point of view. This actually works for the vast majority of issues. Gay marriage? It is traditionally shunned, therefore, the liberal position is to to be in favor of men marrying men and women marrying women. (This brings up a legal point, if a gay man marries a lesbian woman, is that a gay marriage?)

This simple test for any possible situation is one of the secrets for the spread of liberalism.

However, sometimes the correct liberal position is not so easily determined, so there is a second test that can be applied. This test is not as easy as the first one because it involves a small bit of research.

Consider who has taken what position on an issue. If one who is recognized as a Liberal Leader takes a position, and other also recognized as liberals repeat it, then it must be a liberal position.

Simple. No need to endlessly parse or analyze it. There is not even a requirement  that it be consistent with other positions. If it has the Liberal Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, that is sufficient.

Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.

Latest List of Left Wing Shills:  (Updated 10/18/2007 5:22 AM EDT)

• KnightOfBwaHaHaHa  (and variations)
  
• AnimalGirlIsBack
  
• Julia
• Treacherous Republicans
• DriveByPosting
• YouMakeMeLaugh (and variations)
  
• Taft
• Military Lovin' Dog
  
• Malibu Ken
• Safe Word (nee: TCA)
  
• Coultergeist
• TheEngineer
• Ayanna
  
• Touj
• Van
• Warren Small
• Lilly
• True Captain America
• Hal Donohue
• Phylo se Phiser (and variants)
• Tanabear
• sentido
• NYCdogg
• Left Angle
• Jet Pilot
• Black Dog
• Robert
• Soothsayer
  
• Rocker
  

What does this list mean?

There is a pattern of disruption happening in the Townhall discussion groups here that suggests some of the posters are "professional" bloggers, possibly paid by Moveon.org and/or the Soros money. Their purpose is not to hold a meaningful discussion, even from a left wing point of view, but to deflect the issues, so they cannot be intelligently debated. All they want to do is to eat up space and divert everyone's attention away from the real issues.

These suspects carefully avoid facts, use inflammatory language and insults and try to engage thoughtful people in banal arguments, carefully removing the focus from the real issues.

My suggestion to stop this is simple. Ignore them. Do NOT reply to anything they say. Don't even read their posts, all they are going to try to do is take your attention away from a meaningful discussion that they cannot win.

Above are some of the names I believe are engaged in this activity. Please feel free to send me your list. If you are on the list, and think this is unfair, post a comment.

REMEMBER - These are not liberals who disagree, or engage in active discussion of the issues. This list is those who exhibit a pattern of behavior that consistently disrupts the conversation with all sorts of invective, innuendo, inane attacks - - all the "i" words. Townhall is not MoveOn or DailyKos, where dissent is not allowed. We just want good, honest dialog, not the Horse Hockey that diverts the attention.

There is another terrorist attack occurring in America, right under our very noses.

We know that the United States of America, and other democratic nations, are currently fighting a war against Islamic fundamentalists, who use terrorism as a tactic to further their agenda. But, right here at home, another group is also using terrorist tactics to get their way, and to impose their will on the American people. This political terrorism is even more insidious because it is being conducted by those in authority in our government. First, let's define what "terrorism" really is.

Terrorism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is:

(a) Policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; (b) the employment of methods of intimidation; (c) the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.

Thus, logic and reason are thrown out, and strong arm tactics to force compliance are employed. Radical left wing Congressman Henry Waxman of California, has become a terrorist, using this definition. He has commissioned his staff to monitor, on a ongoing basis, the broadcasts of his perceived political enemies, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other with whom he does not agree politically.

Instead of attacking their ideas with ideas of his own, Rep. Waxman is resorting to using the power of his Oversight committee to harass and threaten his opponents, a policy intended to strike with terror those with whom he does not agree, the classic definition of terrorism. Government monitoring of free speech is one of the most basic violations of human rights. At its core, terrorism is a cowardly act, intended not to engage in meaningful dialog about substantive issues, but to prevail by fear.

Rep. Waxman is not alone in his cowardice, he is joined by a growing number of liberal Democrats, including Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Durban, Tom Harkin, Harry Reid, and others , who have given up trying to convince, and have decided to intimidate instead.

Will their totalitarian strategy work? Well, if history is any indicator, the American people eventually see through disingenuous political tactics and, above all, resent bullying. The country was founded by people who refused to bow to the King of the most powerful country on Earth at the time, and showed that the ideals of freedom and liberty can prevail over the dark forces of political terrorism.

