Republicans appear positioned for strong results in three hard-fought elections Tuesday. But isolated, off-year contests aren't always reliable indicators of what will happen in the wider federal and state races held in even-numbered years.

Democrats and Republicans are jostling to glean messages from voters in a race for a U.S. House seat in far northern New York, as well as from contests for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. Republicans, increasingly optimistic, say the contests foreshadow trouble for President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party's ambitious agenda heading toward the 2010 congressional elections.

"We will be looking very closely at the results in these three races and reminding Democrats of the message they send about the agenda that they are forcing on American taxpayers," said Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which coordinates GOP House races.

For the third straight month, the number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats inched up while the number of Republicans fell slightly.

The race in New York’s 23rd Congressional District highlights the concerns many Republican voters have about their party leaders. At a time when 73% of Republicans believe their party's representatives in Congress have lost touch with the GOP base, 11 county leaders in upstate New York picked a nominee for Congress who supported the Democratic president’s stimulus package, his health care reform plan and “card check” legislation designed to make union organizing easier.

All three items are overwhelmingly opposed by Republican voters - and even by Republicans in Congress. The decision by county GOP leaders to nominate such a candidate seemed almost designed to provoke the party’s core voters, and it did.

A Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, entered the fray and picked up endorsements from many leading national Republicans.

Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, urged voters to stick with the party’s official nominee. He said a decision by local party leaders was good enough for him, but most Republican voters don’t have such confidence in the party leadership.

President Obama told an audience at a Democratic Party fundraiser Wednesday night that Republicans often “do what they’re told,” but GOP voters don’t think their legislators listen enough to them.

Just 15% of Republicans who plan to vote in 2012 state primaries say the party’s representatives in Congress have done a good job of representing Republican values.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 73% think Republicans in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters from throughout the nation. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided. These numbers are basically unchanged from a survey in late April.

Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday compared the power of Iran's enemies to a "mosquito," saying Iran now deals with the West over its nuclear activities from a position of power. The comment from Ahmadinejad came as Iran is negotiating with the West over a U.N.-backed proposal to ship its uranium abroad for further enrichment....

"While enemies have used all their capacities ... the Iranian nation is standing powerfully and they are like a mosquito," a government Web site quoted Ahmadinejad early Sunday as saying.

Ahmadinejad also said Iran doesn't trust the West when it sits for talks. "Given the negative record of Western powers, the Iranian government ... looks at the talks with no trust. But realities dictate to them to interact with the Iranian nation," he said according to the site.

In a sharp rebuke to climate alarmists who believe human-generated carbon dioxide is responsible for causing catastrophic global warming, a Russian scientist has issued what amounts to a news flash announcing, "Sun Heats Earth!" Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, has published a paper in which he tracks sunspot activity going back to the 19th century to argue that total sun irradiance, or TSI, is the primary factor responsible for causing climate variations on Earth, not carbon dioxide.

Moreover, Abdussamatov's analysis of sun activity data has led him to conclude that the Earth is entering a prolonged cooling phase because sunspot activity is currently in a phase regarded as a "minimum." "Observations of the sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is 'not guilty,'" Abdussamatov wrote, "and as for what lies ahead in the coming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged temperature drop." Abdussamatov's paper is featured on page 140 of a report issued this year by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, documenting more than 700 scientists who disagree over the proposition that global warming is a man-made, or anthropogenic phenomenon.

Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week.

This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA. ...Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, lamented the current fears over global warming.

“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best,” Austin told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009. ‘Could turn the climate change world upside down’

The rise in skeptical scientists are responding not only to an increase in dire “predictions” of climate change, but also a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and inconvenient developments have further cast doubts on the claims of man-made global warming fear activists. The latest peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters is being touted as a development that “could turn the climate change world upside down.” The study finds that the “Earth is undergoing natural climate shift.”

The March 15, 2009 article in WISN.com details the research of Dr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “We realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said. “I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing,” he added.

