Here we go again; more interventionist death-dealing, this time brought to you by that die-hard opponent of unnecessary wars, Barack Obama. The war in Afghanistan is all but lost, and will be no less lost with the processing of more American lives though this Muslim extremist meatgrinder. 

But our new president, perhaps in fulfillment of his campaign promise (or for God only knows whatever reason), has decided to play a dangerous game of switcheroo with the lives of our Americans soldiers.

Mr.Obama is ready to add up to 30,000 troops into Afghanistan over the next two years, a near doubling of the current American force there of about 31,000.

The outlines of the military plan for Iraq, presented to Mr. Obama in December, envisioned withdrawing of only two brigades, or some 7,000 to 8,000 troops over the next six months. But now military commanders are drawing up renewed plans for a faster withdrawal of American troops, in anticipation that President Obama will reject current proposals as 'too slow'.

But why, all of a sudden has Mr. Obama decided to get antsy about Afghanistan?. What is pertinent here, (and may be already becoming apparent) is Mr. Obama's complete lack of military knowledge, and the frightening thought of him playing general without any battlefield experience. And now is not the time to play political maestro in such a dangerous theater of war.

. 

War in Afghanistan is a pointless war. If Russia were there for almost 10 years with no victory strategy, then what makes Obama think we can do any better?. Osama Bin Laden may be there, but who really knows for sure where he is? And with all our great intelligence, why haven't we caught him by now? 

And what is there to gain there? Does it actually affect us one way or the other whether the warlords or the Taliban run that godforsaken country? Unlike Iraq, There are no geopolitical gains to be made there, unless the U.S. wants to wrest control of the poppy seed industry.

This Afghan war expansion is remarkably parallel to the beginning of the JFK administration. A newly-elected Mr. Kennedy, anxious to prove his toughness, was suckered by the Pentagon into entering an endless guerrilla war in Vietnam on a terrain that was not favorable to a conventional military power.  And is this expansion not a chilling deja' vu similarity?

But not surprisingly, Mr. Obama has yet to make clear his overall goals beyond calling for more forces, money and diplomacy in an increasingly violent, ungovernable country. Obama inherits the biggest financial crisis since the 30's, so can anyone give a rational explanation as to why he would want to drain the treasury further with billions for an escalated war in Afghanistan?

Is Obama playing war games just for the sake of pleasing his left? Why fire up Afghanistan before the job in Iraq is finished? Does Obama play chess with our troops just to appear as though "he's the military man" in deference to his critics on the right? This is a troublesome thought indeed.

Senior military officers have expressed uneasiness about a quick withdrawal from Iraq ,and are unclear at this point about Mr. Obama’s overall strategy. This begs the question ...Mr Obama, what's goin' on? Do you yourself even have any idea?

If he isn't careful (or prudent), escalating the Afghan theater may prove to be a horror movie for Obama far worse than the Iraq war was for Bush. And one cannot ignore the obvious camparisons of the two presidents, neither of which ever experienced the fright of combat, acting like it's some sort of adventure; when in reality, any veteran will always tell you; war is hell! 

And Afghanistan is an unwinnable hell hole that will make Vietnam look tame in comparison.

Perhaps it's time for President Obama to have our soldiers on his mind instead of playing war games. Our American soldiers could be guarding OUR southwestern borders, patrolling our coasts, and actually defending us from terrorist attacks-- instead of dying halfway around the world while trying to impose American-style democracy on some lawless Muslim country.

Violence has reached record levels this year, and Afghanistan is now considered a deadlier battlefield than Iraq, where the Taliban have the "home field" advantage.

And what of the numbers? Obama's surge of 30,000 troops--into a country the size of Texas, with hostile tribes and warlords lurking in every province-- is a mere military spit in the ocean. Even 130, 0000 would be inviting only a longer war of attrition, similar to the Vietnam fiasco.

As of now, it cannot be ignored-- the parallels between 'Nam and Afghanistan are starkly evident. More buildup is like pouring money down a rat hole, with no apparent strategy of how to win. It is much more than a question of how fast you can add troops; it includes calculating how much risk you are willing to take, with no apparent goal other than, what---killing the enemy?

 This Afghan war he wants to escalate is both culturally, politically, and militarily unwinnable.

But Obama chooses to play professor backwards. He's abandoning completion of the already-won war in Iraq for political reasons, and chooses to fight the unwinnable one in Afghanistan for the vague possibility of hunting down Bin Laden. 

But finding Bin-Ladin will be like finding the cure for cancer: we know he's out there, but where should we look? Osama fought the Russians for a decade in Afghanistan as a Mujahadi freedom fighter, and knows of thousands of secret hiding places. And the man seems immune from betrayal.

