Don't pump gas on May 15th

In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest
of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight.

On May 15th 2007, we ask that all internet members not go to a gas
station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in a lot of places.

There are 9,000,000+ American members currently on all the internet
networks, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up.

If all internet user members did not go to the pump on the 15th, it
would take $2,700,000,000.00 (that's BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for
just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a
dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day.

If you agree (which I cant see why you wouldn't) repost this bulletin
repost it with 'Don't pump gas on May 15th'

For the record, I normally don't support or participate in this sort of thing, however, this just might work. I'm willing to give it a try.

Jim Chitty

I am a bad American

YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN by:
George Carlin

I Am Your Worst Nightmare. I am a BAD American. I am George Carlin.

I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some
mid-level governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican!

I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!

I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it makes you a smart
American.

I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does
not entitle you to anything.

I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, do it in English.

I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where
they want to.

My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and whoever canceled Jerry Springer.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.

I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing
about it.

I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I haven't burned any witches or
been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So, shut up already.

I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you
came from and change your own country! This is AMERICA.

I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. Can I get an AMEN on that one?

I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry rear if you're
running from them..

I also think they have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the
law, regardless of what color you are.

And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my drivers license. I think
it's good..... and I'm proud that "God" is written on my money.

I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you
deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for
the next four years.

I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me
stuff or trying to guilt me into making "donations" to their cause.

I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two
parents.

And what is going on with gas prices... again?

I believe "illegal" is illegal no matter what the lawyers think.

I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed in AMERICA!

If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American.

If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know.
We want our country back!

We NEED GOD BACK IN OUR COUNTRY!

NBC - Nothing But Cho

NBC stooped to new journalistic lows by airing the incoherent ramblings of a psycho after the Virginia Tech carnage. It was reported on radio that NBC showed the video footage recorded by Cho, more times than Cho pulled the trigger on April 16th. That's why I say that NBC stands for Nothing But Cho.

It's pathetic and sad that they think they actually have to stoop low enough to give this guy a platform after his death, in order to boost their ratings. Did they ever once think about the further pain this would inflict on the families and friends of those lost? Of course not. All they saw were ratings numbers and dollar signs.

I am currently in broadcasting school and am learning how to write news copy and what the purpose of broadcast media is. The FCC grants licenses to broadcast entities on the premise that their existence will serve the best interests of the public. And, while the events in Blacksburg on April 16th were certainly newsworthy, still decorum and decency should have factored into the decision. If it had been up to me, I would not have run the videos. NBC should not have run them either. Even some of the survivors said so.

I am not at all surprised that a liberal, mainstream media outlet would stoop to new lows in this regard. they don't care one bit about the open wounds of the survivors and families that they poured large quantities of salt in. NBC could go away tomorrow and I wouldn't care one bit. It might actually make TV a little more watchable. You can do what you want, but I am going to avoid watching NBC as much as possible. I am going to do my part to see that their hoped for ratings spike, turns into a colossal meltdown.

NBC deserve to fade into obscurity for this decision. If I was them, I wouldn't want my legacy or claim to fame to be that gave a crazed psycho a legacy and the opportunity inflict more pain and suffering on his victims AFTER HIS DEATH! Way to go NBC. Imbeciles is more like it.

Jim Chitty

Free gun zones, not gun-free zones

The Virginia Tech massacre serves to illustrate the irrelevance of gun-free zones. Do you really think the families of the 32 people killed are comforted by the fact the school was a gun-free zone? I doubt it.

Members of the school's gun club weren't even allowed to have their guns on campus. That makes about as much sense as telling the astronomy club that they can't have their telescopes on campus.

The gun-free zone did nothing but create a target rich environment for the deranged gunman. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. And the fish couldn't shoot back.

A member of the school's gun club said he wishes that he and other club members had had their guns with them that day. He said maybe they could have made a difference. I'm sure they could. I'm sure the death toll would have been a lot less. They might have even stopped the guy dead in his tracks, and I mean that literally.

How do we solve this, you ask? I'm glad you asked. We can stop it by turning gun-free zones into free-gun zones and giving every legal, sane, rational, law-abiding citizen who wants one, a gun. It can be solved by allowing those of us who would never misuse a gun, the ability to have that means of defense and protection on us at all times. No matter where we are.