Next Thursday marks the first anniversary of one of the most remarkable events ever to take place in the House of Commons. For six hours MPs debated what was far and away the most expensive piece of legislation ever put before Parliament. The Climate Change Bill laid down that, by 2050, the British people must cut their emissions of carbon dioxide by well over 80 per cent. Short of some unimaginable technological revolution, such a target could not possibly be achieved without shutting down almost the whole of our industrialised economy, changing our way of life out of recognition.[emphasis added]

More and more eminent scientists have been coming out of the woodwork to suggest that the IPCC, with its computer models, had got it all wrong. It isn't CO? that has been driving the climate, the changes are natural, driven by the activity of the sun and changes in the currents of the world's oceans. The ice caps haven't been melting as the alarmists and the models predicted they should. The Antarctic, containing nearly 90 per cent of all the ice in the world, has actually been cooling over the past 30 years, not warming. The polar bears are not drowning – there are four times more of them now than there were 40 years ago. In recent decades, the number of hurricanes and droughts have gone markedly down, not up. As the world has already been through two of its coldest winters for decades, with all the signs that we may now be entering a third, the scientific case for CO? threatening the world with warming has been crumbling away on an astonishing scale. Yet it is at just this point that the world's politicians, led by Britain, the EU and now President Obama, are poised to impose on us far and away the most costly set of measures that any group of politicians has ever proposed in the history of the world – measures so destructive that even if only half of them were implemented, they would take us back to the dark ages. We have "less than 50 days" to save the planet, declared Gordon Brown last week, in yet another desperate bid to save the successor to the Kyoto treaty, which is due to be agreed in Copenhagen in six weeks' time. But no one has put the reality of the situation more succinctly than Prof Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technolgy, one of the most distinguished climatologists in the world, who has done as much as anyone in the past 20 years to expose the emptiness of the IPCC's claim that its reports represent a "consensus" of the views of "the world's top climate scientists". In words quoted on the cover of my new book, Prof Lindzen wrote: "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age." Such is the truly extraordinary position in which we find ourselves. Thanks to misreading the significance of a brief period of rising temperatures at the end of the 20th century, the Western world (but not India or China) is now contemplating measures that add up to the most expensive economic suicide note ever written.

Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian; Robert Baer a former CIA field officer. Both have studied the Middle East for decades, traveled to the area repeatedly in recent years and written about the region extensively. And both have become convinced that we may be facing a cataclysm. Hanson and Baer each presented his analysis during an interview this past week. Although they differ on certain matters, they agree on five observations.

The first: If not already capable of doing so, Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons in mere months.

The second observation: The Iranians have no interest in running a bluff. Once able to produce nuclear weapons, they will almost certainly do so.

The third observation: As the Iranians scramble to produce nuclear weapons, the Obama administration appears too feckless, inexperienced or deluded to stop them.

The fourth observation: Israel cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.

The final observation: Iran would retaliate. "Iran's deterrent doctrine is to strike back everywhere it can,"

Baer explained. "We should expect the worst." Iran would attack American supply lines in Iraq and command Hezbollah to start a civil war in Lebanon. It would fire surface-to-surface missiles at every oil facility within range, wreaking devastation in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states while removing millions of barrels of oil a day from the world markets. The economy of the entire globe would suffer a paroxysm. The Middle East could descend into chaos. The U.S. would experience the worst crisis in decades.

After the assassination 95 years ago of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the great powers of Europe engaged in meaningless diplomatic maneuvers. "Austria has sent a bullying and humiliating ultimatum to Serbia, who cannot possibly comply with it," British Prime Minister Herbert Asquith confided in a letter. "[W]e are in measurable, or at least imaginable, distance of a real Armageddon."

A big nation attempting to humiliate a small nation in a way the small nation simply cannot accept. Unseriousness among great powers. A gathering sense of impending catastrophe. Once again, it may be Armageddon time.

It has received far less notice than it deserves, but last week the United States joined with Egypt in sponsoring a resolution appoved by the UN Human Rights Council that could blow a gaping hole in the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and other civil liberties most of us take for granted. The resolution encourages member nations to define as criminal "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

Who defines what constitutes "national, racial or religious hatred?" Why, the government, of course. Who decides whether any given statement "constitutes incitement?" You guessed it.

In other words, if you live in a country that adopts this approach to freedom of speech, be very careful what you say about any other nation, racial group or religious faith. And you better not make anybody in power mad because you would be amazed what can be construed by governments as "incitement" to "hatred."

If you are an American with the notion that the First Amendment will protect your right to say whatever you want whenever you want about whomever you want, be advised that this resolution embodies exactly the conceptual assumptions about law and rights that lead directly to those speech codes that restrict civil liberties on hundreds of U.S. college campuses at this very moment....

In other words, bunky, if you think the First Amendment will protect you from Obama and the UN, you're still living in the 18th Century when people believed individual rights were theirs simply by virtue of being born under the U.S. Constitution, not as a dispensation of those in power.

