Conservative Voice

Among the hysterical news releases emanating from the UN conference on the Environment was the report that global warming is already resulting in increases in malaria and other tropical diseases that are sensitive to increases in temperatures that may or may not be caused by man. Malaria is a serious disease responsible for 2.2% of of worldwide deaths per year according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

But as Bjorn Lomborg, the “Skeptical Environmentalist” has pointed out, too many environmental observers like to focus only on the “dark side of life”. The same 2003 WHO report that ranks malaria the 8th highest cause of global mortality also ranks lower respiratory infections as the 3rd highest cause of mortality. This includes diseases such as pneumonia that are more common when it’s cold.

Where is the UN scientific study outlining the benefits of global warming on reducing the incidence of pneumonia and other cold weather diseases?

If cold weather diseases could decrease with global warming, what would result in a decrease in warm weather diseases such as malaria? Global cooling? Actually, malaria occurs in areas that are warm, but the main cause of malaria is the lack of economic development. In warm areas with strong economies, malaria is not a problem. Singapore’s malaria death rate is .00003%, compared to Liberia, with a similar latitude but weaker economy with a rate of.21000%.

Therefore, if the so-called scientists at the UN conference wanted to really reduce warm weather diseases, they would focus more on economic development.

And what does the US complain is the main flaw with the Kyoto protocol? Besides that it’s useless in terms of saving the environment, it will damage the economies of the countries that adhere to it. I guess the US is on the right track regarding the environment after all!

Just another example of the misguided, negligent, and even deceitful news generated by the global warming kool-aid drinkers.

What Republicans Need to Do Now

What does this election mean for the Republicans? Should we have just expected to lose power in the house in Senate since historically that’s what happens in a mid-term election, especially during the 6th year of an incumbent president? Or do we have a lot of work to do in the next two years before the next general election?

Conservative Republicans are definitely struggling. Many blame the media. This is justifiable. It has been proven beyond any doubt that the mainstream media is incredibly biased. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is still mainstream. It’s where most people get their news. I believe it has moved far to the left, partly in response to the rise of conservative media sources and party due to the ever increasing liberal culture at media outlets. While at the same time, unfortunately, I don’t believe the new conservative media has much of an effect on politics and voting. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are very powerful voices with their audiences, but their audiences already vote conservatively. They’re just preaching to the choir. Meanwhile, a huge chunk of independent-minded, undecided, and uneducated voters get their liberally-slanted, sometimes completely deceptive sound bites from the mainstream media and vote accordingly.

What do conservatives need to do in the next two years? I believe we need to become more pragmatic, more educated, and more realistic about how to govern and what to fight for. We need to stick to the issues where we are strong. We need to be fiscally conservative. We need to lead by example and choose wise, principled leaders, not just those that take hard stances on a few hot-button issues. And obviously we need to solve the Iraq problem. Democrats promise a “new direction.” Of course, they have no idea what direction that might be. There is no easy solution in Iraq. Iraq is a nation with more than their share of evil people who are raised within a religion that teaches hatred – of those outside the religion, and even those inside the religion that may have slightly different beliefs. It’s hard to give such a backward society the gifts of freedom and democracy, but this is exactly what they need in the country and the region. After doing so much good there – removing a brutal dictator who was proven to have supported terrorism and threatened to build and use weapons of mass destruction – we can’t just leave the power vacuum that would exist. We must continue to fight. Maybe the new direction is to double the number of troops there for a year or two until the situation gets better.

But for Republicans, part of the solution in Iraq is communication. We need to help the uneducated see through the liberal lies about Iraq. The standard lines on Iraq are insidiously false and easily proven so. Many people actually believe that we went to war to avenge Bush’s dad, to get control of oil, and to increase profits for Halliburton. Even though these three ridiculous statements are so easily proven false. I don’t need to go through them in detail because the truth has been outlined so well in so many places, including this web site. The international community condemned Saddam. He was a proven terrorist supporter in a time, after 9/11, that even liberals still agreed we needed to fight terrorism. The UN voted to use force against him. The Democrat-controlled Senate agreed to use force against him. The intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was not completely accurate, but not because of deception. The head of the CIA at the time was appointed by Democrats. And it has been proven true that Hussein did have WMDs and planned to build more when he could. The US hasn’t benefited from any Iraqi oil. Halliburton hasn’t made huge profits from the reconstruction. In fact, they tried to sell the division with the Iraq contracts because it doesn’t make money! But the liberal lies, repeated often enough by the liberal media, sink in to the uneducated minds of America. We need to find a way to change that. People need to understand that invading Iraq was justified. Our mission of removing a tyrant and setting up a democracy was successful. Now we need to stabilize a country in turmoil. This is a new, but important step we need to follow through on.

The reason Republicans should be helped, not hurt, by recent scandals such as the Mark Foley mess is as follows:

When Republican congressman Mark Foley was found to have written very inappropriate messages to a house page, he resigned immediately. On the other hand, when Democrats like Gerry Studds or Bill Clinton were caught abusing their power to actually have sex with young staff members, their party tells us to mind our own business!

So the question voters need to ask themselves is, which party should be elected – the one that takes moral and ethical issues seriously or the one that dismisses them as no big deal?

This biggest issue in this election seems to be the Iraq war. Democrats are trying to make this election a referendum on the war. This is not a presidential election. We are electing Senators and Congressmen. It should be remembered, therefore, that it was a Democrat-controlled Senate under the leadership of Tom Daschle that authorized the President to go to war in Iraq.

So, vote against the Iraq war – elect a Republican led Congress!

It should be seriously considered that the violence over the past month, that is pointed to for a reason to vote out Republicans, has been orchestrated in an effort to influence politics in the US – to influence us to vote for the party that is soft on terrorists. So how could anyone vote for the party that is being supported, violently, by terrorists?

Scary quote from Ted Kennedy regarding the effort to protect marriage through a federal ammendment:

“It is a cynical attempt to score political points by overriding state courts…”

Wouldn’t want democracy to function in passing laws! Leave it to the liberal, corrupt judges on a few biased courts to determine how we live our lives!

Below is a clear, logical explanation of why Al “crazy man” Gore and his other environmentalist wacko friends are so wrong about the global warming debate. This was written by Bob Carter, a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia. These types of explanations have been offered by many other scientists, but are repeatedly ignored by most people because they don’t fit their political agendas.

“The Earth’s comfortable (for us) average temperature of about 15C is maintained by the atmosphere, without which the average would fall to a chilly -18C. The presence of small amounts of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide - the “greenhouse gases” which absorb Earth’s outgoing heat radiation and re-emit some of it downwards - causes the warming.

Most of the total warming of 33C is caused by water vapour (more than 30C), carbon dioxide contributing only about 1.2C worth. And of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the US Department of Energy estimated in 2000 that just 3 per cent comes from human sources, which equates to a warming effect of about four-hundredths of a degree.

Against such a background, and should all signatory nations to the Kyoto accord meet their commitments (which is vanishingly unlikely), computer models suggest that a further human-caused increase in temperature of perhaps two-tenths of a degree might be averted by 2100.

Compare these tiny changes with the experience of an Australian citizen who moves from Hobart to Darwin to live. Such a person experiences a change in annual average temperature of 18C, which is accommodated quite happily by wearing fewer clothes, drinking more beer and trading in one’s heater for an air conditioner.

To crucify the world’s industrialised economies by spending trillions of dollars for a possible temperature drop of 0.2C simply defies comprehension. The daft, hairshirt policy exemplified by the Kyoto Accord is, in fact, a classic non-solution to a non-problem.”