I just finished reading Michael Chricton’s well researched and written novel State of Fear. The book presents a compelling case against global warming and against the multi-billion dollar lobbying industry that has arisen around it. Global warning is a theory in great flux as more and more reports come out against the idea. Still, popular culture, major celebrities, and countless politicians are using this increasingly questionable theory to raise taxes and propose laws that will negatively change the landscape of America for decades to come.

In appendix I of State of Fear, Chrichton discusses the danger of the politicizing of science. He cites the eugenics movement of the 20’s as a tragic example of this. I highly recommend picking up this book and at least reading the comments Chrichton makes at the end of the book.

Here is what he had to say:

“Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.” -Michael Chricton on eugenics.

Basically, the politicization of science is a bad idea and history proves this.

Now, what effects will Lieberman-Warner have on the overall economy of the United States and her citizens? For that, I turn to research done by The Heritage Foundation. You can find the full text of the following excerpts here.

Economic Costs of Lieberman–Warner

It is hard to think of any economic activity that does not involve energy, and there is not one that would not be made more expensive by Lieber­man–Warner. No matter how mea­sured, the impacts of the bill on the American economy overall as well as on individuals and households would be substantial and hardly dif­ferent from a massive energy tax.

The impact on the overall econ­omy is reflected in cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses esti­mated at $1.7 trillion (with generous assumptions) to $4.8 trillion (with more realistic assumptions) by 2030. The single-year GDP losses would range from $111 billion to $436 bil­lion, or $949 to $3,726 per house­hold for each of the nation’s 117 million households. (See Chart 2.) Thus, the annual costs of the Climate Security Act would significantly exceed the Department of Homeland Security’s 2007 expenditures of $43 bil­lion and could also exceed the $155 billion spent on highways at all levels of government in 2005.

After-tax incomes decline by $47 billion to $120 billion in 2015, or $402 to $1,026 per household. Declines in consumption average $54 billion to $113 billion over the forecast period, or $462 to $966 per household annually.

My comments- Are you kidding me? This bill amounts to a massive tax increase on the average American of nearly $1000-4000! That is not just increasing taxes on the rich like Democrats enjoy doing so much. This will adversely effect every American living in the country. Not only that, but income decreases and so does spending. How is this bill good? Do these people understand basic economics? Let’s see what other good things our government is going to accomplish with this bill:

America’s Climate Security Act would spark a temporary increase in employment in the first few years as regulated companies invest heavily to comply. After that, however, the bill causes job losses that are expected to exceed 500,000 before 2030 even under the most optimistic assumptions. (See Chart 4.) It should be noted that these are net job losses after the jobs created by the Climate Security Act are taken into account. Particularly hard hit are manufacturing jobs as higher energy costs dampen several energy-intensive sectors. (See Chart 5.)Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while oth­ers will be outsourced to nations like China that are unlikely to place similar, if any, constraints on their emissions.

My comments- Oh good! We will outsource even more of our jobs to pollution powerhouse China just so that some celebrities and politicians can assuage their consciences and say they are preventing an unproven theory from becoming reality. They will do this by moving more manufacturing to China which will in turn equal a net increase in pollution because of China’s less stringent policies. These people are completely short-sighted and insane!

While the Lieberman–Warner bill lowers many household incomes, it raises the cost of living, par­ticularly by raising energy prices. To meet the bill’s targets, consumer energy demand must be driven down, which is achieved through higher prices. The price per gallon of gasoline is expected to increase by at least 29 percent by 2030: about $1.10 more per gallon based on current prices. By 2030, average household electricity costs are also expected to increase by $647 annually, and natural gas is expected to increase by $303. (See Chart 6.)

As noted, Lieberman–Warner operates like an energy tax, and since low-income households spend a larger percentage of income on energy, the tax is very regressive.[12] Some of the proceeds from the Lieberman–Warner bill are directed toward pro­grams to help energy consumers and low-income households in particular, but it is unclear how well these income-redistribution schemes will work. In any event, it is unlikely that they could make much of a dent in the damage caused by the bill.

My comments- Our elected officials, while crying that oil companies are fleecing us at the pump, are attempting to pass legislation that could raise gas prices by 29 percent! In front of the camera they say they are trying to lower gas prices and help the American people, but the fact is they are hurting us (should this bill pass). So, the bill amounts to a regressive tax that, ‘gasp!’ hurts low income families! Naturally, big government will come to the rescue and extend some sort of convoluted hand-out to them. Why don’t they just avoid the problem in the first place and stop trying to pass environmental legislation on an unproven theory?