The UN resolution is quite literally medieval.

Consider the provision of Westminster I in 1275 under King Edward I in England (If you saw "Braveheart," you will recognize him as the hated Longshanks. Trust me, he was every bit as bad as Randall Wallace's wonderful screenplay made him).

Westminster I banned the telling of "tales whereby discord or occasion of discord or slander my grow between the King and his people, or the great men of the realm." And who defined what tales tended to sow discord? Why, the King and great men of the realm, of course.

But Westminster I was no Longshankian exception to the rule in mediavel England. Roll forward several centuries and we find Henry VIII, he of the many wives. Nobody could print a book without Henry's permission. A law passed in 1542 proclaimed that "nothing shall be taught or mainained contrary to the King's instructions" concerning the Bible or other religious matters. Violate that law three times and you went to the stake to be burned to death.

A century later, a 1662 statute provided the death penalty for those selling "heretical, schimatical, blasphemous, seditious and trasonable books, pamphlets and papers." Why? Because such publications allegedly were "endangering the peace of these kingdoms and raising a disaffection to his most excellent Majesty and his government."

That is the essential legal background from England that helped spark the English Reformation and ultimately led to the adoption of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

Why on earth would anybody want to go back to that barbaric world in which you could lose your head for saying the wrong thing?

If you are interested in learning more about the bloody history that came before the First Amendment, see former University of Texas journalism professor Marvin Olasky's "Telling the Truth" and the chapter on "a great cloud of witnesses."

An apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said religious freedom is being threatened by societal forces intimidating those with religious points of view from having a voice in the public square. [emphasis added] (See the full text of the speech here)

Elder Dallin H. Oaks made the comments today in a major address to Brigham Young University-Idaho students on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Elder Oaks has had a front-row seat in observing what he calls the “significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion” in public life. Prior to his appointment to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Oaks had an illustrious law career. He served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court, was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School and clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told high school students in May 2009 that one of her favorite political philosophers was Mao Tse Tung, the Communist dictator responsible for the death of millions of people, and she explained why his philosophy was important for achieving personal and political goals.

When questioned last week after a video of her speech surfaced, however, Dunn said she was using “irony” in reference to Mao.

A leading expert on China told CNSNews.com that Dunn’s remarks were “pathetic,” given the human rights atrocities committed under Mao’s reign.

The Obama administration on Friday tapped a Wall Street executive to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission's charge against investor fraud in the wake of the Bernie Madoff scandal as it pushed anew for a regulatory overhaul to protect Americans from financial sector shenanigans.

The SEC announced Adam Storch, vice president of Goldman Sachs' Business Intelligence Group, is assuming the new position of managing executive of the its enforcement division, created earlier this year.

"SEC names Goldman Sachs exec to enforcement post - you can't make it up," quipped Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, on Twitter, the popular social-networking Web site.

President Obama recently shifted authority for approving sales to China of missile and space technology from the White House to the Commerce Department -- a move critics say will loosen export controls and potentially benefit Chinese missile development.

The president issued a little-noticed "presidential determination" Sept. 29 that delegated authority for determining whether missile and space exports should be approved for China to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.

Commerce officials say the shift will not cause controls to be loosened in regards to the export of missile and space technology.

Eugene Cottilli, a spokesman for Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security, said under new policy the U.S. government will rigorously monitor all sensitive exports to China.

The presidential notice alters a key provision of the 1999 Defense Authorization Act that required that the president notify Congress whether a transfer of missile and space technology to China would harm the U.S. space-launch industry or help China's missile programs.

The law was passed after a late-1990s scandal involving the U.S. companies Space Systems/Loral and Hughes Electronics Corp. Both companies improperly shared technology with China and were fined $20 million and $32 million, respectively, by the State Department after a U.S. government investigation concluded that their know-how was used to improve China's long-range nuclear missiles.

Section 1512 of the 1999 law requires the president to certify to Congress in advance of any missile equipment or technology exports to China that the export will not harm the U.S. space-launch industry and that "missile equipment or technology, including any indirect technical benefit that could be derived from such export, will not measurably improve the missile or space launch capabilities of the People's Republic of China."

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

The National Weather Service predicted freezing temperatures and snow flurries both Saturday and Sunday for most of Eastern Montana.