The hottest new story making the rounds is the saga of "reporter-blogger" Scott Thomas Beauchamp, an Army private, who wrote gut-wrenching tales of abuse in Iraq. He had the readers of New Republic up in arms over stories of our soldiers ridiculing women disfigured by war, animal abuse and disrespecting ancient bones. Not that it takes much to get the ultra-left readers of New Republic up in arms anyway. But, there was one, teeny, tiny problem with Beachamp's reporting. It was lies. He admitted that he made up all up, or most of it anyway.

I often hear Muslims declare that "Christianity is no different than Islam" in its intolerance. Worse, some misguided atheists and leftists try to represent that Christianity is actually worse than Islam, and that Christian fundamentalists are more dangerous than Islamic jihadists. They cite some of the extreme statements by a few Christian sects and splinter groups to bolster their fantastic claims.

I agree that that modern Christianity is intolerant, intolerant of religious violence and terrorist tactics. How many terror attacks have been made in the name of Christianity? How many religious wars are being fought to spread Christianity? How many legitimate Christian clergymen are asking for Christians to kill in the name of their religion?
None that I am aware of, however, there is always the possibility that some fanatic somewhere will do something awful in the name of their religion.

So, here is my challenge to my Muslim brothers.

I disavow all violent acts in the name of Christianity, and I renounce anyone who commits, encourages, or abets such acts.

Muslim Brothers, will you do the same?

Former president Jimmy Carter has recently declared that the Bush administration's foreign policy is the "worst in history," proving that, as a historian, Carter was a great nuclear engineer. But, Carter has an excellent reason for giving Bush the crown of thorns. It is called "deflection." Anyone with young children is familiar with the technique. You see Jimmy stealing a cookie and you begin yelling at him. He says, 'yes, but Johnny took a piece of your cake!'

Carter is trying to re-direct the attention away from his disastrous foreign policy that is directly responsible for starting the mess in the Mideast today. His sins are many, but let's look at two.

First, he took the high ground away from Israel by drawing a moral equivalence between Egypt, who had instigated two wars, and Israel, who won those two wars. This inane act enabled many of those countries who were hesitating aligning with the Arabs because it might reveal their innate antisemitism. Carter later proved his own antisemitism through his actions and writings.

Second, Carter decided to put pressure on the Shah of Iran because of alleged human rights violations. He had to have known the situation in Iran when he pressured the Shah, and the likely impact. He proceeded anyway, and as a result, he provided the concrete block that broke the camel's back, and enabled the Islamic revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini to succeed.

In handing Iran over to Islamic extremists, James Earl Carter, the 39th President of the United States accomplished something that centuries of Islam struggle could not; he created the first Shi'ite government in history. Thus, the most extreme flavor of Islam, the sect that yearns for the battle of Armageddon so the 12th Imam can emerge from the well and slay all non-Muslim, finally achieved the means to end the world.

Congratulations, Jimmy, you may be judged by all history to have not only been the worst president of the United States, but the worst head of state in history.

Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the 20th Century, called America, a "shining city on the hill" for the rest of the world. He was completely right about this. Now, don't get me wrong, America is not perfect, far from it, but we are still the best that the world has to offer, and the hope for all humanity.

Now, you have probably guessed by now that I am an American through and through. I bleed red, white and blue. "Oh no!" you may say. "Another of those despicable super-patriots."

I may be despicable, and I may even be a super-patriot, but let me explain why.

On Memorial Day, the day when Americans remember those who have died in service our country, I had the honor of being present when over 200 Army recruits were sworn in by battalion commander, LTC Charles Heatherly. Also present were two members of the Easy Company Band of Brothers. LTC Heatherly reminded the new soldiers that were swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, not a flag, not the President, not even the nation itself, but the founding document of our democracy.

It reminded me of a conversation I had with a professor of engineering from the Nizny Novgorad Technical University in Russia several years ago. In the US on a green card, he was a former cold warrior, having developed submarine weapon systems for the Soviet Union. In broken, heavily accented English, one day he  expressed to me more eloquently than I have ever heard, why he thought the United States is unique among nations of the world. He said that our country is founded on a principle, freedom, where other nations are based on ethnicity, a religion, a language, a geography or some other exclusionary criteria.

Heatherly underlined this for me, and reminded me how powerful that principle is, that people are willing to unselfishly sacrifice themselves for freedom. We are truly the shining city on the hill, and it is time we start believing that again, and acting like it.

I am truly full up to here with all the political crap! Enough is enough already. It is time that we come back together again as Americans, and forget all the political arm wrestling. It is time for America show its commitment to liberty, and the courage to fight for it.

This site is dedicated to those who have the intellectual honesty to put the best interests of their country ahead of their petty, self-serving partisan interests.