The Democrats in the House of Representatives have apparently voted to raise the cost of energy as a way to lower the cost of energy:

WASHINGTON – The House approved $18 billion in new taxes on the largest oil companies Wednesday as Democrats cited record oil prices and rising gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles.

They cited rising costs as a reason to raise costs more? Super genius House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer acknowledged “this legislation alone will not bring down gas prices.” Ya think? The House Democrats are either economically illiterate, or they count on gullible voters being so.

The Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post have articles today about the official handover of power in Cuba from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul (Raul Castro actually took the helm on a “temporary” basis in 2006).

From the Chicago Tribune:

HAVANA – Cuban lawmakers today chose Raul Castro to replace brother Fidel as the island nation’s leader, marking an end to the iconic revolutionary’s tenure that spanned five decades and 10 U.S. presidents.

The National Assembly, as expected, chose Castro to lead the Council of State, Cuba’s governing authority, ensuring a smooth succession of a leader who was among the towering figures of the 20th Century. Raul Castro, 76, had been acting president since his older brother fell ill in July 2006.

With an announcement from a lectern flanked by massive Cuban flags, a regime born from revolution and marked by decades of ideological clashes with the United States turned the page in subdued fashion.

Fidel Castro, who hasn’t been seen in public since his illness, had announced Tuesday that he would retire from the post although he remains head of the Communist Party and an influential figure behind the scenes.

Ah, it all sounds so peaceful and democratic, doesn’t it? Reading this, you’d almost think there was a choice.

Lacking his brother’s star status and eloquence, Castro is a gruff general who has generally shunned the limelight. Analysts consider Castro to be a more practical political figure keenly attuned to Cuba’s economic limitations.

Hmmm, Sounds a bit like the Obama vs. Clinton campaign. Except for the little detail that the Castro brothers aren’t running in an open election.

But one “assembly member” let el gato out of the bag, telling the truth, but probably not quite as he intended. From The Washington Post:

“In my opinion, Raul is the only option,” Luis Felipe Simon Cabreza, an assembly member from the eastern city of Holguin, said in an interview before voting. “He will continue the Cuban revolution. The future of our country, of our revolution, is assured.”

But that’s a little bit more than just one voter’s opinion:

There was little doubt that Raul Castro, his brother’s handpicked successor, would be named president by a national assembly that critics say is nothing more than a rubber stamp for them. Assembly members interviewed during breaks said they were free to vote for whomever they pleased, but some said Raul Castro was the only candidate on the ballot.

Hopefully the Cuban people will get real democracy and freedom very soon. Hopefully, America will get more clear-headed reporting about the communist dictatorship in Cuba some day too.

Barack Obama is getting hit by the Hillary Clinton campaign for alleged plagiarism in part of a speech Obama delivered on Saturday in Wisconsin. It doesn’t seem on its face to be a huge deal for one politician to borrow a good line from another politician, but it does take away from Obama’s aura of authenticity and originality as a candidate just a bit. (The video of the Patrick and Obama speeches can be viewed here.)

But is this borrowing just a one time incident, or part of a pattern going right to the heart of Obama’s deep message of hope and change? We found some disturbing video evidence that suggests it is a pattern. Readers can decide for themselves; the video is here (Warning: may be disturbing to some viewers). We report, you decide.

From the AP, in a “news” piece on Senator John McCain’s temper:

He often pokes fun at his reputation: “Thanks for the question, you little jerk,” he said last year to a New Hampshire high school student wondering if McCain, at 71, was too old to be president.

Other times, his ire is all too real. This has prompted questions about whether his temperament is suited to the office of commander-in-chief or whether it might handicap him in a presidential campaign against either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are not known for such outbursts.

[emphasis added]

From a piece in the Seattle Times on Hillary Clinton in 2005:

In 1993, White House aide Rahm Emanuel — now a Democratic House member from Illinois — planned an event inviting prominent Republicans to a White House dinner as a way of garnering support for the North American Free Trade Agreement. He assumed he would win praise for a clever tactical maneuver. Instead, the first lady was infuriated. “What are you doing inviting these people in my home?” she said, according to people familiar with the episode. Nearly sobbing with anger, she told him: “These people are our enemies. They are trying to destroy us.”

It was on health care that her early instincts to regard compromise as weakness had the most consequential effect. By the middle of 1994, it had become apparent to most of the White House political team that what the president had announced as his non-negotiable goal — health insurance for every citizen — was unattainable. He was eager to signal a willingness to settle on a lesser but still considerable target — 95 percent of the population covered. But she argued that anything less than 100 percent coverage would not represent an intellectually coherent solution to the problem.

One day in July 1994, the president was in Massachusetts when he slipped off message and announced that he would consider 95 percent coverage a victory. Hillary Clinton was at the White House when she got word of her husband’s statement, and soon she was on the phone with him. “What the (expletive) are you doing up there?” she demanded, according to an aide who overheard the conversation. “You get back here right away.” The next day, Clinton retracted his statement.

