Thursday, December 17, 2009


This is the Senate of Harry Reid.


Completely Reckless, Completely Irresponsible
from the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell

Thursday, December 17, 2009

‘And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen. That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:

“Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we’re considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.

“So it stands to reason that we’d devote significant time and attention to it.

“Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most — if not every — previous bill we’ve considered.

“The Majority disagrees.

“Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.

“They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.

“Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democrat leaders took their eyes off the ball. Rushing the process on a partisan line makes the situation even worse.

“Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care.

“Instead, Democrat leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare.

“And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas — one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history. They want to rush it.

“And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen.

“That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private.

“That’s what they intend to bring to the floor and force a vote on before Christmas.

“So this entire process is essentially a charade.

“But let’s just compare the process so far with previous legislation for some perspective. Here’s a snapshot of what we’ve done and where we stand:

• The Majority Leader intends to bring this debate to a close as early as this weekend — four days from now, on this $2.5 trillion dollar mistake

• No American who hasn’t been invited into the Majority Leader’s conference room knows what will be in that bill

• This bill has been the pending business of the Senate since the last week of November — less than four weeks ago.

• We started the amendment process two weeks ago.

• We’ve had 21 amendments and motions — less than two a day.

“Now let’s look at how the Senate has dealt with previous legislation.

“No Child Left Behind (2001):

• 21 session days or 7 weeks.

• Roll Call votes: 44

• Number of Amendments offered: 157

“9/11 Commission/Homeland Security Act (2002):

• 19 session days over 7 weeks.

• Roll Call votes: 20

• Number of Amendments offered: 30

“Energy Bill (2002):

• 21 session days over 8 weeks

• Number of Roll Call votes: 36

• Number of Amendments offered: 158

“This isn’t an energy bill. This is an attempt by a majority to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy — to vastly expand the reach and the role of government into the health care decisions of every single American — and they want to be done after one substantive amendment. This is absolutely inexcusable.

“I think Senator Snowe put it best on Tuesday:

‘Given the enormity and complexity,’ she said, ‘I don’t see anything magical about the Christmas deadline if this bill is going to become law in 2014.’

“And I think Senator Snowe’s comments on a lack of bipartisanship at the outset of this debate are also right on point.

“Here’s what she said in late November:

‘I am truly disappointed we are commencing our historic debate on one of the most significant and pressing domestic issues of our time with a process that has forestalled our ability to arrive at broader agreement on some of the most crucial elements of health care reform. The bottom line is, the most consequential health care legislation in the history of our country and the reordering of $33 trillion in health care spending over the coming decade shouldn’t be determined by one vote-margin strategies – surely we can and must do better.’

“The only conceivable justification for rushing this bill is the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Democrats know that the longer Americans see this bill the less they like it. Here’s the latest from Pew. It came out just yesterday.

“A majority (58 percent) of those who have heard a lot about the bills oppose them while only 32 percent favor them.”

“There is no justification for this blind rush — except a political one, and that’s not good enough for the American people.

“And there’s no justification for forcing the Senate to vote on a bill none of us has seen.

“Americans already oppose this bill. The process is just as bad.

“It’s completely reckless, completely irresponsible.”

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Thursday, August 27, 2009


By whatever title, the current Health Care Bill has some really frightening sections from the standpoint of Privacy. Remember how up in arms the Liberal Dems where about the NSA wiretapping?

But in the present Public Option Health Care Bill there is no outcry, but the requirements for Privacy invasion are much greater. Instead of someone who MIGHT be accessing you library card info, reading your email, listening to your cell phone etc, this bill contains MUST do accessing and storing Income Tax Records, Social Security Information, Health Information Records (Doctor, Clinic, Hospital and all other Medical Information) in some bureau of the Federal Government headed by the Health Choices Commissioner. This is a REQUIREMENT. And the information will be shared with State and Local Governments. How safe is your VERY PRIVATE INFORMATION when every politician, Government Worker and who knows who else has this information at their computer?

Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data is from CBS News and contains these paragraphs.
Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."
And this.
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."
Another section says this.
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
This Legislation is 1000+ pages what else is hidden therein?
Why no outcry about Privacy Invasion from the Liberal Dems? Ask Them, Please. Go to Town Hall meetings and ask questions.

Friday, June 26, 2009


Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has decided that Legislation on Climate Change (Cap and Trade) must pass immediately. Why? What's the Rush? This is another case of nobody has read the Waxman-Markey bill before they vote. Too big, too fast explains one reason.
Remember that gargantuan climate change bill we told you about last week? It's gotten bigger. Over the weekend, the bill grew from 946 pages to 1,201 pages, according to the Sunlight Foundation. It's still changing, with important amendments in flux.
That's better than a 25% increase in size.
This is an incredibly expensive undertaking. If anyone in Congress tells you that he has read and completely understands this bill, and can explain exactly how the system to reduce carbon emissions would work and what its effects would be, he's lying.
It is fair to call this a (Hidden) Tax, since the cost to America Consumers will be increased prices for goods and services as Companies pass the increase to you and me. This will come in the form of Higher Utility Bills and higher prices generally for manufactured goods. Schools, Hospitals and any other large user of Fossil Fuels will be affected.

We need to take our time on this Tax Increase Legislation because as this article notes.
The U.S. can do a lot to reduce its carbon output, but can't do it all. America won't have much impact on global warming if China, India and other major polluters don't follow suit and dramatically reduce their own pollutants. [Emphasis Mine]
That fact alone will cause more outsourcing of American Jobs. The cost to us is Higher Prices and Job Losses.

Again I ask, What's the Rush? One answer is that this is one of the favorites of the Obama, Pelosi Liberal agenda and support seems to be falling as evidence accumulates. Evidence that Global Temperatures are not Warming as the increase in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) increases. Read The Climate Change Climate Change from the "Wall Street Journal" Opinion and Commentary Section and note this paragraph.
The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans.
Based on the growing evidence, many countries have failed to pass or repealed Carbon Credit Tax Legislation. [Emphasis Mine]
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
Other Countries such as Australia and Japan have pulled back from Cap and Trade Taxes.
It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
The US participation in the Kyoto Accord was defeated in the US Senate in 1997. The vote was a resounding 95-0 on the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98) despite then Vice President Al Gore's strong backing.

Less publicized is the growing skepticism in the US.
Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled.
With all this evidence, it should be clear that we should not rush to pass Cap and Trade Legislation, if at all.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009


With all the non-provable claims Obama has made about the jobs he has saved, this article, Hav-a-Tampa cigars closing Tampa plant, informs us of the 495 Jobs that will be lost due to Legislation President Obama has signed into law.
Tampa will lose part of its cigar heritage in August when Hav-A-Tampa shuts its factory near Seffner and lays off about 495 employees, closing a factory that has been operating since 1902.
Not only will these jobs vanish, they are still needed, but will be moved to Puerto Rico.
Work that had been done in Tampa will now be performed in an Altadis plant in Puerto Rico, where it has extra manufacturing capacity, McKenzie said.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009


The Liberals (mostly Democrats) claim that we need a Government Paid Health Care Plan (commonly called Single-Payer or Public Option) because there are about 46 million Americans who do not have Health Insurance. Of that number, about 13 million are illegal aliens, who should not be eligible for Government Paid health insurance in the 1st place. There are also a number of uninsured who choose not to be covered, even though many of them could afford Health Insurance. These are mostly young adults who want to maximize their take home pay for whatever reason. The reality is that the number of people without Health Insurance is quite a lot smaller than 46 million.

