Blog

Posted: 04.05.10 06:29 AM

Early voting begins Monday, April 5, and runs through Friday, April 9, in a number of primary runoff elections being held in Texas State House races. The actual special election date is Tuesday, April 13. Information about candidate ratings and endorsements by your NRA Political Victory Fund in these contests can be found at http://www.nrapvf.org. Please vote early or go to the polls next Tuesday, April 13, and support the candidates who support our Second Amendment rights. Information on who to contact for a list of early voting locations in your area can be found at http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/county.shtml.

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5685

Posted: 04.05.10 05:28 AM

Tomorrow, at 1 p.m. the Maryland House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear Senate Bill 411, sponsored by State Senator Mac Middleton (D-28). SB411 would provide civil immunity from damages when force, including deadly force, is used and reasonable under the circumstances to repel an attack in the persons dwelling or place of business.

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5684

Posted: 04.05.10 04:17 AM

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5683

Posted: 04.05.10 03:26 AM

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5682

On 04.05.10 11:17 AM posted by Nick Loris

Rajendra Pachauri , chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), responded to the errors exposed in the IPCC report saying that “Scientists are demonised because of one error in 3000 pages of evidence.” Truth be told, there were several errors uncovered in the report including questionable sources in the assessment of mountain ice reduction in the Andes, Alps and Africa as well as acknowledged overstating crop loss in Africa, Amazon rain forest depletion, sea level increases in the Netherlands. But Pachauri only acknowledges that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 or sooner was speculative at best. The reality is the IPCC reports have significant flaws; they simply aren’t picked up by the mainstream media.

Take the hockey stick theory, for instance. The theory is best explained by a <ahref="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gLv0n3B4neg/SXPGuKiXflI/AAAAAAAAF1c/W8dVYzVAIWs/s400/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg">graph that shows a time-series of global temperatures with current and future temperatures increasing at such rapid rates that it resembles the blade of a hockey stick. The <ahref="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gLv0n3B4neg/SXPGuKiXflI/AAAAAAAAF1c/W8dVYzVAIWs/s400/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg">graph appeared six times in the IPCC’s 2001 report. Andrew Montford’s new book, The Hockey Stick Illusion, reveals that the problems with the hockey stick theory go back much further than Climategate. In a review of the book, the Prospect Magazine’s Matt Ridley <ahref="http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/the-case-against-the-hockey-stick/">writes:

“The emails that were l<ahref="http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/02/too-hot-to-handle/">eaked from the University of East Anglia late last year are not proof of this; they are merely the icing on the lake, proof that some of the scientists closest to the hockey stick knew all along that it was problematic. Andrew Montford’s book, despite its subtitle, is not about the emails, which are tagged on as a last chapter. It is instead built around the long, lonely struggle of one man— Stephen McIntyre—to understand how the hockey stick was made, with what data and what programs. A retired mining entrepreneur with a mathematical bent, McIntyre asked the senior author of the hockey stick graph, Michael Mann, for the data and the programs in 2003, so he could check it himself. This was five years after the graph had been published, but Mann had never been asked for them before. McIntyre quickly found errors: mislocated series, infilled gaps, truncated records, old data extrapolated forwards where new was available, and so on.

<spanid="more-30596"></span>

Not all the data showed a 20th century uptick either. In fact just 20 series out of 159 did, and these were nearly all based on tree rings. In some cases, the same tree ring sets had been used in different series. In the end the entire graph got its shape from a few bristlecone and foxtail pines in the western United States; a messy tree-ring data set from the Gaspé Peninsula in Canada; another Canadian set that had been truncated 17 years too early called, splendidly, Twisted Tree Heartrot Hill; and a superseded series from Siberian larch trees. There were problems with all these series: for example, the bristlecone pines were probably growing faster in the 20th century because of more carbon dioxide in the air, or recovery after “strip bark” damage, not because of temperature change.

This was bad enough; worse was to come. Mann soon stopped cooperating, yet, after a long struggle, McIntyre found out enough about Mann’s programs to work out what he had done. The result was shocking. He had standardised the data by “short-centering” them—essentially subtracting them from a 20th century average rather than an average of the whole period. This meant that the principal component analysis “mined” the data for anything with a 20th century uptick, and gave it vastly more weight than data indicating, say, a medieval warm spell.”

Ridley’s book isn’t the only evidence. Fred Singer recently published an 800 page report entitled, “<ahref="http://www.nipccreport.org/">Climate Change Reconsidered” that questions and debunks many of the conclusions found by the IPCC report. An article written last year by Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong and scientist Willie Soon write that scientists in many respects are being paid to make, at best, guesses or projections of how climate change actually works and what temperatures will be like in the future. They <ahref="http://rationalargumentator.com/issue230/forecastsuseless.html">say, “The models employed by James Hansen and the IPCC are not based on scientific forecasting principles. There is no empirical evidence that they provide long-term forecasts that are as accurate as forecasting that global average temperatures won’t change. Hansen’s, and the IPCC’s, forecasts, and the recommendations based on them, should be ignored.”

