ChristiansUnite Forums

THE FOUNDATION

“I own myself the friend to a very free system of commerce, and hold it as a truth, that commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive and impolitic.”  — James Madison

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
ANWR’s Spotted Owl
By Mark Alexander

In February 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton decreed that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) could designate 8.6 million acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the “endangered” Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis (no relation to Occidental Petroleum Co.), thus “protecting” this land from cattle grazing, logging and any other human enterprise that might give the little owl indigestion.

This is the same critter that shut down logging operations in the Pacific Northwest and is one of many wild species now being favored over the much-maligned domestic species, Homo sapiens.

The efficacy of using the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a blunt instrument to pursue radical environmental ends began in 1973, the same year the act became law. No coincidence there.

The test case was a tiny fish called the Snail Darter, which was residing in the Little Tennessee River, which was in the process of being dammed up by the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Tellico project. Environmentalists, who objected to TVA’s project, decided to use the Darter to block the dam.

It almost worked, but the legal tactic was new and Tellico was already funded and under way. However, the Darter offensive did halt a larger TVA project a few years later, before it was determined that the Darter was getting along just fine in streams all over Tennessee.

It is no small irony that the first use of ESA was to block hydroelectric projects, a renewable-energy source and one of the energy objectives that both conservatives and liberals support.

There is a much more ominous ESA challenge on the table right now, but this political ruse will do a lot more to endanger our national security than protect any species.

The U.S. uses about 21 million barrels of oil daily — about three gallons per person — for transportation, manufacturing and energy production. We have to import 13 million barrels per day, 45 percent of that from Western nations (30 percent from Canada and Mexico), and the remaining 55 percent from Africa and the Middle East.

Political instability in Africa and the Middle East render them less than dependable providers of imported oil, which is to say that 28 percent of U.S. oil demand is less than dependable.

Oil is currently over $100 per barrel and given the giant sucking sound coming out of China and India, this time next year, $100 may seem like a bargain unless the surge in oil prices is matched with a surge in oil exploration and delivery.

Total annual consumption of oil in the U.S. is about 7.6 billion barrels. However, it is estimated that there is more than a trillion barrels of retrievable oil under the U.S., most of it in oil shale (Green River basin), and billions more in deep formations (Bakken Play) and under the Arctic’s Northern Slope.
______________________________

When oil was at $35 per barrel, there was no incentive to retrieve these reserves. At $100 per barrel plus, however, there is plenty of incentive.

Enter ignoble laureate Albert Arnold Gore and his gullible warming Gorons. They are intent on stopping further domestic-oil exploration, claiming that human industrial activity is a major factor accelerating global warming.

The Gorons have already lobbied hard to prevent additional offshore exploration on our East and West Coasts and are adamantly opposed to renewable energy sources such as nuclear generators. Teddy Kennedy certainly doesn’t want his Cape Cod views obscured by unsightly wind generators.

Where do we go from here?

The most readily available proven U.S. oil reserves waiting to be tapped are under a vast wasteland on the northern slope of Alaska called the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). I am one of few humans to have actually visited ANWR, and can tell you that the most prolific wildlife species in the region are mosquitoes the size of Turkey Vultures, but with more voracious appetites.

However, there’s an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil up there, and that is enough Black Gold to keep Teddy Kennedy and his constituents warm and cozy for a century.

Nonetheless the Gorons are going to block exploration and extraction of oil in ANWR. They are constructing that gauntlet right now using the ESA as its foundation. They claim there is another species up there that would become endangered if the climate continues to warm: that lovable lug, the polar bear.

The Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace are suing the USFWS (of Spotted Owl fame) for delaying action to declare polar bears “threatened” and provide them protection. A 2007 U.S. Geological Survey report speculates that 60 percent of polar bears might perish by 2050 if global warming continues to melt Arctic sea ice.

If declared threatened, the polar bear would become the first species designated a potential victim of global warming.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (S-CA) claims the Bush administration is delaying the USFWS decision in an effort to complete exploration permits for Alaska’s Chukchi Sea: “The administration went ahead and accepted bids, even though oil and gas activities may disturb polar bears making a den... Time is running out for the polar bear, and time has run out for this decision.”