Unlike Iraq, the Afghan terrain is like fighting on the moon--forbidding, and it nullifies all possible U.S. advantages such as armor, or the fast mobility of the humvees. The U.S. soldiers, exposed down below on narrow mountain passages, have no place to hide , while the enemy above remains invisible. Classic military flanking maneuvers have little chance of success.

If Obama had the analytical experience of a war veteran commander in chief, he'd realize that the best way to escalate would be not more ground forces, but adding more air forces-- the drones, always hovering menacingly  from above. These are the only way to countermand the height advantage of the enemy Taliban fighters, who know every square inch of the battle terrain.

But with vast new numbers of airborne spy drones patrolling, the Taliban would be forced to stay in perpetual cover, and give a huge strategic advantage over to our guys on the ground. "Death from above" would be a constant threat to the enemy and would save American troops the risk of-search and destroy missions through unfamiliar terrain.

And while were talking strategy, how’s this for a tactic--night vision goggles! Why not use the one technological advantage that could really checkmate the enemy? If the U.S. was the only side who wore them and only moved at night--- then why not do it? The Taliban would be faced with hiding by day from the drones, and forced to keep a defensive posture at night from Americans who can see them, but remain nearly invisible by night themselves.

The Afghan theatre is the total opposite of the Iraqi urban conflict.  Political settlement in Afghanistan is the only possible victory, because once troops are withdrawn, the same problem emerges: the Taliban snakes will slither again out from under their rocks, and resume their bullying posture of religious extremism.

Obama should understand that the history of Afghanistan is unique;  the expansive countryside is so geographically isolated by mountains, it is a land of a thousand territories. There can be no lasting military victory

President Obama is going to inherit the problem the Russians had roughly 25 years ago during the Soviet jihad. You cannot tame the people in this craggy, hostile country where the only rule of law is the bribe given to each of the thousand of local warlords that change sides accordingly.

.

But Obama must make good his political promises. And so, next January 21, he will huff and puff mightily away in his inaugural speech..."We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority,"

Yes, and in so doing, thousands of additional American troops are likely to perish, far more  than the 4,000 American casualties suffered in Iraq. But at least we're about to become victorious there, while Afghanistan, by all accounts of history, is unwinnable.

No nation has ever brought the Afghanis to their knees.

From Alexander the Great in 338 B.C. to the USSR in 1980, Afghanistan is always the 'invaders' graveyard.

And Obama is only fooling himself  to think the U.S. is an exception.

But without agency or any intelligence firsthand experience, how would a clueless Panetta be able to design a mission, or interrogate a key Al Quida operative, with radical Islam burgeoning worldwide, and the Taliban on the rise in Afghanistan? Is this any time for on the job training?

Panetta, a good manager-type of executive, is filling a position requiring someone with a adequate set of skills that would give him the AUTHORITY needed to run a spy agency. After all, would any big-city mayor have any hope of keeping his job if he were to appoint someone as police chief who'd never been a cop himself? Is there any difference here? This is nothing short of a massive blunder on Obama's part, despite what his liberal supporters of the appointment may say.

Obama seems to be conducting some mad scientist experiment with his attempt to prove that one need not be sophisticated in the field of spying to become the head of a department of spies. Obama is now playing with the safety of America. Panetta has absolutely no experience in the intelligence world, but was once the director of the Department of Management-basically another Clinton pencil-pusher running a new show. And if the country is attacked because of this, who would take responsibility? The liberal left, who basically coerced Obama into making such a clueless appointment?

Yes; it's that "change" thing again. Panetta has no knowledge of CIA structure or staffing, and will undoubtedly cause agency morale to plummet. This also means all the old CIA hands will be fired that support coercion, interrogation, eaves-dropping, and prisons. So who will replace them? The Peace Corps?

With Panetta at the CIA's helm, clandestine is out, and transparency is in. So now, let everyone in Congress be apprised of the agency's every move-that's the way to do it! Play "I've got a secret" on Capitol Hill. Homeland security is out, and Pollyanna is in. From now on, we'll make nice with Al Quida, and they'll certainly return the favor. Perhaps their next planned attack won't be as harsh. Maybe they'll switch from boxcutters to nail files in the new Panetta-Obama era of being nice to the bad guys.

And maybe if Iran's president, Ahmadinejad, NOW decides to attack Israel, or Osama hits New York again; Mr. Panetta and Obama can send a "strongly-worded" message to remind them that they're not being nice. So in this new era of being cute with our enemies, what would happen if maybe we did capture Osama? We wouldn't (couldn't) interrogate him under the new ground rules?