This especially includes costly regulations on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases our government is willing to impose because the IPCC recommends CO2 is a threat to our health and environment.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/05/…y-stick-model/

On 04.05.10 11:00 AM posted by Conn Carroll

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/defspend1.jpg"></p>In 2008, the United States spent $607 billion on our military. Far more than any other country as British author <ahref="http://www.davidmccandless.com/bio.htm">David McCandless illustrates in the graphic to the right. But as McCandless goes on to show in the rest of this <ahref="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/01/information-is-beautiful-military-spending">Datablog post, focusing on spending totals alone doe not provide an accurate context to judge U.S. military spending by. The U.S. is a wealthy country with a larger Gross Domestic Product (GDP) than Japan, Germany, and China combined. McCandless compensated for this fact and you can see the result after the jump:<spanid="more-30583"></span>
<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/defspendgdp.jpg">

At 4% of GDP U.S. spending on defense is tied for 8th world wide. And in a <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/Defense-Spending-on-the-Decline-Despite-War-on-Terror.aspx">historical context it is far below average. Throughout the 1960s the U.S. spent almost 9% of GDP on defense and even during President Ronald Reagan’s defense build up, military spending topped out at 6%. Considering that the U.S. is actively fighting two wars, if anything this amount is too low. Heritage fellow Mackenzie Eaglen details how President Barack Obama’s most recent budget proposals fail to protect the core defense budget <ahref="http://beta.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/02/President-Obamas-2011-Budget-How-Congress-Can-Reform-Defense-Spending-and-Address-Shortfalls">here.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/05/…her-countries/

On 04.05.10 10:00 AM posted by Ben Lieberman

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/OffShoreOil.jpg"></p><ahref="http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/panelists/ben_lieberman/2010/04/declaring_indpendence_from_energy_independence_min dset.html">The Washington Post asks: “What does it mean for a nation to be energy independent? Is it realistic and if so how should that be achieved?”

Energy Independence is a mixed bag — both good and bad energy policy ideas are promoted under its banner. The bad outweighs the good, and in any event energy independence shouldn’t supplant free markets as the overarching principle for sound energy policy.

Among the few good ideas spurred by the desire to achieve energy independence is expanding domestic energy production. As it is, the great majority of energy-rich federal lands and offshore areas have not been leased for oil exploration and drilling. The President has recently paid lip service to expanded access, but in reality his Department of the Interior spent its first year rolling out an unprecedented crackdown on energy leasing. Granted, increased domestic drilling will not end oil imports, but it would lead to greater supplies of oil and lower prices as well as thousands of new energy industry jobs. It is well worth pursuing for those reasons.<spanid="more-30575"></span>

Among the bad energy independence ideas is the mandate for domestic renewable fuels, chiefly corn-based ethanol. Thanks to a Bush-era law, 12 billion gallons of it must be added to the gasoline supply in 2010. Ethanol raises the cost of driving – which is why proponents needed a law forcing the rest of us to use it – and the diversion of nearly a third of the corn crop from food to fuel use has raised food prices as well. The real losers are American consumers, not the Saudi oil sheikhs, Iran’s regime, or Hugo Chavez.

Perhaps worst of all is costly global warming policy. Cap and trade and other measures were not selling as environmental policy — the public has shown little concern about global warming – so they have been repackaged by supporters as energy independence policy (as well as jobs policy, hence all the green jobs rhetoric). It may make for an improved sales pitch but it doesn’t add up. The main target of global warming legislation is coal, the one energy source America has in overwhelming abundance. Oil imports would not be reduced very much, but U.S. electric rates would, in the words of President Obama, “necessarily skyrocket.”

Most of the energy independence agenda is a policy boomerang – it is supposed to hurt the oil rich enemies of America but ends up hurting Americans instead. There are better ways of dealing with such regimes – and certainly better ways of meeting our nation’s energy needs.

<ahref="http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/panelists/ben_lieberman/2010/04/declaring_indpendence_from_energy_independence_min dset.html">Cross-posted at <ahref="http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/">The Washington Post’s Planet Panel.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/05/…dence-mindset/

On 04.05.10 09:00 AM posted by James Carafano

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/START100405.jpg"><imgsrc="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/START100405.jpg" alt="Obama and Medvedev" title="START100405" width="350" height="300" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-30570" /></p>Treaties are just words. Deeds matter more. We were supposed to have learned that lesson from the fallout after World War I.

That global conflict was billed as “the war to end all wars.” The Versailles Treaty was meant to seal the deal. But its words couldn’t stop the German military.