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) rejoined that this would set a precedent, and that the USFWS would henceforth have to establish that every human enterprise would not potentially disturb a threatened species: “Virtually every human activity that involved the release of carbon into the atmosphere would have to be regulated by the federal government.”

If that sounds familiar, it is because I have argued for years that the Gorons’ environmental agenda was really a short cut to centralized government control of the economy — what in common parlance is known as, “Socialism.”

Unfortunately, the ever-unapprised Sen. John Warner (R-VA), primary sponsor of climate-change legislation up for consideration in June, piped in, “I think we have an obligation toward this extraordinary animal. It’s America’s panda bear, and all Americans are in love with it.”

Well, I for one have never tasted polar bear, so it is presumptuous of Warner to claim that I have any special affinity for the beast.
_______________________________

Here one might ask, “If global warming is inevitable, and no amount of Kyotoization can mitigate the warming (because China and India won’t comply), then what is the logical conclusion? Aren’t polar bears in trouble regardless of Arctic oil exploration?”

Meanwhile, Red China, with help from the Castro boys, is exploring for oil just 45 miles off Florida’s coast. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the North Cuban Basin contains at least 4.6 billion barrels of oil. Oh well... maybe the ChiComs will give us a good price.

Quote of the week

“What the United States faces today isn’t an energy crisis. We’ve got plenty of sources of energy, from oil and natural gas in coastal waters (off Alaska, Florida and elsewhere) to coal (enough to provide all our electricity for a century) to nuclear power (which produces electricity without any CO2 emissions). Yet... we haven’t built a new petroleum refinery since 1976. We haven’t opened a nuclear power plant in two decades... The problem today is a crisis of confidence. We’re not willing to expand our domestic sources of energy, even though we know we can protect the environment while also drilling for oil or refining gasoline.”  — The Heritage Foundation’s Ed Feulner

On cross-examination

“The Endangered Species Act is not the appropriate regulatory tool to address climate change or whatever policies that could be used to respond to perceptions on climate change.”  — Richard Ranger, senior policy adviser for the American Petroleum Institute

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
News from the Swamp: CAGW slams Congress

This week, the taxpayer watch group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) released its annual report on pork-barrel spending in Congress. CAGW reports that in fiscal 2008, there were 11,610 earmarks — the second highest total ever — crammed into spending bills for a total of $17.2 billion, a 30 percent increase over 2007. The news gets worse: Republicans accounted for more individual pork than Democrats. Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS) at $176.3 million and Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) at $169.5 million even bested House Pork King John Murtha (D-PA) at $159.1 million. Meanwhile, three Republicans — Thad Cochran (MS) at $892 million, Richard Shelby (AL) at $469 million and Ted Stevens (AK) at $465 million, were the big “winners” in the Senate, totaling $1.8 billion among them. Not surprisingly, the top offenders were all members of the respective Appropriations committees. As for the presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton ranked 13th in the Senate, while Barack Obama was 28th. Three cheers for Sen. John McCain, however, who requested not a single earmark.

As for the endeavors deemed worthy of the confiscation of Americans’ hard-earned income, The Washington Times reports, “The projects include $1.9 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, named for Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, who requested the earmark; $460,752 for hops research related to beer making; $188,000 for the Lobster Institute in Maine; and $148,950 for the Montana Sheep Institute.” Sen. Clinton secured taxpayer dollars for 281 projects, including $303,150 for the Gay Men’s Health Crisis Center in New York to run a drug-rehabilitation program. If that seems like a lot of money, there was also $7,556,660 for grape and wine research, $4,840,875 for wood utilization research and $1,529,220 for the Appalachian Fruit Lab. Still, Democrats have actually cut pork from 2006 levels by about 40 percent. We would say that’s a sorry indictment of Republicans.

On the Hill: ‘Big Oil’ takes another beating

In yet another big photo op for congressional bullies, executives from ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips appeared before the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming this week to explain their record profits in the face of high gas prices. Earlier this year the House voted to end the tax breaks the oil industry receives, explaining that they were not necessary when companies like ExxonMobil can clear $40 billion in profits.
_________________________________________

Representatives gave their best on-camera performances, grilling the oil execs over the high price of gas and trying their very best to shame them for their business success. The argument that those profits are needed to sustain oil companies over the long term, particularly as they adapt to new energy needs, went over the committee’s heads. It was also clear that the committee members have never considered the notion that liberal policies might play a significant role in the high price of gas — policies such as bans against domestic and offshore drilling and the regulatory nightmare of trying to build new refineries.