This bill is Exhibit A of the sheer stupidity our government is capable of and also the influence and power of environmental lobbying groups in Washington. If politicians took the time to have their staff do some independent research they would find that global warming theory is in a state of flux with more and more scientists lining up against it. However, they seem unwilling to do this and continue to bow at the feet of popular media and lobbying groups just so that they can tout their “green credentials” at the next election.

The way our government is going is pushing me to become more and more libertarian (also the more I study about the founding fathers the more I believe that a form of libertarianism was the ideal they were striving for).

There is one sure fire way to fix this mess. Term limits.

]]> http://mainstreetamerica.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/lieberman-warner-climate-security-act-a-catastarophe-of-incredible-proportions/feed/ Caleb http://mainstreetamerica.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/mike-huckabee-on-nationalization-of-oil/ http://mainstreetamerica.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/mike-huckabee-on-nationalization-of-oil/#comments Tue, 27 May 2008 18:51:46 +0000 Caleb http://mainstreetamerica.wordpress.com/?p=110

Mike Huckabee has some good commentary on a recent comment by Democrat Maxine Waters.

Here is what he had to say:

I read a report today that the government is inching closer in their efforts to approve a bill that would bail out Americans who got into “bad mortgages.”

This really hacks me off. The people who got into these mortgages do not deserve to have my tax dollars bail them out because of their own stupidity and ignorance. The low mortgage rates and thriving real estate market of a few years ago tempted people into financing way more house than they could afford. Plus, they added to the stupidity of buying too much house by financing it with an adjustable rate mortgage.

Well, the bubble did not last and it exploded into a soapy, scummy mess. Those ARM mortgages adjusted up and all the of the sudden Jack and Jill American can’t afford their house payment because they were idiots. So, with a major election looming, politicians are falling all over themselves to come up with a plan to spend the tax money of responsible Americans to bail out the irresponsible ones so that they can stand on a platform and proclaim that they are savior of stupid people!

You know what! Screw being responsible. I think I am going to stop paying my bills, go out and dig myself into a massive crater of debt, and then sit at home and drink beer and play video games all day. Then when people start coming and asking for their money, well, I’ll just reach out my fat beer stained hand so that the government can take it and gently dust me off, clean me up, and pull me out of the slums and they will do it on your dime! Wow! I can go and do whatever I want and there are no real consequences except my contribution to the obesity epidemic (which, incidentally, if either Hillary or Obama gets elected, they will pay, I mean YOU will pay, for my health care so who cares if I get fat from drinking too much beer and eating a steady diet of chocolate chips and deep-fried cheeto’s).

Unfortunately, people tend to need to make mistakes and suffer the consequences in order to learn not repeat their destructive behaviors. The government, science, and declining moral values are rapidly taking away the consequences so people are becoming less and less apt to change their behaviors.

I would love to see a politician run on a platform of fairness where people who are stupid would suffer the consequences. I have a feeling being stupid would become a much less valuable commodity.

Those seem to some of the rumblings from sources around the net. If you read the comments below the articles that mention Huckabee as a possibility for VP, you will see that the idea engenders a variety of spirited responses. They range from “I could never vote for a creationist” to “I was going to vote for McCain but won’t if Huckabee is on the ticket” to “Huckabee is great campaigner and communicator and would be an asset to McCain.”

While my ideal would have been to see Huckabee at the top of the ticket and there is a chance that a VP slot could hurt his future chances for office should McCain win, I think he would be a great VP for McCain.

1. He is a great communicator. Huckabee was certainly the most likable of all the candidates on both sides of the race and he has the ability to reach out to the average American because for much of his life he was the average American. McCain is decidedly weak when it comes to his communication skills. Huckabee would be invaluable as a spokesman for McCain.

2. Fair Tax. Huckabee as VP would give the Fair Tax a great deal of publicity and would help keep the idea in the public mind. If nothing else, it should help increase demand for tax reform.

3. During the primary, Huckabee did well with traditional conservative voters. Many of them, though uncomfortable with McCain, would still vote for him. However, I believe there would also be a significant number who would simply  stay home. Huckabee would help insure than conservatives come out to vote.

4. A lot of people, conservative and liberal, will watch the big Republican Convention. Huckabee giving a rousing address carried by all the major news networks and replayed for days could help give the McCain campaign a great launch in to the general election.