Meanwhile, temperatures in parts of western Montana were near zero overnight and record lows were set in Missoula, Kalispell and Butte on Sunday. With chilly temperatures expected to sweep across the state over the weekend, school marching bands were pulled from the University of Montana's homecoming parade Saturday under threat of frigid weather.

Record-low temperatures in southwestern Idaho are threatening to destroy at least a portion of this season's crop of seed potatoes.

Spuds still in the ground could be saved by a layer of snow; a dusting had fallen on Bozeman and the surrounding region by Sunday.

Nina Zydak, director of the Montana State University Potato Lab, said most area farmers have already started digging. But many farmers expect to lose some of their potatoes.

Former Vice President Al Gore shared his optimism about the "shifting momentum" of the climate change debate with about 500 environmental journalists Friday in Madison. "We're very close to that political tipping point," Gore said at the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference at the Madison Concourse Hotel.

"His optimism isn't shared by a lot of other folks," said Tim Wheeler, an environmental reporter for the Baltimore Sun. Gore may have been trying to push politicians to action, Wheeler added.

Conservative groups led by Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow and Americans for Prosperity held a demonstration Downtown that drew about 200 people, including U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Menomonee Falls, who also participated in the conference's panel discussion following Gore's speech.

The demonstrators worried Gore's policies would push American jobs overseas.

Gore has been criticized for not publicly debating his position since the release of his 2006 Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

In what organizers said was a rarity, Gore took half a dozen questions from journalists, including one from Phelim McAleer, an Irish filmmaker who asked Gore to address nine errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007.

Gore responded that the court ruling supported the showing of his film in British schools.

When McAleer tried to debate further, his microphone was cut off by the moderators.

The White House says President Barack Obama was woken up a little before 6 a.m. with the news that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize.
 
Press secretary Robert Gibbs learned from reporters that Obama had won the 2009 prize, and telephoned the White House early Friday to pass along the news to his boss.  The president plans to talk about his award at 10:30 a.m. Friday in the Rose Garden.

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation....

During the press conference to announce the winner, there were gasps in the room when Obama's name was mentioned in Norwegian. Moments later, the announcement was made again but in English.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Price to President Barack Obama landed with a shock on darkened, still-asleep Washington. He won! For what? For one of America's youngest presidents, in office less than nine months — and only for 12 days before the Nobel nomination deadline last February — it was an enormous honor.[emphasis added]

The prize seems to be more for Obama's promise than for his performance. Work on the president's ambitious agenda, both at home and abroad, is barely underway, much less finished. He has no standout moment of victory that would seem to warrant a verdict as sweeping as that issued by the Nobel committee.

And what about peace? Obama is running two wars in the Muslim world — in Iraq and Afghanistan — and can't get a climate change bill through his own Congress.

Critics -- some in parts of the Arab and Muslim world -- called the committee decision premature.

The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, so early in his presidency, is bound to reignite criticism of the workings of the Nobel committee.

The deadline for nominations for the prize was Feb. 1 -- two weeks after Mr. Obama was inaugurated.

"So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far," former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, said Friday.

When all the nominations are in, the committee draws up a short list of between five and 20 candidates which are then considered by the Nobel Institute's director and research director and a group of Norwegian university professors.

Their reports on the candidates are then discussed by the five-member prize committee. Members, all of whom are former or serving deputies of the Storting, the Norwegian parliament, seek to reach a unanimous decision -- normally by mid-September -- but this has sometimes proved impossible and the choice is then made by a simple majority vote.

Some have criticized the selection procedure as untransparent. The committee never announces the names of nominees and information about candidacies is only made public 50 years after the decision. "It is all done in secret, you don't know what is happening and whoever sits on that panel is very susceptible to the tides of the moment," said Philip Towle, an academic from the department of politics and international studies at the University of Cambridge.

Even in Norway, where Mr. Obama enjoys huge popularity, the decision raised eyebrows among some. "It is just too soon," said Siv Jensen, leader of Norway's main opposition party, the Progress Party. "It is wrong to give him the peace prize for his ambition. You should receive it for results." She said that the decision to bestow the award on the president was the most controversial she could remember and was one of a number that had moved the prize further away from the ideals of Alfred Nobel.

When Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus proposed taxing medical devices to raise $40 billion over the next 10 years for his health care plan, opponents started digging in and looking at what would be taxed. It turned out feminine products, like tampons, were classified as class I medical devices and thus, the “tampon tax” was born.