That's what America needs, more free-gun zones, and fewer gun-free zones.

Jim Chitty

Gun control and the Virginia Tech Tragedy

Gun control laws would not have prevented the Virginia Tech shootings. Don’t believe me? Ask Iccho Ito, mayor of Nagasaki Japan, the city with the world's toughest anti-gun laws. Oh, my bad, you can't ask him because it appears he is unavailable for comment because he was shot and killed in his office earlier this week. Fat lot of good his tough gun laws did him. If anti-gun laws work, then someone please explain to me how a killer can get a gun in the city with the world's toughest gun laws??

The fact is, if a killer wants to get a gun bad enough, he'll get it. Law or no law. Someone who is willing and prepared to commit murder, which the last time I checked is still against the law, will not care one whit about any gun law.

Now, I am actually in favor of gun control. Real gun control. The kind that involves a good aim and a steady hand. A gun owner should be in control of his gun at all times. That’s real gun control. Real gun control means you hit what you’re aiming at.

Oh, and dare I even bring the Constitution into this? The second amendment guarantees all legal U.S. citizens the right to own guns. Our founding fathers were smart enough to know that an unarmed populous is a tyrants best friend. Anti-gun laws are unconstitutional. Plain and simple.

People still killed people back before there were guns. Cain didn't shoot Able, but Able is nevertheless just as dead. None of the wars or battles fought in Bible times were fought with guns and yet hundreds, even thousands were killed. The Bible also tells us that Samson killed the entire Philistine army with the jawbone of an ass. If the gun grabbers have their way, we may have to resort to these primitive methods of self-defense once again. Nowadays, you won't find the jawbone of an ass to use, mainly because Rosie O'Donnell, Alec Baldwin, & Al Sharpton are still using their jawbones.

My point is this, back then with all of this killing going on, there were no calls to ban ass jawbones, stones, swords, or whatever else was used to kill people back then. Even though they were not as technologically advanced as we are now, they were apparently smarter than we are from a common sense standpoint because they got it. The problem was the same back then as it is today. The problem today is not a gun problem, it's a people problem.

A gun is an inanimate object. It doesn't have a heart, soul, or mind. It does not possess the ability to choose good or evil. A gun by itself, independent of human involvement, has never killed anyone. It takes a person picking it up and squeezing the trigger. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. The gun is merely a tool. When someone is arrested and charged with murder, does the gun stand trial, or the person who used it?

The fact that these anti-gun types don’t want to recognize, the elephant in the corner if you will, is the fact that more people are killed in America each year by cars, than by guns. If it is truly about saving lives for these people as they claim, then they should call for all cars to be banned NOW! Sadly, the truth is it’s more about propping up an ill-conceived agenda than it is saving lives.

And, if it were appropriate to even think about banning cars like they want to do guns, then the dealers and individuals who sell the cars must be held accountable for the deaths they cause, just like gun dealers must be held accountable for the deaths the guns they sold have caused.

Both notions, by the way, are patently absurd and ridiculous. Someone who sells a gun is no more responsible for the deaths it may cause at the hands of a psycho than are car dealers for the deaths caused by a guy who gets drunk before driving and mows down a family of four.

One person, and one person alone is to blame for the Virginia Tech shootings, and it's not the gun dealer, it's not the NRA, it's not Dick Cheney, and it's not legal law-abiding gun owning citizens. It's the crazed madman who carried out the massacre. No one else. It figures that the gun grabbers would politicize such a horrific tragedy solely to forward their agenda.

They would do far more good praying for the families of those killed, for the injured, and for the survivors who witnessed it. But, since gun grabbers are usually liberals and most liberals detest and despise the notion that there might actually be a God to pray to, then we shouldn't be surprised that rather than pray, they politicize.