Yes; let's be nicer to our enemies, just turn the other cheek, and see how nicely they return the favor. If we had found Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 plot, and EXECUTED him, we might have avoided both the Afghanistan and the Iraq wars, prevented the 3000 casualties of 9-11; and the World Trade Center towers would still be proudly standing in lower Manhattan. Yes, that’s what a good, FUNCTIONING, CIA intelligence agency can do.

But the operative word here is 'functioning'- A CIA with no ability to get tough might as well become a branch of the USO, according to the liberal leftists. After all, the goal of the CIA is intelligence-not public relations, as Obama has suddenly come to believe by appointing the 70 year old Panetta .

But is there a reason Obama feels he needs to give Panetta a job? Is this some sort of a quid pro quo? This is a very poor fit based on Panetta's lack of experience. Does Leon have something on Barack, or could he possibly be this clueless?

Former intelligence veterans have a litany of concerns about what will amount to the most inexperienced intelligence director to be appointed since the creation of the CIA in 1947. And current employees are enraged that a political hack is being named CIA director. It's demeaning to the entire 20,000 person staff. It's painfully obvious to anyone with agency experience that Panetta is unqualified to lead the CIA-end of discussion-period!

In choosing Leon E. Panetta to be the next CIA director, President-elect Obama appears to have concluded that a spy chief who understands politics, may be better equipped to carry out the incoming administration's national security agenda than one who understands espionage

This is like appointing the head of Starbucks as director of the FBI, because that person has great organizational experience. And what if the FBI had no powers of interrogation? What instead, if our public enemies were given coffee and donuts, and encouraged to discuss their experiences? How well would that work out?

Could the United States have won World War II without intelligence? Because the OSS was capable of killing certain Nazi operatives (and used clever deception), the Allies were able to convince Hitler that the D-day invasion would occur at Calais rather than Normandy. This shortened the war by at least a year, and possibly saved the entire western world!

Could the independent state of Israel have survived without its fabled intelligence force, the Mossad? It was the Mossad that uncovered the Arab plans for the 1967 Six Day war, where the Israelis knew the Egyptians and Syrians were coming; and the resulting pre-emptive Israeli air strikes prevented disaster and gave the conflict its name, "6 -Day War". How many lives were saved because of the brevity of this war?

But this is what intelligence agencies do --by playing hardball with the enemy (torture, interrogation, coercion, deception) you trade some human suffering on the part of your foe for the saving of your own countrymen's lives, and avoid any surprise attacks.

This is the purpose of intelligence-it's security. You save your own country from possible disaster through pre-emptive intelligence operatives: spy-vs-spy...We vs. Them. That's the real world out there. You will not be safe by playing softball with the enemy. Being  sneaky is a necessity- not by being open and playing goody-goody.  

For years after World War II, U.S. intelligence forces had done their job well. The CIA succeeded in stalemating the KGB during the Cold War era in Asia . The agency had been staffed by the former members of the OSS , our World War II spy service. Before 1977, the CIA was highly effective world wide in keeping Washington informed as to what our enemies were up to.

But then came the election of Jimmie Carter in 1976, and the sad dismantling of a once-proud, highly-motivated intelligence organization. Carter, like all liberals, believed in being "fair". So what did Carter see as the first place to single out for reforming? It was those nasty, dastardly, secretive, 'immoral' CIA brigands. After all, hadn't the CIA taken part in assassinations, deception, blackmail, torture, and other knavish misdeeds during the 50 's and 60's?

Today, it can be noted back in history when Carter made one of the most ill-conceived presidential decisions of all time: He issued an executive order that placed all nine U.S. intelligence agencies under the coordination of one man: CIA Director Stansfield Turner, who was 54 years old at that time

Stansfield Turner had no agency or intelligence experience of any kind. He was Jimmie Carter's college roommate at the Naval Academy. Carter probably would have done just as well to appoint Mr. Rogers, or Mr. Magoo for that matter, because like Carter, Turner saw the world through rose colored glasses, and was blind to the true realities that indeed, America had many implacable enemies around the world, especially in the Middle East

In October of 1977, Turner issued an administrative order to sharply curb many of the clandestine practices that had brought the CIA much of its criticism from the liberal members in Congress back then (i.e. Idaho Senator Frank Church). 

Long time CIA veterans began complaining about Mr. Turner's abrasive, arrogant style. So Turner callously decided to clean house. On Halloween of '77, Turner circulated a photocopied memo informing 800 staffers (mostly Republicans) of their dismissal. Many of the people fired were seasoned agents, going all the way back to the OSS of World War II. A lot of them spoke Arabic, and were fluent in other foreign languages.