[emphasis added]

The Democrats today are the party of anger and rage, almost daily calling President Bush and members of his party criminals, Nazis, unpatriotic, racists, etc. And unlike McCain’s allegedly using the occasional expletive in private meetings with fellow senators, those on the left tend to unleash all of their bile and vulgarity very publicly. They have no room to criticize on this score.

Lots of news outlets, like The Washington Post, The Hill, USA Today, and the AP, reported that the 1.9 million member SEIU union endorsed Senator Obama for the Democratic nomination for president.

The AP describes the union this way:

The politically active union represents workers in health care, building services and other industries. It has donated more than $25 million to candidates in the past two decades, most of it to Democrats.

Hmmm, what could those “other industries” be? What all these outlets failed to mention is that close to half (about 850,000) of the union’s total membership is made up of state and local government employees.

Imagine, say, a big defense contractor like Lockheed Martin endorsed a Republican candidate who was promising to buy a lot more Lockheed Martin products. It would be presented in the press as a direct conflict of interest or even as a sign of corruption. Recall all the grief Vice President Cheney got for simply talking to energy providers about energy policy after he was already elected. But a left-wing organization of government employees who will directly benefit from Democrats’ promises of ever more spending on government programs isn’t even worth mentioning. Presenting people that have a direct financial interest in bigger government as just another group of “working people” doesn’t present the full story.

CBS News reported:

Separately Thursday, Obama also won the backing of the United Food and Commercial Workers, a politically active union with significant membership in the upcoming Democratic battlegrounds.

The 1.3-million member UFCW has 69,000 members in Ohio and another 26,000 in Texas.The food workers also have 19,000 members in Wisconsin, which holds a primary Tuesday.

The union is made up of supermarket workers and meatpackers, with 40 percent of the membership under 30 years old. Obama has been doing especially well among young voters.

So it’s important to mention that the UFCW is “made up of supermarket workers and meatpackers”, but not to say anything about the makeup of the SEIU, where the membership is actually relevant.

Barack Obama claims to be running a different kind of campaign, but he seems to have started in with the negative attacks on Senator John McCain even before the primaries are over.

From ABC News’ Political Radar blog:

“John McCain criticized (Bush tax cuts) as irresponsible back when he wasn’t running for president of the U.S.A. because he understood that we could not keep on with tax cuts for the wealthy [sic] at a time of war, that it would be irresponsible,” he said.

“That we would have tax cuts when military families are shouldering this burden and so many of the benefits of these tax cuts, and I’m quoting here, so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate. Somewhere along the line, he traded those principles for his party’s nomination and now he’s for those tax cuts.”

No, Senator Obama, he’s opposed to a tax increase. The argument isn’t about the past, it’s about the future, remember? Senator McCain was for cutting taxes, and also for cutting spending at the same time. He was not in principle opposed to cutting taxes. And there is a real difference between opposing a particular set of cuts at a particular time and being against an increase at a later time. The Democrats’ talk of “reversing tax cuts” is disingenuous doublespeak. They want to increase taxes from current rates. Senator McCain does not want to increase current tax rates, believing correctly that would be bad for the economy to hit the American people with a tax increase during an economic slowdown.

There is nothing unprincipled about McCain’s stand on the issue of current tax rates. Obama may disagree, wanting to increase those rates as leftists always do, but to call a disagreement “unprincipled” is a cheap shot, not an argument.

Steve Kroft interviewed Barack Obama Sunday night on 60 Minutes. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton talk about “bringing our troops home” and “ending the war in Iraq” if they become president, but occasionally they offer various caveats and loopholes when pinned down on whether some troops will remain Iraq. Obama seems to have opened what may be the biggest loophole yet Sunday night.

“What do you think of what’s going on in Iraq right now?” Kroft asked.

“Well, I think, on the positive side, we’ve seen a reduction in violence. And I don’t think anybody can deny that,” Obama said. “What we haven’t seen is the kind of political reconciliation or accommodation between the Sunni and the Shia and the Kurds that are required in order for Iraq to stabilize. But I completely reject the notion, you know, most forcefully presented by John McCain that we should commit ourselves to a 50-year or a 60-year or a 100-year occupation in order to assure stability in Iraq. I think that is a recipe for disaster.”

“At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population, is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? I mean you talked about…the end of 2009,” Kroft remarked.

“Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time. I think that it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently. We’re not gonna set up permanent bases. That they are going to have to resolve their differences and get their country functioning,” Obama said.

“And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?” Kroft asked.

“No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation,” Obama replied.

“The right to assess the situation” could lead to anything. We’d hope it would lead to putting our national security interest ahead of catering to the defeatist peacenik left-wing base of the Democratic party. We suspect that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, when given daily briefs predicting mass slaughter and a safe haven for al Qaeda in Iraq, would shy away from making their first act in office a military surrender, but we’d rather not take the chance; the stakes are way too high. Who thinks bugging out of Iraq would demonstrate our resolve to our enemies in Afghanistan (or Pakistan, or Iran), rather than causing them to have greater hope of victory? The answer should be obvious. Jihadists all over the world would rejoice, new recruits would join the cause, and their resolve to fight on would be bolstered. The outcome in Iraq will not affect only Iraq.