Independent truckers across the country protested gas prices this week by refusing to haul on Tuesday or driving slow on the highways and tying up traffic (which by the way wastes gas). Truckers have been hit especially hard by high prices, with many of them having to spend over $1,000 to fill their tanks. With the increased price of hauling goods, consumer prices will also rise.

In the House: McDermott owes Boehner $1 million

A federal judge ruled this week that Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) owes House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) more than $1 million to cover his legal fees in the 10-year fight over an illegally taped phone conversation. In 1996, McDermott, one of Congress’s most liberal members, leaked to the press contents of a tape-recorded meeting among House Republicans over then-Speaker Newt Gingrich’s alleged “ethics violations.” The ruling finally closes the case, as McDermott says he will not appeal. “It’s dead,” he said. “We’re just cleaning up after the parade. We saved the First Amendment, and it costs a piece of change, but that’s life in the big leagues.” Uh, “saved the First Amendment”? Try “broke the law.”

In the Senate: Another Democrat scandal

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) has become the latest wife to stand by her man as they work through a “deeply difficult and personal matter.” That can only mean one thing: marital infidelity. Thomas Athans, co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA Radio network, married Sen. Stabenow in 2003. Apparently, that wasn’t completely satisfactory, however, as Athans paid a prostitute $150 for sex in February, ostensibly in order to burnish his credentials as a Democrat.

Judicial Benchmarks: SCOTUS on international law

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the U.S. criminal justice system is not subject to an international court. Fifteen years ago, Jose Medellin and five other gang members brutally raped and murdered two teenage girls in Houston. Medellin and four other gang members were convicted and sentenced to death. After various appeals, the case also went to the World Court (formerly known as the International Court of Justice), which ruled that U.S. courts should review the convictions because of alleged treaty violations. After several further appeals, the case once again came before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 that international court rulings have no bearing on criminal cases in the U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “[N]ot all international law obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in the United State courts.” Furthermore, he wrote that giving “the judgments of an international tribunal a higher status than that enjoyed by many of our most fundamental constitutional protections” was not the intention of those who wrote the U.S. Constitution. What is truly unfortunate is that 15 years later the families of the two murdered girls have not received the justice of the murderers’ execution.

From the Leftjudiciary: WI justice loses election

Wisconsin’s state supreme court lost a liberal pillar of judicial activism on Tuesday when Justice Louis Butler was tossed out by voters. Mike Gabelman, a district court judge, won the seat with 51 percent of the vote on promises of judicial restraint. Indeed he will likely tip the balance of the court 4-3 in favor of conservatives. It is the first time in 40 years that a justice has been voted out, and only the third time in Wisconsin’s history. Gabelman had heavy backing from business groups because Butler was infamous for his votes in rulings on frivolous lawsuits. In one case, the court did away with caps on non-economic damages in suits over medical malpractice. In another case, the court ruled that a manufacturer of lead paint could be held liable for injury whether or not the injured person had been in contact with the product. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the eighth most cited in the U.S. , making this ouster all the more important.
__________________________________

Campaign watch: Clinton resists call to bow out

As the contest for the Democrat presidential nomination grinds on, the clamor calling for Hillary Clinton to bow out of the race continues to rise. Barack Obama still leads in the pledged-delegate count, and he officially won the overall delegate race in Texas this past week with 99 to Clinton’s 94. So Clinton won the popular vote, but she lost the state — that sounds familiar. Clinton once again is banking on a strong showing in an upcoming primary, Pennsylvania’s 22 April contest, to keep her in the race. Her campaign is clinging to the hope that she can still clean up in the remaining contests and develop momentum going into the August convention in Denver. However, momentum has belonged mostly to Obama, who after all just picked up “Hanoi” Jane Fonda’s endorsement. There is growing concern among Democrats that Clinton is willing to tear the party to shreds rather than concede and improve its chances for victory in November. Conservatives, of course, had that pegged long ago.