It has been noted by many historians that Stansfield Turner was the single worst senior presidential appointment in U.S. history. Turner has been described as..."a CIA traitor, appointed by Jimmie Carter to castrate the agency...In eliminating virtually all human intelligence on the ground, he put the U.S. at a strong disadvantage, especially in the Middle East and Afghanistan".  

But Obama and his idealogues have decided to repeat History 30 years later, just like the last liberal president who ruined the CIA with an inexperienced, party hack appointee.

Leon Panetta may not know very much about foreign affairs or defense matters. He is wholly unacquainted with the questions and quarrels that have roiled the U.S. intelligence community for a half century. But, as a veteran political warrior, he will do what President Obama expects of him.

What's the biggest political buzz in D.C. right now? Is it the auto bailout? Is it about the proposed trillion-dollar stimulus package...or is it about the economy? Nope; it's... "What will Michelle wear to the inauguration?" Now that the presidential inauguration is looming, the race to be Michelle Obama’s Inauguration Day dress designer is about to end.

Of course, our new First Lady Michelle hasn't exactly brought the house down so far with her frequent wardrobe malfunctions.

Last November 4, Michelle Obama displayed a black and red Narcisco Rodriguez 'Spring 2009' collection dress which was met with "mixed reviews". But in all actuality, the pseudo-ketchup stain, anti-couture design looked as if she had been a victim of two strategically placed gunshot wounds; the dress resembled more of a Halloween costume than an election night frock.

During her husband's presidential campaign, she often appeared in outfits that can only be described as stylishly nihilistic; or better yet, neo-bizarre. If she's the next Jackie Kennedy, then Barack is the next Millard Fillmore; the comparison just isn't there.

And all the designers are faced with the one mandate that Mrs. Obama demands in all her creations: they have to show off her sculpted arms. Most women recoil at the thought of baring their arms in sleeveless dresses or blouses, but not Michelle.

Mrs. Obama has hosted "The View," was interviewed on "60 Minutes," graced the cover of Newsweek, and hit the campaign trail, all with her buff arms bared. In fact, Michelle is so proud of her upper extremities that she goes to extremes-- 4:30 a.m. workouts in the gym everyday. In fact, missing her everyday arm-workout for Michelle would be akin to Oprah missing a book review. It's just not possible in the real world.

"One of the things I always talk about is got to exercise," the 44-year-old mother of two told an overwhelmingly female crowd at a campaign event last year in Chicago.

Presently, "Michelle-gushing" on the web is out of control. One particular site, obviously dedicated to "being like Michelle", described her bicep routine..."Now, pick up your weights; start with bicep curls... lift each weight to a full curl and down. Repeat 15 reps. This will give you Michelle's lifted look"

Ah yes Michelle's LIFTED LOOK. Don't we all wish we had it! The website goes on to swoon: (quote) "Renowned for her tastefulness and regal beauty, Obama is envied for her chiseled arms. In a few steps, you'll learn a  workout that will help you achieve Obama's most celebrated body part" (unquote). Yes: let the adulation begin! Lucky America! Michelle's arms are a focus for national celebration!

So what’s next? A commemorative coin with Michelle Obama's portrait on the front, and her chiseled arms on the flip side? Stay tuned for more about the celebrated arms of Michelle Obama.

Meanwhile, back to the question of the First Lady's inaugural gown. And among the hopefuls to provide the classic is fashion designer Diane von Furstenberg. Recently, the TV program,  "Access Hollywood", has confirmed that the fashion legend was one of several designers asked to submit a sketch for President-elect Obama’s wife. Also in the running are rumors that Michelle Obama's inauguration dress was being made by Brooklyn designer Michelle Fields.

But the challenge remains. At 5'11 1/2, Michelle Obama is no shrinking violet; and designing a dress for a woman that tall with her imposing physique, is no easy task. And besides her height, she remains anatomically challenged below the waist, like Hillary. This is not to infer that Mrs. Barack should be wearing pantsuits, but if Hillary has been known as, "her royal thighness", Michelle could easily be described as being really "hip".

And an even more overriding concern is--what color will Michelle Obama's dress (or suit) be for the inauguration? If she shows up in purple, (her best color) she may save the day. Unfortunately, she tried just a little too hard on election night with that Narcisco (anti-disco) Rodriguez creation. All she needed was a mask to complete the outfit, and she could have gone tricker-treating around Grant Park.

But the suspense remains... will the arm-challenged, celebrity dress-designers be able to rise to the occasion? Or will it be another Halloween nightmare on Jan. 20, 2009 if Michelle's outfit lays an egg? We'll all find out soon enough.