I never thought I would say this…Obama is right on this issue. A temporary reprieve from the federal gas tax is pure folly.  The Tax Policy Center states that the average American would save LESS THAN $28 over the course of gas tax holiday.

This is pure political pandering. The news media has us convinced that we are (a.) in a recession, and (b.) the rise in gas prices is catastrophic and will single handedly destroy us all and bring about the end of the world (I am exaggerating. Slightly).

First, we are not in a recession. The economy is still growing, it is not “receding.” It is growing at a slower pace than it has in the past five or six years, but it STILL GROWING!

Second, the rise in gas prices has hit us so hard because we are unwilling to change our lifestyles to make up the difference. Let’s say you buy a 16oz latte every day for $3.59. That figures out to $.22/oz, and $28.16/gal. Hmm, I think it’s time to cut out the latte and brew your own coffee at home.

We are unwilling to cut out the conveniences in our lives to pay for the necessities. We don’t want to give up our movies, video games, cable TV, big cars, and vacations in order to pay for the extra gas. It is time for Americans to grow up and quit whining for the government to come and fix every little thing that comes along and makes us feel uncomfortable.

How did my wife and I deal with rising gas prices? We sold my (paid for) truck and bought (with the cash from the paid for truck) a used, low mileage, sub-compact. Was this fun for me? Nope, I have always driven trucks and I enjoy driving something a little big bigger that has the extra utility a truck offers. However, we decided that spending $30/fill up on the car would be a lot easier on our limited income than the nearly $60/fill up the truck required. By changing just that one aspect of our lifestyle we were able to dramatically cut the amount of money we spend on gas.

Instead of relying on Hillary Clinton or John McCain to come and fix your inability to manage your finances or your unwillingness to cut some un-necessities out of your lifestyle, do it yourself. It’s time to wake up, America, and stop being stupid.

This is an interesting opinion piece from Fox (Dick Morris and Eileen McGann) that opines about why Hillary has stayed in the race despite the math that seems stacked against her. The article also has an interesting comparison between her dogged determination to stay in the race and Mike Huckabee’s hanging in the race until McCain had the nomination sewn up. (link)

Is Hillary Preparing to Run in 2012?

Friday , April 25, 2008

By Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Obama among elected delegates? No way. The math is dead against her and she’s a realist. Even after Pennsylvania, Obama still leads by more than 140 in elected delegates. They’ll likely break even in Indiana and he’ll win North Carolina where one third of the vote is African-American. After that? If she wins Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico by 15 points and they break about even in Guam, North Dakota, Montana, and Oregon, she’ll still trail him by at least 130 votes among elected delegates.

Does she believe she can persuade super delegates to vote for her? Again, probably not. Obama has steadily eroded her edge among super delegates and now they are almost tied among committed super delegates. And the prevailing sentiment among those that remain is not to overturn the will of the voters.

So why is Hillary still running so hard? Why is she especially focused on pushing up Obama’s negatives?

Until the last vote is counted on June 3rd, we can chalk up her persistence to determination, courage and sheer obstinacy. But if she persists in her candidacy after the last primary, we must begin to consider whether she has an ulterior motive.

Does Hillary want to beat up Obama so that he can’t win the general election in November, assuring McCain of the presidency so that she can have a clear field to run again in 2012? Obviously, if Obama beats McCain, Hillary is out of the picture until 2016, by which time, at 69 years old, she might be too old to run. But if McCain wins, she would have to be considered the presumptive front runner for the nomination, a status which she might parlay into a nomination more successfully than she has been able to do this year.

Every day that she stays in the race and punches Barack Obama, she must realize that she is decreasing his chances of getting elected in November. Each time that she waves the bloody shirt and says that only she is strong enough to fight the war on terror, she obviously raises doubts about Obama’s strength and leadership. Every time she criticizes him for not switching pastors or for saying downscale white voters are bitter, she raises issues that are very destructive to Obama should he win the nomination.

When does fighting for the nomination in 2008 end and seeking to sabotoge Obama’s chances in November to keep her options alive for 2012 begin? Doubts about Hillary’s motivation are going to keep on growing with each inconclusive primary. After she loses North Carolina and fails to carry Indiana by any significant margin (North Carolina has twice as many delegates as Indiana), people will begin to wonder out loud about why she is staying in the race. And if she remains obdurate after the last votes are cast on June 3rd, it will become an increasingly accepted presumption that she is running a campaign of sabotage against Obama.