It needs to be noted that because 46 Million in America do not have Health Insurance DOES NOT mean they don't have Health Care. All of them will receive treatment at any Hospital Emergency Room. They must be treated by law. Most of them also receive services at Clinics and Doctors Offices.

The Liberals would like you to believe that a Government Paid Health Insurance Plan would not drive the Private Insurance companies out of business. They claim that it would make the Private Insurers more competitive. The reality is that Private Insurance Companies cannot compete with a Government Plan, because the Government does not have to show a profit. In fact the Government can operate at a loss and once the Government Paid Health Insurance Plan goes into effect, the companies who furnish Health Insurance for their employees as a fringe benefit will not have any reason to continue to offer Health Insurance to their Employees. Some competition.

What is the Liberal Health Insurance agenda? Here are their own words.
Kathleen Sebelius, (Obama's Health and Human Services Secretary) in 2007

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI)

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL 9th)

The Liberals want to create a system like the one in place in Canada. The Canadian Plan does not improve the quality of Health Care. In fact Health Care is rationed, denied and delayed under the Canadian plan. We do not need this type of Change. It is a step backward.

There are some things we do need to improve our Health Care in the US. Tort Reform is one of the best places to start.

Sunday, June 14, 2009


Global Warming is a subject evoking strong and passionate feelings. The term Global Warming is a misnomer, however. The Correct Term should be Global Climate Change, because it's not just temperature that's changing. Some places are getting warmer, some colder, and many places are experiencing Climate Changes. Flooding, Storms, etc are all part of Global Climate Change. Change is happening, but to what extant is this change effected by the action (or inaction) of man?

The Alarmists use the Computer Models to "predict" the future. There is a BIG problem with this approach. The Computer Models predict that as the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)Increases, so does the Atmospheric Temperature. Further according to the Global Warming Alarmists, Mankind is adding to the Atmospheric CO2 by using Coal, Oil, Natural Gas and yes even Wood Burning stoves. All of these are fuel, which when burned produce that bad Greenhouse gas, CO2.

The facts are still not absolute, but the trend of these facts shows that Mankind's production of CO2 Has Very Little to do with Global Climate Change. For instance, the facts indicate that while the Atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase, the Global Temperatures have not. Therefore, the Computer Models are wrong. To the Alarmists, the Computer Models being wrong are not a problem, because to them if the facts don't fit the reality, the facts must be wrong.

The facts also show that CO2 only accounts for about 4% of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases, and Mankind is responsible for about one-half (2%) of the production by the burning of wood, oil, gas and coal. The other 2% comes from Natural Processes, such as Volcanoes. CO2 is a natural atmospheric gas and is absolutely necessary for plants to survive. It is also a fact that there are times in Earth's Historical past that the Atmospheric CO2 level has been much higher than today.

Crops under stress as temperatures fall presents more evidence supporting the conclusion that we don't have enough facts yet to warrant the Drastic Costly and Lifestyle changes called for by the Global Alarmists.
For the second time in little over a year, it looks as though the world may be heading for a serious food crisis, thanks to our old friend "climate change". In many parts of the world recently the weather has not been too brilliant for farmers. After a fearsomely cold winter, June brought heavy snowfall across large parts of western Canada and the northern states of the American Midwest. In Manitoba last week, it was -4ÂșC. North Dakota had its first June snow for 60 years.
If rather than Global Warming, Global Climate Change results in Cooling of the Earth, the consequences are food shortages. Other changes are also happening.
There was midsummer snow not just in Norway and the Cairngorms, but even in Saudi Arabia. At least in the southern hemisphere it is winter, but snowfalls in New Zealand and Australia have been abnormal. There have been frosts in Brazil, elsewhere in South America they have had prolonged droughts, while in China they have had to cope with abnormal rain and freak hailstorms, which in one province killed 20 people.
US and Canadian Farmers are behind schedule due to Cooler Temperatures and Other Climate Changes. The North American grain harvesting yield is predicted to be as much as 15% lower. That would be a 32 year low.

The rest of the World is also affected. China, the World's largest producer of Wheat, has had weather problems affecting their crops. South America and Europe also face lower harvest amounts due to Global Climate Change. The evidence is mounting that we may be facing a period of Global Cooling rather than Global Warming.

Often overlooked is the effect of Sun Spots on the Earth's Climate Changes.
It is now more than 200 years since the great astronomer William Herschel observed a correlation between wheat prices and sunspots. When the latter were few in number, he noted, the climate turned colder and drier, crop yields fell and wheat prices rose. In the past two years, sunspot activity has dropped to its lowest point for a century. One of our biggest worries is that our politicians are so fixated on the idea that CO2 is causing global warming that most of them haven't noticed that the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling, with all the implications that has for whether we get enough to eat.
Also overlooked, is Legislation Mandating the use of Bio Fuels produced from corn and other food stocks. The Alarmists have convinced many politicians World-Wide that we need to do something about Global Warming by creating and using Bio Fuels, rather than the Fossil fuels. Bio Fuels are renewable and reduce our dependence on Oil and Gas. But there is a downside to Bio Fuels.
It is appropriate that another contributory factor to the world's food shortage should be the millions of acres of farmland now being switched from food crops to biofuels, to stop the world warming, Last year even the experts of the European Commission admitted that, to meet the EU's biofuel targets, we will eventually need almost all the food-growing land in Europe. But that didn't persuade them to change their policy. They would rather we starved than did that.
While this article is targeted to Europe, one only has to change EU and Europe to US and America to make the statements also true here.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009


According to Al Gore and a good part of the Democrats in Congress the sky is still falling. According to a growing number of the American Public, that sky is falling claim is questionable or just down-right wrong.

So here are some of the facts from AccuWeather, some areas of the USA may see little summer and total Lightning strikes are down.(Recent Upswing in Lightning)
As of June 3, 2009, there have been 5,589,686 flashes, with 6,517,381 reported by June 3, 2008.
As you may have guessed by the title of the AccuWeather piece, there has been an upswing in the number of people and planes struck by lightening.
So far, 2009 has been a deadly year for lightning strikes. Two people were killed last week, and another Monday, bringing the total number of lightning-related deaths to seven, with 50 injuries reported total. A Southwest Airlines plane was struck by lightning in California earlier last week. Is this trend of lightning strikes on people and airplanes abnormal this year? [Emphasis Mine]
And what's the answer to the question of abnormality?
On average, 60 people are killed and over 350 people are injured by lightning each year, with June, July and August the most common months for deaths. In 2008, 27 people were killed by lightning and 303 injured.

As for aircraft, 66 have reported lightning strikes so far this year. Last year, 55 reported lightning strikes to airplanes occurred through May.

The number of deaths and the number of airplanes hit does not seem out of the ordinary this year.
In summary, the number of Flashes is down, but the number of planes struck is higher than average. Apparently the statistical analysis of the lightening data is not out of line with the averages.