Question: How much longer can the "science" of global warming continue to go unchallenged? Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics, and professor at the New York Rensselear Polytechnical Institute, recently proclaimed, "I am a skeptic. Global warming has become a new religion."

But how many parents actually realize that global warming/climate change is being taught RELIGIOUSLY in our schools, and that elementary grade kids are now being made acutely aware of what Al Gore commands-- we save the planet for our children. And these same children are literally being scared out of their minds by Gore's nightmarish false prophecies.

In Pittsburgh, elementary grade children are required to participate in a project entitled, "My Generation". They 'study' about the dangers of global warming and pollution, and are encouraged to discuss its ramifications at home with their parents, and to write sincere letters to Barack Obama on the subject. One fifth-grader recently wrote:

Dear President-Elect Obama:

I think you should push to help the environment. The world would be a nicer place for everyone if you could stop global warming or slow it down a lot. You should give money to groups that are trying to discover ways to stop global warming. You should reinforce laws so that companies can't drop their chemical waste into the ocean so the animals that live in it can live longer. (end)

Another sample from a 10-year-old fourth grader:

Dear President-Elect Barack Obama:

Here are two major problems in the U.S. that you should fix. The first one is pollution. A lot of animals are dying because of it. Fish are dying because people are dumping barrels of toxins into the oceans, and many sea animals are losing food.

Another problem in the U.S. is global warming. In the future all the land will be flooded with water because the icebergs are melting and the sea level is rising. (end)

But what's the reality? Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an environmental physical chemist at Yokohama University in Japan, said..."Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists...so far, only computer models, but not real measurements, give any ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming."

But do you think for a minute that the findings of these foreign scientists, who vehemently renounce global warming, are ever revealed to these same children, whose parents also disagree with the global warming theory? Chalk it up to the American media, and the political hyperbole from environmental alarmists. The other point of view is never discussed.

But in England, Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth", has been called unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies. Many parents who have seen the film are now accusing the British Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.

Stewart Dimmock, a school governor from Dover, condemns Al Gore for his exaggeration and alarmist viewpoints, and declared: "An Inconvenient Truth", is unfit for schools because it is politically biased, and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and sentimental mush". Dimmock wants the video banned from the 3,500 schools around the country that have already shown it to their students.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., not only is the political religion of global warming being substituted for the subject of science in our schools, its instruction has evolved into a growth industry amongst our teachers. When parents go to PTA these days, are they even aware that teacher lesson plans on 'climate change' are only a mouseclick away? 

Here is an excerpt from the NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS online bookstore ad..."We are currently developing climate change school lessons. They will cover global warming for children from about ages 12 to 15 years old. A retired science teacher, who taught for over 20 years, is writing the lessons, which draw heavily on the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The science is sound and up-to-date... Spanish translations of "Green Teachers Lessons on Climate" are also available for online purchase".

Remember when you, as a 10-year old child, would get home from school, and your mom would ask, "What did you do at school today?”…"Gee mom, we learned about the Boston Massacre in history class, and that flowers are actually part male and female in science class...it was neat!'

Nowadays, imagine what this newly-brainwashed generation of kids must tell their parents at supper: "Mom! We have to stop polluting! We shouldn't be eating all this meat, because of the carbon footprint the cattle leave on the environment, which contributes to global warming". And..."Dad, you shouldn't be driving that big, gas-hogging pickup truck; it's polluting and using a lot of fossil fuel, which puts a lot of dangerous CO2 into the atmosphere! My teacher said hybrid vehicles are greener and don't pollute as much. Don't you know that by driving that truck, you're harming the environment?"

"How To Turn Your Parents Green" is a fun-packed, pocket-sized book that teachers use to illustrate to kids on how they can make a difference. The first chapter of the book discusses the fight against "Ghastly Global Warming". The premise for the book is that grown-ups (the Groans) are responsible for causing global warming; but it’s you (the kids) who will have to deal with the consequences. So, the youngsters are given a mission to educate their parents about recycling, saving energy and water, etc.

Yes-- it all sounds so benign-- a ga-ga, goo-goo harmless environmental book about kids and their parents. But what's the real underlying meaning from books like these, which subconsciously portray parents as villainous grown-ups, who are ruining the earth? 

The real inconvenient truth behind the reading of these books, and teaching climate change in our schools, is the sinister undermining of the actual family itself; and delineating the government as the institution that children should trust more than their own parents.

And besides all the inter-generational family clashes, this new age of brainwashed, youthfully aggressive global warmongers will create a stream of unending liberal voters, and may alter the political landscape of the U.S. for years to come.