In a possible sign of the times for Clinton, companies doing business with her campaign are having a tough time collecting on their bills. This despite her $20-million haul in March. (Obama raised $40 million in March.) Unpaid health-insurance premiums for campaign staffers piled up to $292,000, which is pretty embarrassing considering that health insurance is Hillary’s pet issue. Now we may have some insight into how she plans to handle the rising cost of insurance: just don’t pay it. The campaign blames an oversight, but that won’t explain the $25,000 tab two Ohio companies have not been able to collect for work done before the Ohio primary. Fiscal discipline indeed.

A different sort of retirement home

When we retire, most of us worry about becoming ill and losing the home we have lived in for years, but for the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his version of Social Security includes a 10,000-square-foot palatial estate valued at $1.6 million — in the America that Wright thinks God has damned. While the Rev. Wright is known for his ranting against the evils of the white race, his new dwelling will be situated in Tinley Park, a Chicago suburb that is less than two percent black, according to Census records. Wright’s former church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is also on the hook for a $10-million line of credit that was secured at the same time as the home mortgage. While it’s not unusual for a church to provide for a retired pastor, the scope of this package raises serious questions about its appropriateness. Maybe this is what Barack Obama means when he talks about “sharing the prosperity.”

Meanwhile, Reverend Wright has cancelled several recent speaking engagements because of “security concerns.” Perhaps the former pastor to Barack and Michelle Obama can find sufficient security in his new home’s gated community. However, the questions about comments made by Jeremiah Wright will continue to dog the Obama presidential campaign even if Wright now keeps his trap shut.

NATIONAL SECURITY
Warfront with Jihadistan: Shi’ite fight

A tenuous truce is barely holding in Iraq between Iraqi government forces and the Iranian backed Mahdi Army militias of Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, with sporadic firefights and bombings still occurring, especially around the southern Shi’ite stronghold of Basra. Last week saw major battles erupt between al-Sadr’s militias and the Iraqi army. U.S. forces continue to assist the Iraqis with air strikes targeting militants around Baghdad and Basra. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki promised a “final and decisive battle” with al-Sadr’s forces if they did not cease fighting. Possibly fearing a rout, al-Sadr agreed to the Iranian-brokered ceasefire. Recognizing the delicate situation, Britain froze its plans to withdraw about 1,500 soldiers from its 4,000-strong contingent around Basra this spring, waiting to see how the situation develops.

The Surrendercrats in Congress have harped on al-Maliki for years for being a weak and ineffective leader who was unwilling to use the Iraqi Army against fellow Shi’ite militants. Now that he is waging a campaign against said Shi’ite militants, the Democrats say Iraq is in a hopeless civil war, so the U.S. should quit and come home. Our troops have secured huge areas of Iraq, routed al-Qa’ida strongholds, significantly reduced civilian deaths and injuries, and given the Iraqi Army a fighting chance at securing their country on their own, so naturally the Demos want to quit. Just remember, though, that they Support the Troops! And don’t dare question their patriotism.
____________________________________

Profiles of valor: Navy Petty Officer Monsoor

On 8 April, U.S. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor, a SEAL, will become the first sailor and only the third service member overall to receive the Medal of Honor for heroism in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Unfortunately, it was Monsoor’s heroism that cost him his life. In September 2006, Monsoor and a group of SEAL snipers established a rooftop position in southern Ramadi in an effort to take out an insurgent hold. As four armed jihadis came into view, the SEALs opened fire, killing one and wounding another. Mosque loudspeakers urged an insurgent rally and the SEALs soon found themselves under attack, though they stood their ground protecting troops clearing the area below. During the fight, a grenade hit Monsoor in the chest, bouncing to the roof. “Grenade!” he yelled as he jumped onto the grenade. It detonated underneath him and he died about 30 minutes later, though he saved the lives of his three teammates. Lt. Cmdr. Seth Stone, Monsoor’s platoon leader, said, “He made an instantaneous decision to save our teammates. I immediately understood what happened, and tragically it made sense to me in keeping with the man I know, Mike Monsoor.” The official summary of action read that Monsoor “distinguished himself through conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life.” Indeed, he paid the ultimate price for his country and we are both grateful and humbled for his sacrifice.