The lightening data is, however, a part of "Global Climate Change". Believe it or not, "Most Global Warming Skeptics" (including Me) agree that Temperatures and other atmospheric changes are taking place world wide. They just don't believe it will be a disaster for our planet. Rather it's a natural cycle of Planetary changes which has been happening since the Earth was formed. It has happened many times in the past and will happen in the future. That's why it's called Cycles.

As far as US Temperatures this year, the AccuWeather article also says the changes in Lightening patterns is related to the Temperatures.
One of the reasons for this [lightening activity change] could be colder-than-normal weather across the northern tier of the country that has suppressed the number of thunderstorms and has significantly reduced the number of tornadoes this year. The number of reported tornadoes so far this year is 685, just over half of the average annual amount, which is 1,297.
Specifically they state the Lightening pattern is due to changes in the Jet-Stream.
According to Long Range Expert Joe Bastardi, areas from the northern Plains into the Northeast will have a "year without a summer." The jet stream, which is suppressed abnormally south this spring, is also suppressing the number of thunderstorms that can form. The ones that do form in areas of the Ohio Valley and West are forming in places with very cold temperatures, which can lead to more electrified thunderstorms than normal this year.
what does this mean? My reaction is, we don't have enough data to accurately predict the future of "Global Climate Change". However, we do have sufficient data to say the "Inconvenient Truth" is that DRASTIC measures are not warranted.

While we accumulate more data, let us continue to institute any and all green changes which are economically possible, but don't institute DRASTIC, COSTLY, LIFESTYLE Legislation which will cause more harm than good. As much as we would like to believe it, it's just not factually supported that Mankind is a significant factor in Global Climate Change. First, do no harm, should be our motto.

Thursday, June 4, 2009


I listened to President Obama's Address in Egypt this morning. Parts of his speech were very good, but some things were headscratchers. Obama admits US involvement in Iran coup in 1953 why was that necessary?
US President Barack Obama made a major gesture of conciliation to Iran on Thursday when he admitted US involvement in the 1953 coup which overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

"In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government," Obama said during his keynote speech to the Muslim world in Cairo.

It is the first time a serving US president has publicly admitted American involvement in the coup.

The CIA, with British backing, masterminded the coup after Mossadegh nationalised the oil industry, run until then in by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
Are we now going to be ordered to pay reparations to Iran?

President Obama also called the Iraq War "a war of choice". Since President Obama has long claimed he was against the Iraq War and voted against continued funding in the Senate, it is logical to assume President Obama considers this War a Bad Choice. If that is true, how does this quote from CNN (Obama in Egypt reaches out to Muslim world) fit?
He addressed the conflict in Iraq, calling it unlike Afghanistan "a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world."

"Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein ... [Emphasis Mine]
This makes the Iraq War a Good Choice, I guess. President Obama appears to be trying to have it both ways. President Obama continued.
... I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible," he said.
Apparently Our President has forgotten all the diplomatic actions leading up to the Iraq War. Remember that there were UN Sanctions and No Fly Zones which Saddam Hussein violated repeatedly. Apparently President Obama has forgotten that England, Poland, Australia and 43 other countries made up the Coalition Forces which invaded IRAQ after years of failed diplomatic actions.

This appears to be the pattern of President Obama's trips abroad. Apologize to everyone because it's all the US's fault. What about all the good and great things Americans have done for the world? The Good Ole USA has FREED more Muslims from tyrany than anyone other country in the history of the World. Where is that fact mentioned?

Wednesday, June 3, 2009


The present state of the Economy is still not good. Who's to Blame? Public perception is public reality. Therefore according to at least one poll, the public perception is this is Bush's Mess. But is it really asks Dick Morris in What's Keeping Obama Up?.
The Rasmussen poll conducted over the weekend of May 30-31 asked a key question designed to give us perspective on Obama's current popularity. The question was whether the current problems "are due to the recession that began under the Bush administration or to the policies Obama has put in place since taking office." In other words, who's to blame, Bush or Obama?

By 62-27, voters say Bush is still the culprit.
That's better than 2:1. Impressive indicator of President Obama's perceived popularity with the American Public.

Will Obama's popularity remain high or fall? The answer to this question hinges on what happens economically as we go forward. If the public sees a turn-around in the economy the answer is yes. But if the economy continues to stagnate, and especially if inflation climbs into levels not seen since President Carter, the answer is no.
The real recession - dating from the stock market collapse - began four months before Bush left office. And it is now four months since Obama was inaugurated. From this vantage, it still looks to voters like Bush's recession.
Since I don't believe the economic policies of the Obama Administration will spur the Economy, and will in fact prolong it, President Obama's popularity will fall quickly. Without improvement in the economy, the public perception of who's to blame will shift to President Obama.
But it will become increasingly obvious that the large deficit Obama has incurred while pursuing his cure for the recession is, on its own, causing more problems than it solves. As high interest rates and, most likely, inflation, begin to set in - with no relief in unemployment - it will be obvious that Obamanomics isn't working and is, in fact, aggravating the economic trouble.
I think President Obama is beginning to recognize that his solutions aren't not working.
Obama, recognizing the danger, has recently begun to speak out - without even cracking a guilty smile - against the huge budget deficit he created. He is trying to blame the deficit, too, on Bush. But voters will not overlook the huge spending sprees of January and February, when Obama quadrupled the 2009 deficit. They will come to see that spending as a huge mistake and will shift their blame to the new president who proposed it.
What are his choices now?
He can leave taxes as they are and take the poison of high interest rates, rapid inflation and a new recession, all caused by the massive borrowing he has forced on the Treasury. If the Treasury cannot sell enough bonds at a reasonable interest rate, it will, of course "monetize the deficit" - economics-speak for printing money so that there will be enough to buy the Treasury debt at moderate interest rates. But the process of so vastly expanding the money supply (or even just leaving the current expansion in place without trying to soak up the extra money) will cause its own runaway inflation.

Or Obama can break his pledge and raise taxes on everybody. His soak-the-rich approach will not be enough to cover the deficit. Especially when one factors in his healthcare proposals, big tax increases on the middle class become an increasing likelihood. And when we consider his cap-and-trade legislation, huge increases in utility rates also loom.

Either poison will make it clear that the economy is suffering from the medicine Obama administered, rather than the original disease that started under Bush.
The future doesn't look good for the Perceived Popularity of President Obama. If the economy doesn't improve, the Public will turn on President Obama with a vengeance.

Friday, May 29, 2009


President Obama says we must enact National Health Care by the end of this year, or the chance will be lost. [Obama says health care changes must come this year]
The president's message to his re-election campaign-in-waiting was simple: If volunteers don't pressure lawmakers to support the White House's goal on health care, Washington would drag its feet and nothing would change.
Now stop a minute and ask yourself why is this true? Could it be that like Stimulus Bill rushed through Congress before anyone had time to read it, this is not such a good idea after all? Why else would there be a need to pass it this year? If it is such a good plan, why isn't it still a good plan next year too?

Hindsight is always 20/20. But only fools rush in is equally true. Congress needs to give consideration to what's really best and consider all the consequences of their actions rather than rushing into passing another piece of faulty Legislation.