Jim Chitty

Use of the word "ho" banned until further notice

This just in:

Until further notice, use of the word "ho" in any form is forbidden in print or broadcast media without the prior approval of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. This means that stories of this weekend's death of singer Don Ho have to run without his last name as his name has not yet been approved by Sharpton and Jackson. Even Rush Limbaugh bleeped out his last name when talking about his death. Also, the names of many Asian-Americans contain the word "ho", such as Kim Ho, etc. These individuals are advised to change their names immediately so as to not offend anyone and to avoid lawsuits by the Revs Sharpton and Jackson.

This also effects Christmas as now Santa will have to say something like "Ha, Ha, Ha" or "He, He, He". Disney is having to edit "Snow White" to make the dwarfs sing something other than "hi, ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go". This is offensive to Sharpton and Jackson not only because of the word "ho" but also because there is the insinuation that the ho might be hi and might actually have a job. Oh the horror!

Lastly, it also effects gardening. The popular gardening tool will now have to be called something other than the "hoe". And construction workers can no longer use the term "backhoe" to describe a common tool of their trade because it might be misconstrued to sound like something else.

Jim Chitty

A closer look at Globalization

ISN'T IT AMAZING HOW TRUE THIS IS ?

INTERNATIONAL THINKING AT ITS BEST!


Question: What is the truest definition of Globalization?

Answer: Princess Diana's death.

Question: How come?

Answer: An English princess

with an Egyptian boyfriend

crashes in a French tunnel,

driving a German car

with a Dutch engine,

driven by a Belgian who was drunk

on Scottish whisky, (check the bottle before you change the spelling)

followed closely by Italian Paparazzi,

on Japanese motorcycles;

treated by an American doctor,

using Brazilian medicines.

This is sent to you by an American,

using Bill Gate's technology,

and you're probably reading this on your computer,

that use Taiwanese chips,

and a Korean monitor,

assembled by Bangladeshi workers

in a Singapore plant,

transported by Indian lorry-drivers,

hijacked by Indonesians,

unloaded by Sicilian longshoremen,

and trucked to you by Mexican illegals.....

That, my friends, is Globalization.

Thanks to my friend Centurion for emailing this to me. I thought it was worth sharing!

Jim Chitty

What's in a name??

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed all of the miscreants and misbehavors who are named Al? There's Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Al Franken, we had a politician in the Dallas area named Al Lipscomb, and then of course there is Al-Qaeda. Just a random thought. What's in a name??

Jim Chitty

Who got to Paul Harvey?

Is old age turning Paul Harvey into a bitter old crank, or did someone get to him? For a while now, he has been spewing some of the same anti-war, anti-America poisonous rhetoric that the troop haters in D.C. spew.

He keeps referring to it as "the un-winnable war" or the "ill-conceived, ill-advised war". He must have a low opinion of our troops if he actually thinks it is "un-winnable". The ill-advised and ill-conceived terms are straight out of the liberal talking points.

He says that we're wasting tax money on the war. Supplying our troops with the materials, weaponry, and other things they need to for their protection is not a waste of money. Maybe ABC Radio is wasting their money paying Mr. Harvey's salary at this point

If the unpatriotic troop-hating Democrats in Washington get their way and the troops are pulled out, then it will be un-winnable. Winners never quit, and quitters never win. Our troops are not quitters, but it appears that our politicians are.

Not quitting and continuing in the war may not ensure victory, but quitting will ensure defeat. I thought all these years that Paul Harvey was smart enough to know this. Someone either got to him, or Alzheimers has set in.

I would have never thought of Paul Harvey as a flaming liberal, supporter of terrorism, and an advocate of defeat. Sadly, it appears that is what he has become.

I had hoped that in his later years he would maintain the greatness and integrity he has displayed for six decades. It looks instead like he is headed for obscurity and irrelevance.

What a waste of such immense talent. And that's the rest of this sad story.

Jim Chitty

Don Imus, or Al Sharpton. Will the REAL racist please stand up?

Let me first say that I can't stress enough how inappropriate, ill-advised, and outright stupid Don Anus', I mean Imus' comments were. That being said we must face the fact that his poor attempt at humor is vastly different from the deep seated bigotry and hatred like the kind that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackass, I mean Jackson, traffic in.

Webster's defines a racism as; 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination. This describes Sharpton and Jackson to a “t”. These two have demonstrated time and time again that they hold white folks in low regard simply because they are white. That is the epitome of racism. But blacks can’t be racists, can they? You bet they can, and Jackson and Sharpton are leaders of that movement.