The backlash was quick and severe enough against the idea that the committee quickly drafted new language that would exempt those necessities from the tax, along with all other class I devices, like tongue depressors, and decided to only tax class II medical devices and higher that cost less than $100.

But, just wait for the revolt to start again because women will still pay a price under the new structure. Particularly new moms who want to use a powered breast pump to bottle milk for their babies. Those devices, labeled class II, typically retails for more than $100. And, all the rest of the more expensive, higher-class medical devices used by both men an women -- such as pacemakers, ventilators, X-ray machines, powered wheelchairs and surgical needles -- will be taxed, too.

Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman, Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cos I’m the Taxman, Yeah yeah, I’m the Taxman.

If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat,
If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman.
‘Cos I’m the Taxman, Yeah, I’m the Taxman.

Don’t ask me what I want it for
If you don’t want to pay some more
‘Cos I’m the Taxman, Yeeeah, I’m the Taxman.

Now my advice for those who die, (Taxman!)
Declare the pennies on your eyes, (Taxman!)
‘Cos I’m the Taxman, Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
And you’re working for no-one but me,
Taxman.
[Yeah, I know...I took the liberty of deleting the names of the Brit's party leaders in the mid-60's. So what. It dessn't change the point.]

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid. In an apparent rebuke to the commander, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, said: "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately."

The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama is not considering a strategy for Afghanistan that would withdraw U.S. troops from the eroding war there. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that walking away isn't a viable option to deal with a war that is about to enter its ninth year. "I don't think we have the option to leave. That's quite clear," Gibbs said.

The Taliban has the momentum in Afghanistan now because of the inability of the United States and its allies to put enough troops into the country, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Monday.

In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar. Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.

The Americans, who are aware the meetings have taken place – although they have not discovered the details – are sure to fight this international cabal which will include hitherto loyal allies Japan and the Gulf Arabs. Against the background to these currency meetings, Sun Bigan, China's former special envoy to the Middle East, has warned there is a risk of deepening divisions between China and the US over influence and oil in the Middle East. "Bilateral quarrels and clashes are unavoidable," he told the Asia and Africa Review. "We cannot lower vigilance against hostility in the Middle East over energy interests and security."

This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil...

S. Dakota senator points to Nev. election

The Republican who ousted the Democratic leader of the Senate in 2004 says Harry Reid finds himself in a similar predicament of representing a conservative-leaning state but leading a liberal party. Sen. John Thune made Senate history when he unseated Sen. Tom Daschle by exploiting the gap between Mr. Daschle's interests in Washington and those of his home state of South Dakota.

That's exactly where Mr. Reid, the Senate majority leader, is now, he said. "In the case of Senator Daschle, he was leading a left-of-center caucus and representing a right-of-center state — it was very difficult to reconcile those two," Mr. Thune told The Washington Times. "I know that Senator Reid will work very hard over the course of the next several months to convince his voters in Nevada that he's still very connected to them and in touch, but I think that the perception that he's got to overcome is that he is leading a left-of-center caucus in Washington that's trying to do all these things with which they disagree."

Mr. Thune, a former three-term House member, has earned a reputation as a rising GOP star among the upper chamber. The affable Midwesterner has been a fierce critic of government spending throughout President Obama's first term — during the debate over the stimulus bill, he routinely noted that one could spend $1 million each day since the birth of Jesus and still not match the plan's $787 billion price tag.

He's also taken the lead on gun rights, and says Second Amendment supporters remain a powerful force despite not winning every vote. In June, Mr. Thune forced several Democrats to take a tough vote on a measure that would have required states to honor the concealed weapons licenses of out-of-state citizens, who would then be subject to the conceal-carry laws of the state in which they were traveling.

Mr. Thune's amendment, which he tried to attach to the defense authorization bill, garnered 58 votes — two shy of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate for contentious legislation. The vote was a rare loss for the gun rights lobby, which earlier in the year had a significant win with Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn's amendment allowing guns in some national parks.

"The issue I decided to take on was clearly the most controversial of all. It energized people on both sides of the Second Amendment debate, but I think that to say that you got 58 votes in the Senate — that somehow [the gun rights] movement is losing steam is just not reflective of reality," said Mr. Thune, noting that he lost two Republicans but picked up the votes of 20 Democrats.

As the new head of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, Mr. Thune — who replaced Nevada Sen. John Ensign after Mr. Ensign disclosed an extramarital affair — hosts the party's weekly policy lunch and helps shape the GOP legislative agenda. Though members of the conference may disagree in certain areas, he said it's better for Republicans to have a wide tent that includes moderates who will vote with the party on core issues.