Take your time to get it right. If you don't have time to do it correctly, when do you have time to do it over?

Tuesday, May 26, 2009


The theory that Global Warming is man-made has both believers and skeptics. The extreme believers, like Al Gore, insist we take extreme and expensive measures NOW to insure the future of the Earth. While the skeptics insist that the man-made effect leaves little to worry about. There is probably not one person on Earth who doesn't fall somewhere on the sliding scale between the believers and the skeptics.

The believers claim that burning wood or fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) produces Carbon Dioxide (CO2) which is a Greenhouse Gas. They want everyone to stop producing CO2 by using renewable energy resources such as solar and wind as a replacement for primarily fossil fuels. To this end, the believers want to use the power of the Government to Legislate how our energy is produced. This is an expensive cure.

The skeptics maintain that CO2 is not a significant source of Global Warming. Therefore to the skeptic, the expensive retro fitting of Power Plants and Industry are not going to have a significant effect on Global Warming, but will add a very significant cost factor to almost everything we buy and/or manufacture. Because of this increased cost, industrialized nations of the world will suffer greatest. Greater because jobs will be outsourced and utility bills higher with unemployment very much higher.

To the believer it is simple. Renewable energy sources are free and therefore will be cheap and green. The truth is these renewable sources will be unbelievably expensive. Expensive because:
  1. they are not very efficient energy producers
  2. components are very expensive to manufacture and install
  3. the present electrical grid will be very expensive to expand and interconnect to the renewable sources
  4. they are not able to adjust to rapid changes in demand
  5. there is no efficient energy storage method
All of these things can be argued, but the one argument I have not heard discussed is conservation of energy. Remembering from College Physics that energy can neither be created nor destroyed leads to a question. To wit: if energy is taken from the Sun to produce Solar electricity or Solar heating, that energy is no longer available to heat the Earth. The same for Wind Energy. So if man removes that much energy formerly used to heat the Earth, will we actually cool the Earth's Temperature to the point Life is no longer viable?

Monday, May 25, 2009


Today is Memorial Day. It is a day to pay tribute to ALL men and women who have or are now serving in our Military. Thank you.

But today is also the day North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test. This test is a violation of the UN Security Council Resolutions. The UN Security Council has called an emergency meeting today.

If North Korea is allowed to continue as in the past, count on Iran and Al Queda as North Korea's partners. The Western World (and ESPECIALLY the US) is therefore subject to Nuclear Attack and Israel is certainly a target. Read Dick Morris' article THE DEATH OF ISRAEL from which the page 2 quotes are taken.

Dick Morris makes clear what will happen if Iran goes Nuclear.
{... Caroline} Glick {deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post} reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, “…we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. {Braces Mine, Brackets and Ellipses in original}
Is President Obama naive enough to believe that Iran's Leadership does not really intend to Wipe Israel the Map if they can? They can with Nuclear Weapons. So how naive is the Obama Administration?
She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that “as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran’s nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself.” [Emhpasis Mine]
While I am not Jewish, I have great respect for the Jewish Religion. To Me Candidate Obama always amazed me in his ability to count Jews as backers, even though his campaign rhetoric has always indicated to me that President Obama was not an ally of Israel. And apparently he was and is able to pull the wool over a lot of others regardless of Religious belief.
Those sunshine Jewish patriots who voted for Obama must realize that we, as Jews, are witnessing the possible end of Israel.
Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. And neither is Hillary Clinton.
When the World goes Nuclear, I think we should ask two questions in addition to any questions we may ask of our own Governmental Officials.

The FIRST question is: What will the UN Do? The Scandal Ridden UN does not have a history of doing much. Another Resolution is no real deterrent.

The SECOND question [if the UN takes no meaningful action] is: Why do we continue to Support the UN? The US makes up over 20% of the UN's Budget, but why should we?

Saturday, May 16, 2009


When the evidence is in the Jury returns its verdict. At this point, it appears the evidence indicates the jury will find Nancy Pelosi, Representative (D-CA) and Speaker of the United States of Representatives, Guilty.

Follow the links on page 2 and make your own judgement.
  1. Panetta to CIA employees: We told Pelosi the truth
  2. Gingrich: Pelosi 'Lied,' 'Despicable,' 'Dishonest,' 'Vicious,' 'Trivial'
  3. Speaker's Comments Raise Detainee Debate to New Level
  4. Pelosi says she learned of waterboarding in 2003
  5. Pelosi Acknowledges She Was Told of Waterboarding in 2003
  6. CURL: The Speaker misspeaks
  7. Pelosi in dispute with CIA over interrogation
  8. GOP backs CIA in dispute with Pelosi
What's your verdict?

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

AL GORE 1984

Our National Debt is 11.22 TRILLION Dollars. Al Gore and the Chicken Littles of the World want us to spend more money we don't have to solve a problem (Global Warming) that doesn't exist.

Despite the Chicken Littles of the World, the question of man's contribution to Global Warming is not settled. The reality is Man contributes VERY LITTLE to Global Warming. Carbon Dioxide Levels have been rising for the last 10 years, but the Global Temperatures have not kept pace with the Computer Models. Clearly, the Computers are wrong. The Manmade Global Warming threat is not significant. In fact, there are many climate experts who now say the Earth is Cooling. Sunspot activity is the lowest it has been since the last little ice age.

By the Way, Eleven Trillion Dollars is $11,220,000,000,000. To put this in perspective, counting one number each second 24-7-365 would require 355,550 years of counting to reach 11,220,000,000,000.

Saturday, May 9, 2009


UPDATE 5/10/09 Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) may be playing the "it depends on what your definition of is is" game. If she is claiming she never directly was informed by the CIA, then this article may explain her weasel words - Top Pelosi Aide Learned Of Waterboarding in 2003. Are we really to believe this nuance?

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and others from the left are claiming they knew nothing about Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) being used by the CIA. Both Democrats are High Ranking members of the Left, and held Positions in Congress which entitled them to Special briefings by the CIA on EITs which the Left now claims were "Torture". Even more disingenuously, both are now claiming they had no knowledge and/or there was nothing they could do to stop the "Torture" even if they did. Hogwash!