There is a way to run without waging a scorched earth campaign. Mike Huckabee continued to fight for the Republican nomination until McCain reached the magic number to clench the battle and did not attack McCain. He waged a positive campaign and exercised his right to stay in the contest as long as it was undecided without hurting the party’s chances in November. Obviously, Huckabee could have attacked McCain and drawn more votes for his candidacy, but, in the interests of party victory, he chose not to do so.

Why isn’t Hillary making the same choice?

In 2004, it is pretty obvious that Hillary did nothing to help John Kerry beyond giving a speech at the convention and waging a token campaign on his behalf. Bill did even less. Their goal was obvious: they wanted Kerry to lose to Bush so that Hillary could run in 2008. Is she playing the same game now? Only time will tell.

I have mourned the exit of Governor Mike Huckabee from presidential politics for nearly two months now. While I wouldn’t say I have moved on, as I am still following Huckabee closely, waiting for any hints at future run for office; I have decided that it is time to start working towards getting/keeping conservatives in Washington.

I personally have decided to support John McCain for President, unless a worthy third party candidate arises. My decision is based on a few main points: he does not aspire to universal health care, he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts permanent (if the democrats let these expire they will effectively be raising taxes on everyone in America, not just the rich), he believes in a very strong military and will support the military, he is a strong proponent of cutting government spending.

Whether or not he will hold to those views if elected remains to be seen, but right now he is a far better option than either of Democrats. He is far from my first choice for office, but he can do the job better than the current competition.

I have also recently been contacted by the Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe campaign. They asked me if I wanted to blog for him, I agreed. I have had the privilege of meeting and eating lunch with Sen. Inhofe and I believe that the man has his head on straight. He is a good representative of Oklahoma’s conservative values, so I hope that by blogging against liberals and for conservatives, I will be a small help to his campaign.

So, the battle for the votes of those living on Main Street America continues. The question is, will Americans support big government liberals and Republicans who spend like “John Edwards in a beauty salon?” (Mike Huckabee) Or will we elect people with true conservative values (which does not necessarily mean they are Republican)?

Mike Huckabee recently visited OBU and made some interesting statements having had a month to reflect on his Presidential bid.

Link

ARKADELPHIA, Ark.—Describing some aspects of his recent presidential campaign as “just incredible fun,” former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee recently paid a brief visit to his alma mater—Ouachita Baptist University.

Huckabee, who served 10 years as Arkansas’ governor, put together a surprisingly strong run for the Republican presidential nomination, going from a dark horse candidate to what he described as a “Final Four” finish in this year’s presidential race. Earning victories in eight primaries and caucuses, Huckabee withdrew from the race in early March after John McCain gained enough delegates to win the Republican nomination.

A  1975 graduate of Ouachita, Huckabee also has served as a Southern Baptist pastor, president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention and chairman of the National Governors’ Association.

Acknowledging that “the whole experience was, in many ways, surreal,” Huckabee said the pace of a national presidential bid “is happening so fast that you don’t have time to stop and absorb it or even take it in.”

“At many times, I had to stop and remind myself that I was actually running for President of the United States,” he added. “The schedule was grueling and brutal. … It was early morning to late night and constantly being pushed and pulled—almost treated like a property as opposed to a person.”

Despite the hectic schedule under the glare of the national media spotlight, Huckabee emphasized that “there were a lot of special times” on the campaign trail, including guest appearances on Saturday Night Live, the Colbert Report, the Late Show with David Letterman and the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

“Doing Saturday Night Live was a real kick,” he noted. “Another fun time was the Leno show. … I got to see there were some great people you get a chance to know in a casual way. All that was a lot of fun and it kind of made up for the days that were anything but fun.”

Reflecting on the political impact of his presidential run, Huckabee said one result was the clear reminder that “ordinary people really can affect the process.”

“For virtually a dime to the dollar of the other candidates, we took this campaign to the Final Four and most folks didn’t think that could happen. I think it’s a transformational kind of experience in politics,” Huckabee declared. “It was very important as a hallmark of the campaign–and hopefully future campaigns–that people will pay attention to the candidates and their message and not just their bank accounts.”

Concerning his decision to seek the presidency, Huckabee said, “I deeply felt there was a need for someone, frankly, to be president who understood the real world where most Americans live.  I think there is a disconnect with most people who have been in Washington for a good while.”

As an example, he cited a Republican debate on the economy in which other candidates “were all singing the Republican song of a great economy.” By contrast, he said he emphasized that “for people in the real world, the economy is not doing that well.”