(Update: Looks like the McCain campaign is on the case.)

Senators Obama and Clinton should be asked what they would do if their CIA director ever says it’s a “slam dunk” that some rogue dictator who’s been considered for years to be a security threat to the U.S. is developing WMD, including nukes. Would they sit on their hands, or act?

Obama also offered some ideas on how the money used to defend Iraq could have been spent, in an alternate reality where Saddam Hussein wasn’t considered a threat in the consensus view and al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda everywhere else:

“It has cost us over half a trillion dollars so far. When the final tab is tallied it may have cost us as much as two trillion dollars,” Obama said at a stump speech. “For that amount of money we could have rebuilt every bridge, every road, every school, every hospital. We could have put in place all the homeland security that was needed. We could have made America more safe. Could put people back to work. Sent our kids to college.”

But of course while the constitution gives the president authority in matters of national security and foreign policy, it doesn’t grant the power to rebuild every bridge, school, and hospital in America, to “put people back to work” whatever that means, or to pay for his kids’ college. This notion that the federal government should provide everything to everybody is in line with the generally utopian, totalitarian world view of the left.

Update: Somewhat in that vein, here is a little Che chic at one of Obama’s campaign offices in Houston, Texas. Of course Obama didn’t hang a flag of Che Guevara in his office, but it does say something that his supporters are people who think Che is worthy of honor, and saw nothing wrong with hanging a picture of the murderer in their office.

Investor’s Business Daily has an editorial outlining some research being done on the effects of sun cycles on Earth’s climate. Apparently these heretics didn’t get the word from High Priest of Global Warmism Al Gore that all scientific inquiry into the matter is now over.

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming.

Prediction: The Earth will enter a cooling cycle, and advocates of things like the Kyoto Protocol, carbon taxes, forcing everyone to use fluorescent light bulbs, etc., will take credit for the cooling, even though there will be no evidence that their efforts had anything to do with it – thereby escaping blame, and paying no price, for being so grossly wrong and hysterical.

In his speech to the CPAC convention today, Senator John McCain offered a very good summation of the differences that will be at stake in the general election in November. All those conservatives threatening to stay home in November ought to read this section over again very carefully:

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government.

I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes.

I intend to cut them. I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won’t let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy.

They will offer a big government solution to health care insurance coverage.

I intend to address the problem with free market solutions and with respect for the freedom of individuals to make important choices for themselves.

They will appoint to the federal bench judges who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

They won’t recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.

I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.

I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.

These are but a few of the differences that will define this election. They are very significant differences, and I promise you, I intend to contest these issues on conservative grounds and fight as hard as I can to defend the principles and positions we share, and to keep this country safe, proud, prosperous and free.

We share the concerns of conservatives on John McCain’s record, regarding illegal immigration, McCain-Feingold, some rather demagogic anti-free market statements about pharmaceutical companies, global warming, and some others. But there are very real and serious differences on most of the major issues of the day between McCain and Senators Obama and Clinton, who both want essentially a Western European-style welfare state in America. Mr. McCain clearly and compellingly reached out to conservatives today; we need to “trust but verify”, but ought also be willing to take his outreached hand.

Mitt Romney made a truly great speech today at CPAC. It left us wondering, where was that guy throughout the primary campaign? But he sure ended well, and definitely left open the possibility of another run in four or eight years.

Mr. Romney could have fought on right to the convention, hammering away at John McCain all the way. Instead, he chose to put his party, and more importantly, his country ahead of his own ambition. We salute Mr. Romney for his character, honor, and patriotism.

The section of his speech about defending the culture was stirring and important. This bit was particularly good:

The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960′s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug — we have got to fight it like the poison it is!

The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography — even celebration of it — and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today’s grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children. How much harder it is for these children to succeed in school — and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

Heard an excellent question for Barack Obama on the radio this morning, from host Dennis Prager. Obama’s campaign theme is “change” and “a new kind of politics”, etc. These slogans might make nice bumper stickers, but substantively what is Obama bringing to the table that’s new or different?

The question is, on what major issue or policy position does Obama differ from 75 year old left-wing icon Ted Kennedy?

We’ve contacted the Obama campaign for their response, perhaps an Obama supporter can share some of his new thinking with us in the meantime.

We’re glad we didn’t waste any time watching the debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It sounds like no new ground was broken; it was basically a re-run of the last debate, minus John Edwards and the mill. “President Bush is the bogeyman”, “ready to serve”, “ready for change and hope and stuff”, “insert quasi-socialist bromide here”….

Hillary continued to stick to the laughable line “that the nation needed a president ready to go to work on ‘Day One’” (laughable not because the nation doesn’t need experience, but because her standard excludes her). It’s obvious why Obama can’t hit back too hard on that score, but the Republican candidate, whether it’s McCain or Romney, will have no such trouble, as both are much more qualified and experienced than either the junior senator from New York or the junior senator from Illinois.