OBAMA'S "HEALTH CARE NOW OR ELSE"

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?

A GLOBAL WARMING QUESTION

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?

NOW WHAT?

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?

PELOSI

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'
• ABC Gingrich Audio
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?

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.

PELOSI, ROCKEFELLER AND LEFT DENIERS

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.

OBAMA'S WORDS DON'T MATCH ACTIONS

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.

Exactly!!!

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.

SPECTOR IS A TRUE LIBERAL

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.

OBAMA "THAT'S NOT ME" AP "YES IT IS"

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.

MORE GLOBAL WARMING DANGEROUS HYPE

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.