Barack Obama received 69% of the under-25 vote. Most of these young people could give no reason other than "change" for their support; but nearly 100% identified Obama as the candidate who would most likely protect the environment, and, "do something about the threat of global warming."

This self-sustaining liberal stream of green-obsessed, younger voters will continue to unknowingly place radical environmental special interests ahead of the nation's true economic objectives, such as drilling for new domestic energy resources, and the necessity of creating new jobs in the PRIVATE sector. 

Everyday that goes by is another day when more kids are deceived in our schools about  climate change; and more kids are taught that major corporations are evil, money-grubbing polluters; and more kids are sent home to rail about their parents' irresponsible lifestyles based on eating meat, using gasoline and oil, and about the need to make the household "green".

Yes indeed; an education is a terrible thing to waste. In our schools nowadays, green has become the new red. The nationwide communal movement in our schools toward radical environmentalism is nothing less than your basic socialist takeover of the country's educational system, whereby you subvert the young people, and control their instruction by the teaching of political subjects, rather than the 3R's of basic elementary education.

This also presents a clear and present threat to our 2-party system of politics. Republicans are in actual danger of future extinction if they don't somehow find a way to pre-empt this structural leftist revolution of our educational system, which is creating massive numbers of students who know nothing about science or American history, but are fanatical about a cause that exists only for the political expediency of the left. 

There is nothing more dangerous and damaging to a democracy than ignorance. And as these marxist movements in our educational system continue to hide the truth-- that the earth is not warming; that corporations create wealth and prosperity, and that fossil fuels do not warm the earth-- climate change could permanently doom the republican party out of its very existence if the fanatical politics supporting the junk science behind global warming remains unchallenged.

Dag-nabbit! Just when the political situation was looking good for the Global Warmongers, now everything (especially the weather) seems to have gone more than a little awry. Even the vanishing glaciers within the Arctic Circle and Greenland are in revolt, and rather than continuing to melt, they are actually beginning to get thicker again and are REFORMING. Meanwhile, Al Gore can't be located with a search warrant.

Seattle has just survived the most brutal winter storm in the last 30 years. The northwestern portion of the Lower 48 has suffered a worse winter onset than in Alaska.

But it was Mr. Gore himself who called attention to the heat waves of the late ‘90’s, as evidence to support his point of view.

But because of the trend back to global cooling, environmentalists cleverly have replaced the old slogans of “global warming” with the more flexible, "climate change" (as opposed to a "stationary climate"). Right? No? Well, what then, should we all be calling this new, weather non-phenomenon? How about 'bogus"?

And while we're on the subject, did anyone suspect that if you had voted for Barack Obama last November, you might as well have been pushing the lever for Gore, who recently said..."We must abandon coal, oil and nuclear energy and go all solar and windmill in 10 years--TEN YEARS?  And If Obama has his way, he'll continue to push the country in this same exact direction.

Gore and Obama are like ying and yang...they both believe in saving the planet from the unproven fallacy of global warming.  Switching to solar panels, windmills and biodiesel would be equivalent to going from the car and truck, back to the bicycle and kerosene lamp-- all for the concern about our non-existent threat from global "warming".

But many utilities and homeowners have decided to go green, and have religiously been trying to shrink their emissions of carbon dioxide (their 'carbon footprints') by installing solar panels, wind turbines and even generators powered by tides or rivers.

But their born-again environmentalism has also revealed the most unpleasant of surprises, because as the climate REALLY does change from summer to winter, so do the mechanisms of green energy, which can become loathsomely inefficient when the temperature drops below 32* Fahrenheit.

And for all the nice, concerned greenies who decided to do their part to save the planet from burning up, it remains a cold hard fact that in wintertime, wind turbine blades ice up, biodiesel congeals in tanks, and solar panels produce less power because there is not as much sun.

And perhaps most irritating to the people who own them, solar panels can become covered with snow, rendering them useless even in bright winter sunshine. And how about the people who thought it nettlesome to clean snow off an 18" satellite dish, as opposed to a ten-by-twenty foot solar array of panels next to their houses?

Like satellite TV dishes, solar panels are tilted 40 degrees or higher, but they still become covered with snow; and experts say that if even one lone cell in an entire panel is covered, it will not produce power.

Yes indeed; it takes a lot longer broom, and a lot more elbow grease to wipe 10" of snow from a 200 square-foot solar panel than for a little round Direct-TV dish. Can you imagine the first time this happens? "My-oh-my...Barack didn't warn me about this!" Or ..."That !**#*!* Obama, and his !!*#*%# global warming...I should have kept my gas furnace!"