The treaty aimed to prevent Germany from producing cutting-edge weaponry. The Kaiser’s U-boats, for example, had taken a dreadful toll during the war.

So the treaty forbid all future “construction and purchase of all underwater vessels, even for commercial purposes … in Germany.” The Germans consequently used foreign dummy corporations to build and test their new and improved U-boat designs while Karl Doenitz developed the “wolf pack” tactics that would make Nazi submarines the scourge of the Atlantic during World War II.<spanid="more-30567"></span>

The treaty also placed great restrictions on German air forces. It said nothing, however, about rockets or missiles. Wernher Von Braun brought that loophole to the attention of the German high command. In turn, it bankrolled development of the world’s first military missile — the A4. During World War II, 3,000 of them rained down on Britain.

Measuring intentions is an important part of negotiating any treaty. Yet this basic tenet of foreign policy seems to elude our current administration. Case in point: the new arms control treaty the president plans to sign.

President Obama believes that reducing nuclear arms in concert with Moscow is the first step on the “road to zero.” Unfortunately, the Russians don’t.

Moscow sees its nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of its defense. Moreover, its unspoken threat of nuclear attack is central to the success of its foreign policy. Significantly diminishing those resources is the last thing Russia plans on doing.

Moscow does, however, want to see the U.S. nuclear deterrent reduced to an equal footing with its mediocre might. It also wants U.S. conventional strike capabilities and missile defense to be on the table.

As the U.S. deterrent shrinks, others will step up — not down. The president arms control “road” is more likely to lead to a new arms race, rather than to “zero.”

Our Iran policy looks much the same. The White House offered to negotiate with Tehran, believing Iran could be talked out of building nuclear weapons. But the mullahs want nuclear weapons, desperately.

Put aside the fact that their leaders shout for “death to Israel” and speak of a “world without America.” They have other reasons to go “nuclear.”

Tehran wants to be the pre-eminent power in the Middle East. As a nuclear state, it could dictate to its neighbors and Europe as well.

Nuclear weapons would also boost the mullahs’ bent for internal repression. Nuclear powers do not mess in the internal affairs of other nuclear powers. Witness Tiananmen Square. The ayatollahs believe that, when they have the bomb, they can crush the freedom-loving opposition with total impunity. They are counting the days.

The White House seems averse to confronting enemies like Iran or competitors like Russia. (Though it criticizes our friends readily enough.) Instead, it prefers to assume “shared interest” where none exists.

Engagement must be based on reality, not assumptions or simple hope. When it comes to keeping the peace, negotiated words are never enough.

<divid="TixyyLink">Cross-Posted at the <ahref="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/">Washington Examiner <ahref="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Foreign-thinking-missing-in-foreign-policy-89874752.html#ixzz0kEqKPiRB">here.</div>

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/05/…oreign-policy/

On 04.05.10 08:00 AM posted by Kathryn Nix

<ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/tag/side-effects/"></p>Despite <ahref="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/cbo_estimates_that_senate_heal.html">all <ahref="http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/legislation?id=0361">the <ahref="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf">talk about how Obamacare would lower health care costs, it’s already becoming clear that it just won’t be the case.

<ahref="http://www.indystar.com/article/20100330/BUSINESS03/3300336/Insurance-premiums-outrun-reform">The Indianapolis Star reports that companies can expect employee health insurance costs to rise even faster. “Driven by worries about the economy and possibly the effects of health-care reform, [health insurers] are raising rates this year for family coverage through employer-sponsored plans… from 8 percent to 21 percent, which is considerably higher than the 5 percent increase the Kaiser Family Foundation reported in 2009.”<spanid="more-30559"></span>

Employers will undoubtedly pass the price hikes on to their employees or switch to less expensive plans with higher deductibles, lesser coverage or both.* Those outcomes aren’t exactly hallmarks of successful health care reform.

The Obamacare legislation <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/timeline_chart3-26final.pdf">contained numerous “reforms” (PDF)*that can’t help but escalate costs or lower benefits for those who get their health coverage through their jobs. In addition to the new taxes on high-value “Cadillac” health insurance plans, there are increases in the Medicare Part A hospital insurance tax for high earners.* And there are broad fees on the pharmaceutical and insurance industries that will be passed on to consumers at all income levels.

During his final push to win passage of the health bill, President Obama <ahref="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/obama_you_will_see_premiums_fa.html">told a crowd in Strongsville, Ohio, that premiums would “fall by as much as 3,000 percent” under his plan. The evidence rolling in shows that the President not only misspoke, he got the entire direction of premium costs under Obamacare exactly wrong.

Heritage has long promoted putting health coverage decisions in the hands of patients, not government bureaucrats.* To learn more on how to do that, <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/10/Health-Care-Reform-Rational-Alternatives-to-the-Congressional-Leadership-Bills">click here.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/05/…surance-costs/