For the facts, read this article (What Congress Knew
On September 4, 2002, Porter Goss, then the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Nancy Pelosi, the ranking Democratic member, were given a classified briefing by the CIA on what the Agency calls "enhanced interrogation techniques," or, in persistent media parlance, "torture." In particular, the CIA briefed the members on the use of these techniques on Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al Qaeda operative captured in Pakistan the previous March. [Emphasis Mine]
So much for Pelosi's statements. This is Rockefeller's.
... in October 2008, following a Washington Post report on the existence of the OLC memos, Mr. Rockefeller disclaimed any knowledge of the opinions. "If White House documents exist that set the policy for the use of coercive techniques such as waterboarding, those documents have been kept from the committee," said Mr. Rockefeller. "That is unacceptable, and represents the latest example of the Bush Administration withholding critical information from Congress and the American people in an attempt to limit our oversight of sensitive intelligence collection activities." [Emphasis Mine]
Rockefeller is pretty clear that he was not briefed, but here is the Truth.
On February 4, 2003, Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were given a briefing in which "EITs [were] 'described in considerable detail,' including 'how the water board was used.' The process by which the techniques were approved by DoJ was also raised." The document also adds that Mr. Rockefeller, the Committee's ranking Democrat, was later given an "individual briefing." [Emphasis Mine]
Not just one or two briefings. The article also presents this evidence of a poor Memory.
Nor was that the only time Mr. Rockefeller, who chaired the Committee from 2007 to 2009, heard from the CIA. The West Virginian was briefed at least 12 times more about interrogation techniques, legal authorities and other aspects of the program. The last, in June 2008, was offered to 10 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and covered "discussion of EITs and the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinions. Specific mentions of waterboarding numerous time." [Emphasis Mine]
Oops. It would appear that the Left has some Serious credibility problems. As far as the claim that the Bush White House withheld information, consider this quote.
Senator Rockefeller's denial is flatly contradicted by his own report on the subject released last month, which notes that "On May 19, 2008, the Department of Justice and the Central Intelligence Agency provided the Committee with access to all opinions and a number of other documents prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel . . . concerning the legality of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. Five of these documents provided addressed the use of waterboarding." [Emphasis Mine]
Note to Left: When you find yourself in a HOLE, STOP DIGGING.

Thursday, May 7, 2009


Obama's flawed auto logic in the Detroit News says it all. President Obama's words and actions don't match. So he doesn't want to run the Banks and the Auto Makers. Wrong! Obama has Nationalized the Banks that didn't meet the "Stress Test" (CitiBank and Bank of America). Obama has forced Chrysler into Bankruptcy too. GM is probably next.
President Barack Obama insists he doesn't want to run the domestic auto industry -- and we should all be thankful for that.

But his actions speak differently -- and we should all be worried.

"... I rejected the original restructuring plan" that Chrysler LLC submitted for government loans, he said April 30 in announcing his decision to force Chrysler into bankruptcy. "... And the standard I set was high -- I challenged them to design a plan ..."

That's a lot of self promotion and involvement from a guy who doesn't want to control the companies.
It's about Obama. Obama "rejected", "set" the standard and "challenged" are all Obama's words. Over what did he do all this?
The president found a scapegoat in the hedge funds that balked at the government's "offer" to take pennies on the dollar for their secured investment

"... It was unacceptable to let a small group of speculators endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else," he said.

Pardon me while I puke.
This small group of speculators, who had a superior claim did not want to take the 29 cents on the dollar Obama decided they should take. They had the audacity to ask for 50 cents on the dollar. They didn't refuse to take cuts. They just didn't think their shareholders should be mugged. After all that's what Hedge Fund Managers are paid to do - Make money for the shareholders!! In addition, (while I admit that I am not an Lawyer, as I understand it) it is no small legal matter that what Obama wanted them to do is re-write Contract Law. The minority loanholders, represent about 10% of the secured debt. A very small amount.
You mean to tell me that the president, who has authorized more than $19 billion in cash to the auto companies, with much of it likely never to be repaid, was willing to force Chrysler into bankruptcy over less than a billion bucks?

When you're doling out dump trucks full of cash, another Ram pickup full doesn't break the government's back.
Make no mistake: The president had this outcome in mind all along. He'll force that action on GM, too.

All the while bashing Detroit for not being Toyota.

"I don't know how to create an affordable, well-designed plug-in hybrid. But I know that, if the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then, doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same," he said during his 100-days-in-office speech. "So my job is to ask the auto industry: Why is it you guys can't do this?"
This is a warning to all. President Obama says "He will have his way". Those of us old enough to remember President Nixon, remember another President who thought he was King.

Monday, May 4, 2009


UPDATE - 5/6/09 According to Roll Call, Senator Arlen Specter will NOT retain has seinority on Senate Committees. Another Harry Reid (D-NV) broken promise!

Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) (who until a few days ago Claimed he was a Republican) has made an astonishing claim. In an article published today in the Washingotn Times, Specter hints Kemp died of GOP agenda, Senator Specter uses the same type of emotional rhetoric which has become a trademark of the Liberal Left.
"If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."
Jack Kemp died Saturday evening of cancer. Mr. Kemp was a Quarterback for the Buffalo Bills before going on to be elected to Congress and was the Republican VP candidate of Robert Dole in 1996.

The Jack Kemp claim is one which cannot be proved, but fertilizes the political grounds for more Government Spending. It is in the same category as John Edwards' statement the day after Christopher Reeves died in October 2004. While campaigning for Kerry/Edwards in Iowa, Mr. Edwards said that if he and John Kerry were elected in 2004, the Democrats under Kerry's Leadership would mean that:
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is President, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
Since we are going down the speculative path, why stop there? Why can't we also say that if the Democrats had not put up the wall between the FBI an CIA on Information Sharing, 9-11 would not have happened. After all the 9-11 Commission found that one of the primary obstacles to catching the 9-11 terrorists was the Clinton Administration's preventing the information developed by the CIA from being turned over to the FBI.

Why not add that if we (and the rest of the World) had not allowed Adolph Hitler the opportunity to expand this military in violation of World War I Treaties, we could have prevented World War II.

There are so many "WHAT IFS" in history this kind of game could go on forever. But to what end? These are claims which have an emotional political agenda. To make them is wrong because it clouds the thinking and prevents objective thinking and actions.

Note: Senator Arlen Specter was Chairman of the Labor, Health & Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee in April 2000 when Christopher Reeves testified to this committee. Senator Specter is a Cancer Survivor. Question for Senator Specter: If you really believe Jack Kemp would be alive if more Government Dollars were put into Cancer Research, why didn't you insure passage of more legislation to this end when you held the power in a Republican Senate?

For an excellent example debate on the merits of Embryonic Stem Cell research as a cure for Spinal Cord Injury, see THE WRONG PATH by James Kelly. Mr. Kelly is also a victim of spinal cord injuries and has debated Christopher Reeves on this subject.

Thursday, April 30, 2009


The AP has done a little fact checking. FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape shows that in fact President Obama is playing a little fast and loose with the facts.
"That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.
To be technically correct, it was not President Obama, it was Senator Obama who voted to shape the budget President Obama inherited. The AP is very specific about several of President Obama's claims.
OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years."
But the facts show otherwise, according to the AP.
Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger. [Emphasis Mine]
In addition, the AP says this about Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq.
To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.
President Obama inherited a grim Financial situation, which the AP makes clear. But ...
...[H]is response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion. [Emphasis Mine]
It is, to say the least, misleading to claim "... this is George Bush's Budget." The Democrats, who were in control of Congress and therefore the Budget, decided to wait until Obama was President before sending the Bush Budget to the President. By that time it was President Obama who added the EXTRA expanded items to the budget.

Next item.
OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term."
And the facts are.
THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."
Only in selected cases does preventive care save money, and then only maybe.

And about the "Social Security" thing.
OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax."
The fact is the "Social Security" thing is not going to be fix easily. According to the AP ...
THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.

Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.

Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.
Obama has already broken several Campaign Promises. Raising taxes on 95% of the population is another one he will have to break.