And everyone knows the enchanting fun of a long, arduous bus ride, making frequent passenger stops. Now on top of that imagine being stalled in the middle of a freezing, 10* night on Interstate 70 in the Colorado mountains. The culprit was a 20 percent biodiesel blend that congealed in the extreme weather, according to the transit director for the bus line in distress. (Biodiesel is a diesel substitute, typically made from vegetable oil that is used to displace some fossil fuels.)

The passengers got out of that situation intact, but Summit Stage Bus Co., which serves ski resorts, now avoids biodiesel from November to March, and uses only a 5 percent blend in the summertime, when it can still get cold in the mountains.

Winter may pose even bigger safety hazards in the vicinity of wind turbines. Wind farm developers are NOW saying that "winter is probably the hardest time of year to maintain turbines". Some observers reveal the spinning machines can hurl javelin-like chunks of ice as they rotate faster during a gust. “It’s like you throw a plate out there and that plate breaks,” exclaimed a cattle rancher in southeast Wyoming, who has 69 wind turbines on his property. When his turbines ice up, he stays out of the way.

The wind industry admits that like a lamppost, or any tall structure, turbines can drop ice. And the whirling blades not only slaughter birds by the thousands, they tend to hurl icy projectiles far further than their owners had ever been warned about, until they found out the hard way. So are, "winter windmill deaths from hurling ice projectiles," about to became a new actuarial statistic in the insurance industry? Maybe Al Gore will help them all pay the new premiums-- he's made an estimated 120 million from all the hype he's generated about this so-called peril to the survival of the world.

But Admiral Obama refuses to be deterred; he has declared his intentions to sail the Ship of State into the green, oceanic haven of saving the earth, and rolling back the seas, before it's all 'too late': "We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years...this is a matter of urgency and national security... and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."

Obama claims "...this is a matter of urgency! It has to be dealt with in a serious way!" But is he really to be believed if utilities, corporations, small businessmen, and even individual homeowners keep finding out the hard way about global warming; and that their investments in green technology keep producing only weather-diminished returns? And as soon as the unwanted publicity becomes more of a political concern to Obama than an environmental one, our green-obsessed President-Elect may find himself in a very uncomfortable political hot-seat of his own making by re-election time in 2012.

In the early 1970's, concerns about air pollution from leaded gasoline gave birth to the Environmental Protection Agency, whose original intent was defined by its name. But perhaps no other government agency has ever done more to live up to the "Law of Unintended Consequences", as illustrated by the debacle in lower Manhattan Island, New York City, on Sept 11, 2001.

Initial groundbreaking for the World Trade Center began in 1966. And 35 years later, on September 18, 2001, the New York Times wrote about the irony of how the building plans were fatefully altered..."Anticipating an EPA ban on using asbestos in commercial construction in New York City, the builders stopped using the material by the time they reached the 38^th floor of the North Tower" (the first one to go up); and..."More than half of the original, asbestos-containing material was later replaced after the construction of the World Trade Center began".

In its design, the WTC's architects called for asbestos coating on the steel support beams. The coating's purpose was to delay heating of the beams in case of a fire, which would provide an estimated four hours for orderly evacuation and fire fighting, before the beams weakened to the point of structural collapse.

But after the EPA outlawed asbestos while the Center was under construction, the substitute that was used proved to be tragically inadequate. Engineers and architects alike were surprised when the towers collapsed so soon after terrorists had crashed the hijacked planes into both structures.

Were it not for the ban, the four hour window of an asbestos coating on the beams could have limited casualties to only those on the floors where the planes impacted. This is doubly unfortunate because it is a consequence of an illogical fear that proved to be calamitous.

This fear-mongering is characteristic of the EPA:, which since its inception over the years, has evolved into a bully pulpit of regulations backed by environmentalists and trial lawyers, who often ignore research data, and show no sense of proportion in trading one risk against another.

Ever since the initial EPA ban on asbestos, U.S. regulators have thrown scientific data out the window and banned all forms of the mineral, even though asbestos in the U.S. has not strongly been linked to health problems. But the chilling possibility will always endure that the Sept. 11, 2001 WTC building collapses may have been preventable had asbestos been used, which could have prevented the spread of fire to the upper floors.

Steel melts at 2,750* Fahrenheit, but it will start to bend and buckle at temperatures as low as 600 degrees if the fireproofing is inadequate. It is increasingly clear that disproportionate regulations at federal, state, and local levels, obviously cost a disastrous number of human lives on that September 11 day of infamy.

The irony remains that there is no evidence that anything was gained from the ban in terms of health benefits. The original concerns were that indoor air in the skyscrapers would be contaminated by circulating air passing over asbestos fireproofing. As a result, it was only used up to the thirty-eighth floor of the first WTC tower, and not at all in tower 2, with horrific results.