Taking a page from his campaign playbook, Huckabee detailed such economic concerns as rising fuel prices, education costs and “health care costs rising at twice the rate of which pay was rising. That meant people were working harder this year than they were last year and not getting ahead; in fact slipping behind.”

A key reason for many voters’ concern over the economy is that “when the economy is prosperous, it has a trickle-down effect, but when the economy begins to go into a recession, it’s a trickle-up effect,” he explained. “It hits the people at the bottom first and the hardest because they have the least margin with which to deal.”

Amid his increased influence in conservative Republican circles, Huckabee said one of his goals is to “continue to make the case that there can’t be a separation between economic conservatism and social conservatism.”

“The most basic form of government is self-government,” he added. “Civil government is the result of the breakdown in self-government, family and community. … The degree to which those structures break down, you’re going to have more civil government whether you want it or not.”

Highlighting the need for individuals, businesses and communities to take greater responsibility for their actions if they want to reduce government involvement, he said, “I think that’s missing out there in the discussion.”

Giving a nod to Ouachita’s influence on both his life and political career, Huckabee noted, “I’ve always said that the education I received here gave me a platform that I never had to be ashamed of or run from. I have held my own with people who had Harvard law degrees or MBAs from Harvard or Yale. I don’t feel like I ever had to say, ‘Gee, I don’t belong up here.’ Academically, Ouachita was as good of an education as I could have had.”

Ouachita’s Michael D. Huckabee School of Education was named in Huckabee’s honor in 2005 in recognition of his statewide education reform initiatives as governor.

Huckabee, a former Ouachita trustee, said he believes that “the value of a liberal arts education is more pertinent today than it ever has been.“

“I can’t imagine a student not seeing the value of a liberal arts education today,” he added. “The broader the background one has, I think the better prepared they are to get out there and make it in the real world.”

Huckabee said another benefit of his education at Ouachita “was that it helped me come to deep convictions about principles that I believed in and not just what they were but why—and the ‘why’ is more important than the ‘what.’“

“A lot of people know what they believe; they don’t know why,” he pointed out. “They’ve never followed their beliefs to their logical conclusion.”

“The best value that I had from Ouachita was an analytical education, an education that taught me to think critically and to question and to put my own convictions to the test,” he affirmed. “It was truly a challenging education and I value that a lot.”

Looking to the future, Huckabee acknowledged, “I haven’t really settled on ‘Gosh, here’s what I want to do when I grow up.’ I think I will continue to be involved politically and also from a policy standpoint, helping people to get elected and keeping my own options open for the future.”

“I want to affect the discussion of public policy as it relates to the bedrock issue of why individual morality and the structure of the family really does have an impact on the direction of civil government,” he added. “And the respect for human life is fundamental and foundational to our culture.”

Emphasizing that respect for life is not limited to the abortion issue, he said, “That’s where people get messed up. It deals at the heart of whether or not we are, as our forefathers said, all equal. If there’s intrinsic worth and value in each person, then one person is not more valuable than another or less valuable than another.”

What about another run for the presidency in four or eight years? “I won’t rule it out,” Huckabee responded. “I mean I’m not making an announcement to say, ‘Yeah, I’m going to.’ The circumstances and everything, who knows what they’re going to be? But it’s not like I’m saying, ‘Boy, I’ll never do that again.’ I won’t rule that out.”

Asked about the possibility of helping her husband conduct  a future campaign for the Republican nomination, Huckabee’s wife, Janet, who also attended Ouachita, answered simply, “I’m with him. Whatever he does, I’m there.”

“It was a very, very rewarding experience,” she said of the campaign. “I wouldn’t trade any of it.”

Glancing at the former presidential candidate, she added, “I was very proud of what Mike did. He came from virtually nobody knowing who he was; as we say, he came from being an asterisk to second man standing.”

“I’ve always known that if people got to know him, they’d love him,” she concluded. “We just have to get a few more people to know him next time.”

by Trennis Henderson, OBU Vice President for Communications
web published on 4/2/2008 9:36:17 AM

This is a great article from Reuters and reinforces what a great Chuck Norris really is. He deserves a lot of respect for spending so much time with the troops. Here is the link to the original article.

Chuck Norris the only WMD in Iraq, say U.S. troops

By Mohammed Abbas

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - Hollywood action star Chuck Norris, known for his martial arts prowess and tough-guy image, has become a cult figure among the U.S. military in Iraq and an unlikely hero for some in Iraq’s security forces.