Friday, April 24, 2009


Democrats control Congress. Therefore they make the rules. But are they acting in good faith, or because of a personal agenda? The latest example of the latter is indicated by the refusal to allow testimony before Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) House Energy & Commerce Committee. (Mr. Waxman is the Chairman) Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.” [Emphasis Mine]
The "Goracle" is a Rock Star with the Liberals. Yet an examination of Mr. Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, does not pass muster as a truthful documentary. Lord Christopher Monckton has successfully challenged the movie's "facts". Lord Monckton has not just challenged the movie verbally, Lord Mockton has won his challenge in the British Courts." Consequently, Lord Mockton believes he knows why his appearance to debate Mr. Gore was cancelled.
“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

“Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. [Emphasis Mine}
Rep. Waxman has previously made clear he is strongly in favor of Carbon Cap and Trade. Rep. Waxamn chooses to ignore the facts, or any debate which would show the "Goracle's" position is not supported by Scientific Facts. 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie explains the 35 errors contained in the Al Gore Movie An Inconvenient Truth. Nine of these errors were found to be significant enough for the British Court System to uphold Lord Monckton's position in Court.
A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children. [Emphasis Mine]
The question all of us need to ask Rep. Waxman is, "What is your personal agenda?". And, "Why not debate the Science Climate Change?" These are also good questions for each of us to ask our Elected Officials at all levels.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009


Senator John Kerry (D-MA) wants to bail out failing Newspapers like the Boston Globe. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
"America's newspapers are struggling to survive, and while there will be serious consequences in terms of the lives and financial security of the employees involved, including hundreds at the Globe, there will also be serious consequences for our democracy where diversity of opinion and strong debate are paramount," Mr. Kerry said.
Mr. Kerry is absolutely correct to point out that "...there will also be serious consequences for our democracy..." when the Government OWNS the paper. Just exactly how objective and unbiased can the paper dare to be when every Government Official, every Elected Official directs the paper's policy and content? Any paper that receives bailout money is no longer "Independent" or a part of the "Free Press".

This is an idea which is a waste of time and Tax Dollars (our money).
"I am committed to your fight, committed to your industry and committed to ensuring that the vital public service newspapers provide does not disappear," Mr. Kerry told the Globe employees.
If Senator Kerry "...wants to ensure the vital public service newspapers provide does not disappear...", he should subscribe rather than hold hearings (at Taxpayer expense).
Lawmakers are witnessing the crisis firsthand. Press watchdogs who once prowled Capitol Hill are disappearing, replaced by special-interest publications and foreign news organizations.
If our Government provides funds for the Newspaper industry, will not the Press be totally replaced by more special-interest publications? Good-grief what a waste of time and money. Lets get back to the Business of Government, which should be responsibility, accountability and a balanced budget.

Janet Napolitano Oh Good Grief

It would appear that the Obama Administration needs someone in HR to actually make sure appointees are somewhat qualified to hold the position for which they are nominated. In particular the US Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, seems to think the 9-11 Terrorists came into the US through Canada. The border for dummies takes Ms. Napolitano to task for her statements to that effect in a Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) interview.
In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. [Emphasis Mine]
Certainly the Current Secretary of Homeland Security should know that all the 9-11 Terrorists entered the US directly from overseas.
Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."
So she can't talk about her Knowledge of something which should have been clear and definitive knowledge (and therefore a prerequisite for intelligent interviews) as the Secretary of Homeland Security. Instead Ms. Napolitano says something which makes no sense at all. "The future is we have borders."

In previous statements, Ms. Napolitano has equated the Canadian and Mexican borders to the extant that they should both be given the same treatment. Yet the facts show that last year 5,000+ deaths related to drugs occurred along the Mexican US Border while ...
In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?
More drug related deaths along the Mexican Border Last Year than since the 2003 Iraq War Began.

In addition, a week ago the Department of Homeland Security which Ms. Napolitano heads, released a memo concerning the Terroristic Dangers of the conservative right to the American Public. This included all returning Veterans, Catholics and just about anyone else who doesn't agree with the Obama Administration as Terrorist Risks. Napolitano stands by controversial report clearly defines Ms. Napolitano's beliefs.
In her statement Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says "rightwing extremism" may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration...
Beliefs which are so confounding that even Democrats are dumbfounded.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and the "dumbfounded" House Democrat. He probably is not the only one.

Oh wait there's more. DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime quotes Ms. Napolitano as not recognizing a crime.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stunned many listeners during an appearance on CNN when she asserted that illegal immigration is really not a crime.
A crime which the Secretary of Homeland Security should take seriously. Ms. Napolitano made this statement last week on CNN. Madam Secertary wants to go after employers rather than the illegals who cross the border. Why not go after both the illegals and the employers who hire them?
The statute reads: “Any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers . . . shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.”
As the person responsible for Homeland Security, which includes Border Enforcement, shouldn't she know what the statute really says? Since when are we allowed to pick and choose which laws we wish to enforce?

Tuesday, April 21, 2009


John, Abscam unindited co-conspirator, Murtha (D-PA) is at it again. Murtha's Defense Earmarks Draw Questions is another example of the reason the Tea Parties are being held across the country. Rep. Murtha has come to exemplify the meaning of Irresponsible Politicians. He is not accountable to the people of Pennsylvania he represents. Rather he is responsible to those who contribute large sums to his re-election campaign.
As head of a powerful Defense committee, Murtha controls hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, reports CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. And he's not shy about directing money to those who give generously to his election campaigns [Emphasis Mine].
Those taxpayer dollars are our money, but it appears for Rep John Murtha our money is to be used to reward those who made cash contributions to Rep Murtha. These contributions result in Earmarks. That sounds a lot like a legal Political Bribe.
Taxpayer watchdogs may not like how it looks, but it's not against the law unless donations were required in order to receive the earmarks. Looking for evidence of wrongdoing, the FBI has recently raided offices of two other companies linked to Murtha.
Can we really be expected to believe this is the result of Responsible Government Representation?


Again, It's not a Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat or Independent thing which is the motivation behind the current Tea Parties. It is the corruption, waste, conflict of interest, irresponsible behavior of our elected officials that's behind the grassroots movement. It is the expansion of Government, the intrusion of Government and the Spending of our Tax Dollars in a reckless manner which angers those who participate.

For examples, see this previous post, and this post. Here is another example of the irresponsible actions of our officials who are elected to protect and serve US: Senator's husband cashes in on crisis
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
We need political reform, more responsibility and more accountability on the part of our elected officials. This is clearly a Conflict of Interest.
"This clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest," said Kent Cooper, a former federal regulator who specializes in government ethics and disclosures. "To maintain the people's trust in government, it is incumbent on a legislator to take the extra steps necessary to ensure that when she introduces any legislation that it does not cause people to question her motives or the business activities of her spouse."
It is time to stop the reckless spending, the waste, the corruption and the conflict of interest that is our government.

Sunday, April 19, 2009


For those on the left who don't understand the Current Tea Parties, This is what it's all about. The Conservatives, Libertarians, Rednecks, average John and Jane, and some of the Democrats are fed-up with the wasteful spending of our Money (Tax Dollars) and the ridiculous growth of Government. It is not a Democrat, Republican, Independent or Liberal thing. It is spending beyond our means. It is Pork, Earmarks and Irresponsible spending. It means the "Teabaggers" want a responsible Government. One that doesn't spend money they don't have, especially on services and projects we don't need.