Another Marine cleared in Haditha case

Though you wouldn’t know it from Leftmedia accounts or films like “Redacted” and “Battle for Haditha,” the case against the “Haditha Massacre” Marines has been falling apart for a couple of years now. In the most recent development, all charges were dropped against Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum without explanation (read: lack of evidence). He is the third Marine to be exonerated, leaving only one to face court martial. “Lance Corporal Tatum wants to make it clear to the Marine Corps — especially other Marines — and everyone else that there were no deals in this decision,” said attorney Jack Zimmermann, a former military judge and retired Marine. “I have never had a client who would have more preferred to have a trial rather than have the charges dismissed in a deal. He has believed all along he did nothing wrong and was prepared and anxious to stand trial.” Somehow we doubt that Hollywood or Rep. Jack Murtha (D-“in cold blood”) will be apologizing for their rush to judgment.

NATO summit: Wins and losses for U.S.

The NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, ended this week with the United States having experienced both success and failure. At the top of President George W. Bush’s agenda was securing approval for the U.S.-led European ballistic-missile-defense system, which was authorized unanimously by NATO’s 26 member countries. This was a major victory for the U.S. and its security-minded allies, much to the displeasure of countries such as Russia and Iran. But on other issues NATO was not so united. President Bush’s request for more NATO troops in Afghanistan was met with mixed reactions. France offered to send additional soldiers, but Spain, Italy, Turkey and Germany refused to send any combat troops due to the unpopularity of the war in their respective countries. Further complicating the problem was Canada’s threat to pull out 2,500 of its soldiers unless they were reinforced by at least 1,000 troops from another ally. Also despite the urging of the United States, the former Soviet “republics” of Ukraine and Georgia were not invited to join NATO. France and Germany figured that such an invitation would further provoke Russia, and really, hadn’t Russia already been provoked enough for one week? Lest Ukraine and Georgia feel completely snubbed, however, NATO issued a statement that “welcomes” the two countries’ aspirations and assures that they “will become members.” At the same time, NATO signaled to Russia that certain European nations will back down in the face of aggression and intimidation. Not exactly the stated purpose of NATO.
_________________________________

Immigration front: Fencing the environment

This week the Department of Homeland Security announced it would avail itself of congressionally allowed waivers of environmental and land-management laws on the books to build more of the security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. The stated goal is to erect 670 miles of fencing by year’s end, although the rate DHS is moving forward on this project leave doubts about the administration’s seriousness. Of course, environmental activists were soon undermining U.S. security efforts with their recently adopted “lawfare” response. Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club asked the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the waivers, as an alleged violation of the separation of powers. So the greenies fully accept that Congress can make laws they like for environmental protection, but they view congressionally authorized waivers of those same laws as unconstitutional when executive branch officers act on them as matters of national security? The enviro-nuts are relying on their preferred tools — the ratchet and the monkey wrench — to ensure that humans are endangered while falsely proclaiming themselves as defenders of life on this planet.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY
Regulatory Commissars: The Fed’s plan

Ever since the sub-prime mortgage mess began, politicians and pundits all over the fruited plain have been calling for increased regulation of the financial markets, since a stable market is apparently more desirable than a free one. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson finally answered those demands on Monday when he unveiled the blueprints for new financial reforms that would give the federal government greater regulatory power. Under Paulson’s plan, the Federal Reserve would have the ability to investigate any aspect of any institution that might threaten the stability of the entire market. The plan would also create a new federal regulator to oversee insurance companies, thus taking that responsibility away from state governments.

The plan isn’t completely misguided: It will streamline federal regulation to some degree by consolidating the five federal bank regulators into one agency. Overlapping bank regulations would be reduced, making it easier for Wall Street to comply. Moreover, Paulson’s plan is gaining support among Republicans on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have become increasingly skeptical that financial institutions can manage themselves responsibly. To which we would reply, “Why should they?” After all, the only lesson that companies like Bear Stearns have learned in recent weeks is that the federal government is there to bail them out of any jam. By pouring money into Wall Street, the Federal Reserve has disrupted the purifying effect of the free market, where “survival of the fittest” is a basic tenet. Perhaps the best thing that could happen is for the free market to have its way with a few poorly managed financial institutions, but the Federal Reserve won’t let that happen.