A small cardboard shrine is dedicated to Norris at a U.S. military helicopter hub in Baghdad, and comments lauding the manliness and virility of the actor have been left on toilet walls across Iraq and even in neighboring Kuwait, soldiers say.

“The fastest way to a man’s heart is with Chuck Norris’s fist,” reads one message at the shrine, which consists of a signed photo of the actor surrounded by similar statements.

“Chuck Norris puts the laughter in manslaughter,” reads one and “Chuck Norris divides by zero,” reads another.

Known as Chuck Norris “facts”, the claims have already become an Internet phenomenon, and scores are featured on www.chucknorrisfacts.com, including “Superman wears Chuck Norris pyjamas”, and “There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Oklahoma”.

The actor has visited Iraq several times and was made an honorary Marine last year. Some 20 U.S. military personnel and support staff spoken to by Reuters could recite at least one Norris “fact”, despite many having not visited the Web site.

U.S. troops in Iraq say his support for them and Norris’ invincible image has made him their idol and insist the exaggerated and satirical claims are not meant to mock him.

“The jokes all add to his legend. They’re not derogatory. He’s an icon,” said Sergeant Joe Lindsay at a base in Falluja in Iraq’s Western Anbar province, which Norris has visited.

AN IRAQI NORRIS

Bearded and muscled, Norris shot to fame fighting kung fu legend Bruce Lee in the 1972 film The Way of the Dragon, and later films show him devastating groups of men with one kick.

“Norris visited Iraq when violence was its worst and other celebrities were skittish. He’s one of the guys,” U.S. military public affairs officer Specialist Mark Braden said in Baghdad.

“The Marines love him. He’s like a mythical legend,” Staff Sergeant Amy Forsythe in Falluja said.

Soldiers cited many reasons for his appeal. Some appreciated his films and fighting ability — Norris is a martial arts guru, and many of his films have military themes.

Others said the masculine and plainly dressed actor was an antidote to the preening and moisturized metrosexual male.

Some praised his Christian and political values. The actor recently endorsed Republican Party presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, though in the spirit of the Norris “facts”, Marines argued it was Huckabee who endorsed Norris.

“He’s helped us a lot. The appeal is also his martial arts, and sheer physical presence … I don’t think I go a day without hearing a Norris joke,” said Corporal Ricardo Jones in Falluja.

Norris’ appeal is not restricted to U.S. troops either. At an Iraqi police graduation ceremony in Falluja, graduates called out for their “Chuck Norris” to pose with them for photos.

“Truthfully, I didn’t know who he was. I asked the Americans, and they said he was a great fighter, and that’s why they named me after him. They showed me a video, and it’s true, he’s a great fighter” said police trainer Mohammed Rasheed.

With his handle-bar moustache, Rasheed has a vague resemblance to Norris.

Another police trainer said Chuck Norris was a role model for the police in Falluja, which until 2007 was an al Qaeda stronghold and the scene of fierce battles with security forces.

“I’ve seen his videos, he’s a hero. He saves the city, he protects women and children and he fights crime wherever it is. We should all be like Chuck Norris,” Khaled Hussein said.

Here’s what I posted over at MikeHuckabee.com on the “Show Your Support for Mike” post.

Thank you, Gov. Huckabee and Janet. You have changed all our lives forever with your courage, strength, and joyful outlook on life. Your candidacy and behavior on the campaign trail has made me stop being so negative and cynical about politics — something I thought impossible. And you have forever changed politics.

No longer can all the political scientists (and I almost joined their ranks a few years ago — yikes!) say you have to do x, y, and z to run a successful campaign. You have proven them completely wrong. You may not be successful in their eyes, but you are in ours.

You did not waste our precious dollars; you wisely spent every single penny. You brought voters into the political process who had never been involved before. You created a new coalition of voters — that is not going to dissipate! You ran a positive campaign and your opponents had to (mostly) follow your example. You poked fun at yourself and won over voters. Thank you for inspiring all of us.

I cannot wait to see what is going to come out of all of this. You may be one man, but it gives me such hope to try to comprehend what impact your collective body of supporters could have on their individual communities, counties, and states. If we only follow your example, step out and take that chance to follow our convictions that our government needs to change in a positive way, and stand up for what’s right and true, it gives me chills to think about what could happen.

And finally, I have always been proud to say I’m from Kansas, but I will forever be proud to be from one of the few states that saw the rightness in your candidacy the first time around, selecting you as our overwhelming choice for the Republican nominee for President. We’ll be there up front, ready to support you wholeheartedly yet again in 2012!