Here is a prime example from the "The Washington Post". (Murtha's Earmarks Keep Airport Aloft)
The John Murtha airport sits on a windy mountain two hours east of Pittsburgh, a 650-acre expanse of smooth tarmac, spacious buildings, a helicopter hangar and a National Guard training center.

Inside the terminal on a recent weekday, four passengers lined up to board a flight, outnumbered by seven security staff members and supervisors, all suited up in gloves and uniforms to screen six pieces of luggage. For three hours that day, no commercial or private planes took off or landed. Three commercial flights leave the airport on weekdays, all bound for Dulles International Airport.

The key to the airport's gleaming facilities -- and, indeed, its continued existence -- is $200 million in federal funds in the past decade and the powerful patron who steered most of that money here. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is credited with securing at least $150 million for the airport. It was among the first in the country to win funding from this year's stimulus package: $800,000 to repave a backup runway. [Emphasis Mine]
All you need to understand is that the "TeaBaggers" are as angry as the members of the American Colonies were for the 1st Tea Party. Like then, it's about Responsible Government.

The "Boston Tea Party" took place on December 16, 1773. The American Colonies were fed up with the amount of Taxation imposed by the King and Parliament in England on a populace who had no say in the matter.

The "Current Tea Parties", most of which took place on April 15, 2009, also represent how most Americans (except the Main Stream Media, MSNBC, CNN, Liberal Democrats etc) see our current Tax Dollars being mis-spent. The current Tea Parties are the result of our political representatives are not listening to the voters they represent.

The best sign I saw at the recent "Tea Parties" said: "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID, BUT YOU CAN VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE".


Global Warming alarmists claim the melting of the polar ice caps will cause the sea to rise and cover much of the earth's land. Well they are half right, and NEEDLESSLY crying wolf.

There is some evidence to make the claim that the Arctic (North Pole) Cap is melting. However even if this happens, the sea levels will not rise significantly. The reason is simple. The Arctic Polar Cap is floating and is therefore much like adding ice to a glass of water. When it melts, the glass does not overflow.

The Antarctic (South Pole) Cap is different. Much of the Antarctic Cap is over land and therefore if it melted, flooding could take place due to higher sea levels. But there is little evidence the Antarctic Cap is shrinking. In fact the evidence does indicate the Western Edge is retreating, but the Eastern Edge is Growing. And the Eastern Edge is actually much larger than the Western Edge.

Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking confirms this fact.
Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
Actually the Antarctic Cap contains enormous amounts of the worlds water in the form of ice.
Antarctica has 90 percent of the Earth's ice and 80 percent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica.
But here is the Good News.
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades."
Consequently when you hear some Political Hack claiming that Global Warming guarantees that great parts of the Earth's Surface will soon be under water, it is a false claim. The real scientific truth is contained in this quote.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
It is an INCONVENIENT TRUTH that Al Gore and his cronies cannot base their chicken little hype of impending doom due to Sea Level Flooding on Polar Ice Cap Melting.

Is it any wonder that the "Goracle" will not debate anyone about Global Warming? Clearly the Scientific Facts are accumulating and the writing on the wall is not Nobel Prize worthy.

Saturday, April 18, 2009


The price of EVERYTHING is going to skyrocket if Representative Henry Waxamn (D-CA) succeeds. Waxman Won’t Compromise on 20% Carbon Cap in Climate Measure is all you need to read to realize how far the Left is willing to go to insure we all suffer an enormous financial disaster. Mr. Waxman wants to increase the cost of everything by drafting legislation requiring a 20% Carbon Cap across America.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said he won’t compromise on his proposed 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the next decade in the face of criticism from lawmakers who say the economy could suffer.
The economy not only could but WILL suffer needlessly. Needlessly because the Carbon Cap is designed to reduce the amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere. Man-Made CO2 is released principally by burning fossil fuels like natural gas, oil and coal.

There are severe financial consequences to this action, and will not have any significant effect on Greenhouse Gases. Lack of significant effect because CO2 accounts for ONLY 4% of the Greenhouse Gas emissions, and ONLY 2% of the CO2 is Man-Made!!! The other 2% comes from natural events, such as Volcanoes. The BIGGEST Greenhouse Gas is Water Vapor (H2O). So until Mr. Waxman figures out how to control EVAPORATION, we suffer Financial Ruin through Extremely costly additions (in the form of CO2 scrubbers) to any facility using fossil fuels.

Industry will be severely financially impacted and costs passed on to me and you for everything we make in the US. Where possible, this will ship thousands of jobs overseas due to cost. But also effected, are Electrical Generation, Schools, Hospitals, Hotels and Motels, Municipal Buildings and any other large building which burns fossil fuels. This retro-fitting or Carbon Cap purchases will cost Billions, maybe Trillions of dollars.
Critics of the bill, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, say the climate-change bill will dramatically raise energy costs, effectively levying a tax on consumers and industries.
Logic therefore says the cost will be passed on to us, while all jobs which can be sent overseas will be!!! Think of 3, 4, 5 hundred or more monthly heating bills for most of us. And the same kind of monthly bills for Electricity if this becomes law.

So who gains from this folly? China, Russia, India etc who don't have such restrictive financial burdens. Al Gore will benefit as he will make Billions of Dollars through the various Carbon Cap Trading Companies which he has founded and/or of which he owns stock. Nancy Pelosi and her husband also owns many shares of T. Boone Pickins alternative energy company.

And who looses from this folly? America, you and me through outsourcing more jobs and drastically higher cost for goods and services because of an idea based on a false premise and hype.

To add salt to this financial wound, and despite what Al Gore claims, it is not settled. There is significant and growing evidence that:
  1. CO2 is not the cause of Global Warming. (the CO2 levels have been increasing, but Global Warming has remains relatively stable for the last 8 years.
  2. When the UN held its conference in Poland this past year, 52 Climate Experts supported the idea of Man-Made Global Warming, but over 600 Climate Experts claimed that there is little evidence to Support Man-Made Global Warming.
  3. all the computer models showed as CO2 rises, so does Global Warming, but reality and actual measurement has not followed this model
  4. Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on this Global Warming issue
  5. Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" has made claims which have been proved false, but Al refuses to correct the record.

Thursday, April 16, 2009


Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) calls the "Tea Party" "despicable" and "shameful".
"It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she added. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. [Emphasis Mine]
Notice the words THIS YEAR. This year's taxes are the result of George Bush's TAX CUTS. So why is the Congresswoman complaining at this time? Could this be the reason? Congresswoman's husband pleads guilty to two felonies
The husband of an Illinois congresswoman pleaded guilty Wednesday to tax violations and bank fraud for writing rubber checks and failing to collect withholding tax from an employee. {Emphasis Mine]
So in other words, a Enormous, Grassroots Tax Protest is Despicable and Shameful, but being guilty of the Felonies of Tax Violations and Bank Fraud are not???

To be fair, the Congresswoman is not accused of any wrongdoing.