Income Redistribution: Mortgage bailout

In response to possibly the worst mortgage mess since the Great Depression, the Senate reached agreement this week on an aid package for homeowners facing foreclosure. The Washington Post reports that the plan “would provide $4 billion in grants for cities to buy foreclosed properties, temporary tax breaks worth up to $7,000 for home buyers who purchase foreclosed properties, and new tax deductions for almost every American who owns a home.” It would cost $15 billion over 10 years.

Previously, President Bush proposed giving federal dollars to lenders agreeing to forgive a portion of the debt owed them by insolvent homeowners. If passed, it will be the first time an administration has used federal funds (read: taxpayer dollars) to bail out irresponsible borrowers. The Bush administration’s plan is similar to that of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the Housing Financial Services Committee Chair: Both call for strict requirements to determine eligibility, and both stipulate that homeowners either remain in the home or share profits should they sell or refinance. There are differences, however; for example, Frank’s plan commits $300 billion in federal dollars, including a $10-billion set-aside to buy foreclosed homes that have been vacated.
________________________________

These efforts are designed to help the millions of borrowers with negative equity in their homes, many of whom took out loans requiring no money down. While heralded by Democrats, the measures anger conservatives, who point out that the federal government is irresponsibly (not to mention unconstitutionally) inserting itself into the free market. “It’s one thing to help people who made a rational decision, who were spammed or defrauded,” said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), “but it’s another thing to reward people who thought they were getting something for nothing, and knew what they were getting into.”

Further complicating the matter for the administration is the recent resignation of Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson. Jackson, a collaborator on President Bush’s plan, stepped down amidst a federal investigation into his alleged awarding of valuable housing contracts to associates. So once again, as in so many political intrigues, the words of the Gipper come to mind. “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Congress’ credit-card problem

In response to complaints from some retailers about credit-card transaction fees, Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Chris Cannon (R-UT) recently introduced the inaptly named Credit Card Fair Fee Act. Instead of letting card issuers set the fees themselves, the Act forces large credit-card issuers to negotiate with a consortium of retailers. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, a panel of “Electronic Payment System Judges” decides what fees are “fair” and imposes them on the parties. While reform to increase competition among credit-card issuers might be good, this act is nothing more than price control. Like all forms of price control, it takes away the efficiency and flexibility of the market and replaces it with the heavy hand of bureaucratic regulation. It will distort an already strained credit market and create needless bureaucracy. History clearly teaches that price controls do not work — anybody remember the 1970s? When, we wonder, will the demagogues in Congress ever learn?

Wal-Mart, subrogation and public opinion

In 2000, a Wal-Mart employee named Deborah Shank suffered a severe brain injury when her minivan was hit by a tractor trailer. As a result, Wal-Mart’s health plan paid out about $470,000 to the Shank family for medical costs. Then, after the Shanks sued the responsible trucking company and won $700,000 in a settlement ($417,477 after legal fees), Wal-Mart sued the Shanks to recover their healthcare payout under the principle of “subrogation.” Subrogation gives companies the right to recover expenses from medical care if the employee also collects damages from an injury lawsuit, effectively preventing the employee from “double-dipping.” When Wal-Mart won in court, the Shanks appealed the case all the way to the federal court of appeals, where the lower court’s rulings were upheld (the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, having affirmed subrogation in 2006). The case and the Shanks themselves were used by many to paint Wal-Mart as a corporate villain, even though facts (and principle) are on Wal-Mart’s side. Nevertheless, Wal-Mart has announced that due to the Shanks’ particularly difficult circumstances, the company will no longer attempt to collect the money the courts say they are owed. In a win-win for everyone, Wal-Mart has legal precedent on its side, while the Shanks get to keep the money.

CULTURE
’Non Compos Mentis’: Ted Turner

Our old friend Ted Turner, founder of CNN, pops up in the news every now and again. This week, he opined on a wide swath of topics, most notably on his dark visions of a future unshackled from government controls of human action, ostensibly to combat “global climate change.” (Around our editorial shop we have another, older word for “global climate change”  — “seasons.”) Ted proclaimed, “There’s too many people. That’s why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. If there were less people they’d be using less stuff.” He warned that if we don’t combat global warming now, the results “will be catastrophic... We’ll be eight degrees hotter in 10, not 10, but in 30 or 40 years, and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.” It’s doubtful, however, that Ted’s liver will pass USDA standards.