If you’ll remember back to 1984 during Jackson’s ill-fated run for president, he referred to New York City as “Jaimetown”, an obvious racial slur towards the Jewish. The word “Jaime” carries the same weight of offense to Jewish people as the “n” word does to blacks. Yet Jackson can use this epithet willfully and purposely, insincerely apologize weeks later, and go on with his life and career as if nothing happened, and not be thought of as a racist?

Don Imus makes a poor attempt at humor meaning no hurt by it, apologizes publicly, and somehow that’s not good enough for Jackson and Sharpton. They want Imus fired and his head on a platter. Don’t even get me started on how Sharpton lied about the whole Tawanna Brawley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley) incident which caused countless lives to be ruined because of his false, racist accusations.

I am not defending Imus’ remarks. He doesn’t need or deserve to be defended. He should not have said what he said. End of story as far as Imus is concerned. Jackson and Sharpton do not deserve to be given the mantle of harbingers of all that is good and right and the ones from and through whom Imus must receive his absolution and/or forgiveness either. They are the last people who should carry that mantle. Both of these men carry, and proudly flaunt, the title of Reverend. God help their congregations. Their brand of hate-filled rhetoric and bigotry isn’t anywhere near Christ-like or reverent.

Jackson and Sharpton’s comments on the Imus matter are a clear cut example of the pot calling the kettle black. However, in the world of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, if the pot actually did call the kettle black, the pot would be called an evil racist. Unless of course the pot was also black. Then it would be okay.

Jim Chitty

He may be a Republican, but he’s no Conservative

Rudy Giuliani said in a recent interview that abortion is constitutional right & as such a lack of funds should not prevent a woman for pursuing her right. Therefore, in that case, he thinks government should fund abortions.

The Constitution guarantees my right to own a gun if I so choose. Using Rudy's logic then, if I can’t afford a gun yet have the constitutional right to one, the government should provide one for me, right?

The problem here is that this wanna be president and wanna be Conservative is dead wrong about abortion being constitutionally guaranteed. I guess he's never read the part that guarantees "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Clearly the Constitution guarantees the right to life, not the right to an abortion.

The question is, do true conservatives really want a pretender as our nominee?? For my part, the answer is no! Rudy is not a conservative. He may be running as a Republican, but he's not a conservative. I don't care how much he and others want to call him one. Just like coming home, parking yourself in your garage, and calling yourself a car doesn't make you one.

We don’t need to settle for less than a true Conservative, in all areas. That would not bode well for the future of the Republican party or for Conservatism in general. The candidate who stands the best chance of beating Hitlery, or Obama bin Laden, or whoever the left offers up, is not liberal in conservative clothing. Early polls do seem to show Rudy thoroughly spanking both Clinton and Obama, but I think that’s largely because conservatives don’t think they have a better choice right now.

And, in thinking that, they would be wrong. There are some down ballot candidates that would be far better than Rudy from the standpoint of true conservatism. Duncan Hunter would be a good one I’m sure. The only problem there is, most people respond “Duncan Who?” Then there’s Tom Tancredo. Another name few people have heard of.

Mitt Romney is a recent convert to conservatism on many of his views, and honestly I wonder if it’s sincere, or just a ploy to get elected. He does seem to be strong on family values having been married to the same woman, or since he’s a Mormon should I say women (just kidding), for 37 years. And actually, his Mormonism is an issue for some. Truthfully, I am not sure how comfortable I am with it.

Then there are the ones still toying with the idea of running, Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson. Newt’s credentials don’t need any elaboration or clarification and he would be a fine choice and make a good president. Many think he is too polarizing and divisive. And Hillary isn’t?? Please!

Then there is Fred Thompson. He is my personal favorite. He seems to be a true conservative in every since of the word. Sure, he’s an actor and not a career politician. How exactly is that a bad thing?? Seems to me like the last time we had actor that ran for president, he got elected and America was very well served by it. Maybe it’s time to do it again.