"It's a question of whether you want to be an ideologically pure minority or a government majority. I think that you know you're going to have places in the country where a Republican in Maine isn't going to be the same as a Republican in Oklahoma; that's just the way it is," he said. "If you want to set the agenda, if you want to be the party that's actually leading the country, you're going to have to recognize that you're going to have to have a party that includes a lot of people that you may not agree with on every issue."

Mr. Thune, a native of Murdo, S.D., a small town in the central part of the state, said one of his early political lessons came during an appearance he made at a St. Patrick's Day parade. An avid supporter of the Green Bay Packers, he sported a team sweatshirt at the event, underestimating the passions of a constituency dominated by Minnesota Vikings fans.

"It was bizarre. People were screaming stuff at me and it was just — never again," he said. "I probably lost a thousand votes doing that."

The government is considering a plan that could help the environment, but some say it could also hurt your budget.

The Environmental Protection Agency wants to require large industrial facilities to get more permits if they emit more greenhouse gases. The plan targets power plants, refineries, even ethanol plants.

The EPA's proposal would cap greenhouse gas emissions at 25 thousand tons of carbon dioxide a year. The EPA says it would mean a healthier environment, economy, and future for America. But some Republicans including Senator John Thune disagree.

The Chief's recommendation:

Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, which is considering President Obama's health insurance reform plan, has voted down an amendment which provides that "no tax, fee or penalty imposed by this legislation shall be applied to any individual earning less than $200,000 per year or any couple earning less than $250,000 per year.” [emphasis added]

You might recall that President Obama promised no tax increases whatsoever, of any kind, on earners making less than those amounts. But don't bet on him to veto this bill.

The committee vote on the amendment, proposed by Republicans Mike Crapo (Idaho) and Pat Roberts (Kan.), was 11 in favor, and 12 against. All Republicans and one Democrat voted in favor of the amendment. All 12 opposed were Democrats.

Employee misconduct investigations, often involving workers accessing pornography from their government computers, grew sixfold last year inside the taxpayer-funded foundation that doles out billions of dollars of scientific research grants, according to budget documents and other records obtained by The Washington Times.

For instance, one senior executive spent at least 331 days looking at pornography on his government computer and chatting online with nude or partially clad women without being detected, the records show.

When finally caught, the NSF official retired. He even offered, among other explanations, a humanitarian defense, suggesting that he frequented the porn sites to provide a living to the poor overseas women. Investigators put the cost to taxpayers of the senior official's porn surfing at between $13,800 and about $58,000.

"He explained that these young women are from poor countries and need to make money to help their parents and this site helps them do that," investigators wrote in a memo.

State and local governments are raising taxes and inventing new ones as they scramble to balance their budgets even as the nation's economy begins to emerge from the deepest recession in seven decades. State budgets typically take a year or two to reflect improvements in the national economy, the National Association of State Budget Officers and the National Governors Association explained in its latest fiscal survey of states.

The report warned that "state fiscal conditions will remain weak in fiscal 2010 and likely into fiscal years 2011 and 2012." So, brace yourselves for a deluge of nuisance taxes, sin taxes and "fees," limited only by the imagination of revenue-starved governors, mayors and legislators.

President Obama's diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to "step down" in favor of minorities, prescribed policies to make liberal talk radio more successful, and described Hugo Chavez's rise to power in Venezuela "an incredible revolution."

Mark Lloyd's provocative comments - most made during a tenure at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank - are giving fodder to critics who say Mr. Obama has appointed too many "czars" to government positions that don't require congressional approval.

They are also worrying to some conservatives who fear the FCC might use its powers to remove their competitive advantage on talk radio and television.

Many of the remarks have been unearthed by conservative-leaning writers and bloggers and discussed on cable television amid a broader critique of Mr. Obama's penchant for czars that exploded with the ouster this month of "green jobs czar" Van Jones.

In one of his more eye-opening comments, Mr. Lloyd praised Mr. Chavez during a June 2008 conference on media reform, saying the authoritarian Venezuelan president had led "really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution."

In a video clip of the conference that has been aired by Fox News personality Glenn Beck and others, Mr. Lloyd seems be siding with the anti-American leader against independent media outlets in his own country, some of which supported a short-lived coup against Mr. Chavez in 2002.

"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him," Mr. Lloyd said. "But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country."