Soon, Ted turned his attention to Iraq, saying, “[E]ven with our $500-billion military budget, we can’t win in Iraq. We’re being beaten by insurgents who don’t even have any tanks.” On the jihadis’ motives, Ted declared, “I think that they’re patriots and that they don’t like us because we’ve invaded their country and occupied it. I think if the Iraqis were in Washington, DC, we’d be doing the same thing; we’d be bombing them too. Nobody wants to be invaded.” Uh, Ted, most of the insurgents are not Iraqis. Sort of throws a kink in the idea of their being “patriots,” doesn’t it? Lesson here: Success in business is not necessarily a good indicator of overall intelligence.
_________________________________

Frontiers of Junk Science: Lights out for Earth

Arguing that “it’s important to change the light bulbs, but it’s much more important to change the laws,” Nobel Peace Prize laureate Al Gore has launched a $300-million advocacy campaign for the drastic reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions. He believes legislators will not act without public pressure and notes, “I’ve tried everything else I know to try. The way to solve this crisis is to change the way the public thinks about it.”

Perhaps Gore will have more success than the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which just sponsored the second annual Earth Hour on 29 March from 8:00-9:00 PM (local time). While WWF lauded the “global event”  — which began in Australia and called for lights to go dark to symbolize the effect people can have on climate change — and The Washington Post headlined, “Cities Go Dark in Display of ‘Green’,” Australia’s Herald Sun more accurately reported, “Earth Hour Crashes to Earth.” The Herald Sun noted that the much-hyped event “resulted in no significant fall in power usage.” In areas like New England, electricity use actually rose.

Could it be that those eschewing environmental zealotry are the real earth savers? For example, a new study by Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen, visiting scholar at the California Forest Foundation, reveals that forest fires, fueled by the abundance of live and dead trees protected from the “evils” of deforestation, actually release millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year.

Forget turning off light bulbs or even changing them. Perhaps it’s time for the light bulb of reality to flick on in the minds of those whose forecasts of climate doom just may be affecting the very scenario they are crusading to avoid.

Faith and Family: Dutch film on Islam

When Dutch politician-turned-filmmaker Geert Wilders finally unveiled his 15-minute anti-Islamic film “Fitna” (Arabic for “strife”) last week, it was condemned by the EU and UN as “offensively anti-Islamic” and sparked protests, most notably in predominately Muslim Indonesia. Shocking, we know.

In the film, Wilder denounces the Koran as “fascist” and as the root of violence against non-Muslims. However, free-speech advocates apparently expected more from the film and found it instead to be merely a poor concoction of stock footage of terrorist attacks along with excerpts of the Koran. Aside from calling for Wilders’ death for insulting Islam, the most extreme activity by protesters in Indonesia was a broken gate and lowered flag at the Dutch consulate (oh, and the government is working to block YouTube for the posting). Such reactions are a far cry from the violence that followed the Danish publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, leading one to believe that the film did not make its point clearly enough.

Still, the Dutch prime minister distanced himself from Wilder, saying, “The vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence. In fact, the victims are often also Muslims.” So... the victims of Muslim extremism are Muslims? No word yet on whether Indonesian protesters are also calling for the Prime Ministers’ death.

And last...

In what might be considered an April Fool’s joke, the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday debated a 40-hour “ban” on homicide. Activists recommended the temporary ban on murder and violence to commemorate the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ’s assassination. Author Earl Ofari Hutchinson, president of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable, urged the city to make a “bold statement,” saying, “If this works, then the next logical thing is: If a city like Los Angeles can go 40 hours without one homicide, then why not 40 days?” Indeed! Why stop there? The debate got fairly heated at points. One critic mocked, “I’m sure that the people who are doing the killing will hear that the council is calling for a moratorium and then cease and desist. It’s more silliness from our wonderful City Council.” A councilman retorted, “That’s the kind of attitude that Martin Luther King had to step over and step across to get the job done.” In the end, the Council opted instead for a “bold statement” that encourages awareness and dialogue about “the root causes of violence and killing.” To paraphrase Dr. King, we have a dream that one day even the city of Los Angeles, a desert city, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will outlaw homicide once and for all.

Veritas vos Liberabit — Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families — especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)