Sunday, April 12, 2009


UPDATE April 12, 2009: President Obama did affirm the use of Military Resources to rescue American Ship Captain Richard Phillips. However, the use of Military Resources is an authority the On Scene Commander already possessed. President Obama made no public statement of condemnation prior to the successful military action, and he gave no order to use or authorize active Military Action. He should have. See How the rescue happened for clarification.

When the most powerful man in the world is silent on issues of concern to his position, the world draws it's own conclusions. Is it due to weakness, uncertainty, lack of experience or fear that keeps President Obama from condemning the act of piracy? Why shouldn't President Obama make his and therefore the US position crystal clear?

Will the US stand by and let the pirates dictate to the most powerful nation in the world? If so is the US really the most powerful? The rest of the world will judge for themselves, and I believe the world will see the President as weak and ineffective.

Failure to condem, failure to even comment does not show strength.

There is no

Monday, April 6, 2009


When the country elected Obama President, did they really want an agenda of Leftist Policies pushing this country closer and closer to the European Model of Socialism? As wiser men than me have often said, "Be careful what you wish or pray for, because you just may get it!" STUART VARNEY highlights one of the ways to get to the Socialistic Model. It's called Control, and Obama Wants to Control the Banks is a good example of Governmental (Obama) control towards the Socialistic End.
I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?
According to Mr. Varney, this is a form of Class-Warfare leading to Control.
The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
Obama wants to Control the Banks to the point some paybacks HAVE BEEN REFUSED.Under the Bush Administration
Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic. [Emphasis mine]
OK, Bush started it, but as Mr. Varney states for "...purely economic reasons."

Now we have the Obama Administration acting for purely political reasons.
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics. [Emphasis mine]
I don't believe the Majority of voters who voted for Obama intended for this country to make such a LEFT TURN.

Mr. Varney goes on to correctly criticize the "Pay For Performance Act" recently passed by the House.
This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.
The examples of the extreme LEFT TURN abound. It's no longer "we the people". Rather it has become "Obama and the Democrats in Government" who "CONTROL" our destiny.

Sunday, April 5, 2009


Many are outraged at the MILLION$ paid out to Wall Street Executives. But we have a double standard where the Obama White Houe is concerned. W.H. team discloses TARP firm ties is an example of this double standard.
Lawrence Summers, a top economic adviser to President Barack Obama, pulled in more than $2.7 million in speaking fees paid by firms at the heart of the financial crisis, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America Corp. and the now-defunct Lehman Brothers. [Emphasis mine]
Read the list of Corporations from whom he received fees. Aren't these the same group of companies Congress, Obama and others claimed to be so outraged about?
Thomas E. Donilon, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, was paid $3.9 million last year by the power law firm O’Melveny & Myers to represent clients including two firms that received federal bailout funds: Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. [Emphasis mine]
More federal bailout funds paid to Obama aids! Where's the outrage?
White House Counsel Greg Craig last year earned $1.7 million in private practice representing an exiled Bolivian president, a Panamanian lawmaker wanted by the U.S. government for allegedly murdering a U.S. soldier and a tech billionaire accused of securities fraud and various sensational drug and sex crimes. [Emphasis mine]
Question - if he made $1.7 MILLION last year, how much is the White House paying him in Taxpayer (our) dollars? Where's the outrage?

Thursday, March 26, 2009


Outrage at executive bonuses seems to be the issue "de jour" for many elected officials, most of them Democrats. That's Ironic. Because it is many of these same Democrats who actively participated in the bonuses or tax dodging. Rahm Emanuel, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Timothy Geithner, Maxine Waters, Bill Richardson make quite a list of unsavory deeds and SCANDALS.
Rahm Emanuel, according to this "Chicago Tribune" article, (Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at mortgage giant) "earned" at least $320,000 for a 14 month stint on the board of Freddie Mac, while doing little. As we shall see SCANDAL has been close to Rahm in the past.

He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.

The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.
In addition while serving on the Board, a MAJOR ACCOUNTING SCANDLE blackened Freddie's eye.
On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.
But that's not the only SCANDLE during Rahm's watch.
During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.
And now Rahm is Obama's Chief Of Staff. More profiles in ... to follow.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009


In addition to Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Chair of the Senate Banking and Finance Committee, inserting the Dodd Amendment into the Bailout Bill which allowed AIG to pay out Millions of Dollar$ in Bonuses and contribute over $100,000 to Dodd's Political Campaign, it is now revelaed that President Obama received over $100,000 in political contributions from AIG.Obama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG
Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.
Caught with their hands in the Cookie Jar, They Are Now Embarassed?

Tuesday, March 17, 2009


Chris Dodd (D-CT) inserted the language into the bill which gave Billions of TAX PAYER Dollars (our money) to AIG. (Two Faced: Dodd Protected Bonuses, Now He Wants Them Out)
But it was Dodd who inserted language — known as the Dodd amendment — in the $787 billion stimulus bill that allowed all bonuses awarded before February 11, 2009, to be paid to AIG executives. That very amendment, which is now law, is now the chief hurdle to government officials who want to recover that money.
This is the same Senator Dodd who Chairs the Senate Banking and Finance Committee.
Dodd is the largest single recipient of 2008 campaign donations from AIG, with $103,100, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That was more than presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain got, and nearly three times the $35,965 Sen. Hillary Clinton received.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009


The controversy over stem cell research is being distorted by President Obama with the help of the main-stream media. This article, Obama opens up stem cell work, science inquiries, contains the following quote by President Obama.
"Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,"
The authors are referring to President Obama's decision to allow FEDERAL FUNDS (our tax dollars) to be used for Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The problem is that the President and the Media make it appear that there was a BAN on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. This is a GROSS DISTORTION OF THE FACTS!!!

FACT: There has NEVER been a ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The ban was on using FEDERAL MONEY (our Tax Dollars) to fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research. There was NEVER a total ban on FEDERAL MONEY (our Tax Dollars) as funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research either. President Bush only baned the use of FEDERAL MONEY (our Tax Dollars) on NEW Embryonic Stem Cell Research. President Bush allowed FEDERAL MONEY (our Tax Dollars) as funding for the 21 Embryonic Stem Cell already underway when the ban was imposed.

FACT: The most promising research on Stem Cells involves Adult Stem Cells, NOT Embryonic Stem Cells. President Bush approved the use of FEDERAL MONEY (our Tax Dollars) as funding for Adult Stem Cell Research.

FACT: President Bush was the 1st President to allow ANY FEDERAL FUNDING (our Tax Dollars) for STEM CELL RESEARCH.

FACT: President Obama enabled by the sloppy, misleading reporting by the Main-Stream Media, distorts these facts to make it appear he has removed the ban which will allow "SCIENCE" to conquer all of the worst Medical Afflictions of today.
"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.
FACTS, POLITICAL AGENDA AND DISTORTION ARE THE TRUTH IN THIS STORY. President Obama is not being HONEST about this issue, and he is being enabled by the Main-Stream Media.

Here is the full text of President Obama's remarks. (Obama's Remarks at Stem Cell Executive Order Signing) After you read these remarks, you CANNOT, in all honesty believe President Obama DID NOT DISTORT the FACTS???