Rudy is not my candidate of choice and will not be getting my vote in the primary. If the so-called leaders of the GOP misguidedly make him the nominee, then I guess I'll just have to write in Fred Thompson. Now there's a candidate worthy of being called a Conservative & worthy of the Reagan mantle. I won’t settle for less than the very best when casting my vote, and neither should anyone else. Doing so will not only hurt our party, but our nation as well in the long run.

Jim Chitty

What is so good about Good Friday?

The Friday before Easter is commonly known as "Good Friday". It is the time when Christians commemorate the death of Jesus on the cross. And of course Easter is the time Christians celebrate Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Did this really happen? And what is so "good" about someone dying anyway? We typically mourn people's deaths. So, what gives here?

I'll tell you what gives here, only the most miraculous, selfless, and loving act anyone could commit. The fact is Jesus did die on a cross. He died in our place as a sacrifice for our sins. Without Jesus' death on the cross there would be no salvation. We have all sinned, and we all need salvation. God loved us enough that He sent Jesus to take our place on the cross, so that by our acceptance of His redemptive act, we could spend eternity in Heaven.

Yes, Jesus really did rise from the dead. God raised Him up and Jesus ascended up to Heaven to prepare a place for those of us who choose to accept Him as our Lord and Savior. Then the Spirit of Christ, a.k.a. the Holy Spirit came so that through Him we might have access to all of the power of God's kingdom. Wow! Pretty amazing. And here in America, supposedly a Christian nation, all this time we thought Easter was about some silly little rabbit with colored eggs. How did we get so far off base? Could it be because of the efforts made to totally remove all mention of God from our schools and society at large? Just a thought.

Regardless of what the politically correct (actually the morally and spiritually bankrupt) say Easter is about Jesus and nothing else. Think about it!!

Have a great Easter!!!

Jim Chitty

Southern Exposure - By Fred Thompson

We are all very well aware of the fact that we have an illegal-immigration problem in this country. As usual, we avoided the problem for as long as we could and when we couldn’t avoid it any longer we were told that, indeed, somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed.

It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It’s become one of those “there are no good choices only less bad choices” that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.

We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we’ve got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it — the president of Mexico Philipe Calderon. President Calderon doesn’t think much of our border policies. He criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He says that bottle necks at U.S. checkpoints hurt Mexican commerce and force his citizens to migrate illegally in order to make a living (and of course send money back to Mexico). He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents. Calderon also accused U.S. officials of failing to do enough to stop the flow of drugs in to the United States. Mexican politicians gave President Bush an earful of all of this during his recent trip to Mexico.

I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like:

Hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created.

My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?

— Fred Thompson is an actor, a possible candidate for President in 2008, and former United States senator from Tennessee.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhkYzZiNTAxZjAyZTNjNzkxNjA2ZTNmNDBhNjhlYWU=

Global Warming Heresy - by Walter E. Williams

Most climatologists agree that the earth's temperature has increased about a degree over the last century. The debate is how much of it is due to mankind's activity. Britain's Channel 4 television has just produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a documentary that devastates most of the claims made by the environmentalist movement. The scientists interviewed include top climatologists from MIT and other prestigious universities around the world. The documentary hasn't aired in the U.S., but it's available on the Internet. Among the many findings that dispute environmentalists' claims are: Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. Contrary to environmentalists' claims, the higher the Earth's temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change. Some of the documentary's scientists argue that the greatest influence on the Earth's temperature is our sun's sunspot activity. The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore testifies before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on global warming, on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 21, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES) Throughout the Earth's billions of years there have been countless periods of global warming and cooling. In fact, in the year 1,000 A.D., a time when there were no SUVs, the Earth's climate was much warmer than it is now. Most of this century's warming occurred before 1940. For several decades after WWII, when there was massive worldwide industrialization, there was cooling. There's a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That's the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view. According to a March 11 article in London's Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges." Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system." Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. Today's version of yesteryear's inquisitors include people like the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen, who advocates that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming. Columnist Dave Roberts, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg." There are literally billions of taxpayer dollars being handed out to global warming alarmists, not to mention their dream of controlling our lives. Their agenda is threatened by dissent. They have the politician's ear; not we, who will suffer if they have their way.

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/03/28/global_warming_heresy