Asbestos has qualities that set it apart from any other material.  It is virtually indestructible. It has been used since the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and was prized for its heat-resistant properties. The history of asbestos is its reliability as an insulator and fire-stopper.

Before World War II, asbestos was widely used to insulate the boilers of steam locomotives, but otherwise it was not in widespread use until the 1940's. Untold numbers of American sailors' lives were saved during the war because of asbestos used in ship-building.

After World War II, the asbestos industry in the U.S. literally exploded.  According to estimates, over 100,000 schools and 700,000 public and commercial buildings used asbestos for insulation, decoration, and fireproofing. But once the EPA entered into the picture in the early 70's, the over-regulation concerning asbestos began to snowball.

In 1986, Congress passed the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), mandating that schools be considered as "high priority buildings", and all asbestos containing materials be identified and maintained in a condition so as to not present a health risk.

So after 1986, many well a well-constructed post-war school building was demolished unnecessarily because of AHERA, and cost many a states' taxpayers needlessly in the construction of sterile, new post-modern classrooms, that are testimony to the folly of asbestos scaremongering run amok across the nation.

Asbestos is not dangerous unless airborne. Thus the ACTUAL dangers historically have been largely limited to those who worked in the mines or at places that produced asbestos products. These workers were exposed to large amounts of airborne asbestos, and they brought the dust into their homes for their families to inhale or ingest in their food. 

But even if airborne, many studies of asbestos workers indicate that it takes much more than casual exposure to cause disease, even over periods as long as 15 to 30 years.  Asbestos doesn't radiate; so its mere existence in low levels is not automatically cause for alarm. If the asbestos is solid, the consensus is that there is no discernable risk to health

Over time, the rules and regulatory laws of the EPA can be compared to evolution of prescription drugs. Both have had unintended consequences, which are known as side effects. And the side effects of Clean Air Act of 1970 put new regulations in place that over the last 38 years, would see an unprecedented expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency's authority that impacted every corporation, small business, and eventually reached down to every individual U.S. household. So where will it all end?

In July, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency announced the 'Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking' (ANPR), which would regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This is likely the largest, most far-reaching regulation ever.

Regulating carbon dioxide means regulating 85% of the energy we use, which comes from sources that emit CO2. And regulating these sources of energy will increase prices to consumers (e.g. electricity and gasoline). This greatly reduces efficiency in the economy, leading to job losses and large reductions in economic growth.

But just like asbestos, allowing the EPA to move forward with this far-reaching regulation denies whether carbon dioxide actually DOES endanger human health. Obviously, the concept of regulating carbon dioxide could be the largest regulatory intrusion into Americans' personal lives-- a nightmare scenario.

How did air pollution regulations get this way? A number of analysts have shown that a complex, centrally controlled, and process-focused Clean Air Act serves the interests of environmental activists, federal and state regulators, and even many regulated businesses.

Environmental activists gain power, prestige, and increased funding in a centralized, coercive regulatory system, with many administrative decision points. This assures the continued need for large numbers of state and federal regulators, who wield massive and unconstitutional power over Americans' lives.

And with the ever-popular Barack Obama in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency after Jan. 21, the EPA would classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant, and use the Clean Air Act to curb emissions by power plants and manufacturers. Such a move could halt construction on as many as half of the 130 proposed new coal-fired power plants across the country.

These Stalinist-like, EPA-proposed decrees would require permits to 'emit' carbon dioxide from the majority of American small businesses, farms with more than 25 cows, and even large single-family homes, as well as schools, hospitals, and public buildings. So, according to the wisdom of EPA, 24 cows are okay, but if one were to become pregnant--LOOKOUT!

So look for the Obama administration to carry on the mantle of the EPA tradition--economic destruction under the liberal mantra of, "It's the right thing to do". 

Perhaps the EPA could be better described as the EDA (the Economic Destruction Agency). Over the past 38 years, they've become a natural predator to our economic development. And like the Sept.11 fiasco, EPA-generated regulations will continue to destroy untold amounts of wealth, generate unemployment, and bring  economic misery to Americans for years to come.

Big Brother is alive and well in the career ranks of the EPA. The radical environmentalists such as Greenpeace, Earth First, and the Sierra Club, have become the tail wagging the dog of the U.S. economy.

The original regulatory action of the EPA banned lead tetra-ethyl as a gasoline component for use as an octane booster. In banning the additive, the EPA performed an unprecedented amount of good in eradicating air pollution. But like the proverbial poker player, perhaps it would have been much better for America if the EPA had quit while they were ahead.