For those of you who often wonder how it is that certain politicians in Congress get to keep their seats no matter what they do, it is often because of something called "gerrymandering".
To insure a Congressional seat for a specific party or candidate, districts are sometimes divided up in such a way as to strongly favor just one party. Usually, it is Democratic districts that are gerrymandered in a most unconventional and corrupt manner.
Originally, states and communities were supposed to be divided into "wards" of equal numbers of people - in blocks. But as corruption overtook Congress, some politicians began moving the boundaries of their districts to incorporate only those areas that were primarily among his party. In other words, the new boundaries would incorporate primarily Democrats while keeping out Republicans, thereby insuring the seat for Democrats.
To help you see exactly what they do, here are the 9 of the top gerrymandered districts in the country. As you can see, they go to great lengths in some cases to "cut out" republican areas. In only one case is the gerrymandered district a Republican district.
As Americans, we should be demanding that our Congress stop messing with districts, and remove all existing gerrymandering, which only breeds corruption. And there is already far too much of that in Wshington. All districts should, as best as it can be done, put back into "block" form. Only in that way can we insure fair elections that are not unfairly tilted in favor of any one party.
/
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Come Again, Ms. Pelosi?
In a recent interview, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) stated that the Democrats will not lose control of the House in the upcoming midterm elections. That, in and of itself is humorous, but does not even come close to the ridiculous statements she made as to why she believes that.
According to Pelosi, "the people" will vote Democrat if the Democrats can get out the message of all they have done. My earnest question is, "WHAT have they done?" In 2008 they wrote and passed the first TARP bill. In 2009 they added another $800 billion to bailouts that did not work. Unemployment is much higher than it was when Obama got elected. Their cap & tax bill never passed. They wasted a year on a bogus health care bill when they should have been focused on jobs. And they are coddling terrorists, offering them Miranda Rights and civilian court trials designed to waste billions of taxpayer dollars.
Not to mention that since they took power in 2006, a total of 57 Democrats have been caught in corrupt or immoral acts that run the gamut of wrongdoing. Even you, Ms. Pelosi, going on camera saying the CIA never told you about waterboarding, and now reports have come out that prove you either lied about that, or you suffer from senility - in either case, it makes you unqualified to serve.
I have a suggestion for Ms. Pelosi - the Democrats may fare better in the elections if they try to HIDE what they have done.
But not to leave us without a good laugh, Pelosi then went even further, making the absolute absurd claim that the "Tea Partiers" will likely vote Democrat because they have so much in common with Democrats. The example she gave was a "shared dislike of special interests."
Oh, you mean like the Unions, whose head, Andy Stearn has visited the White House more often than any other person? Or like all the special interests that became apparent as the Democrats tried to float their health care bill - interests like Big Pharma?
According to recent studies, the lion's share of special interest money is funneled to Democrats, and there are far more lobbyists who were formerly Democrat politicians (like Tom Daschle) than any other group.
Ms. Pelosi, anyone who stays current on the news already knows you cannot tell the truth to save your soul. So when you say the Democrats will keep the House, that almost guarantees that they will lose the House. Thank you.
/
According to Pelosi, "the people" will vote Democrat if the Democrats can get out the message of all they have done. My earnest question is, "WHAT have they done?" In 2008 they wrote and passed the first TARP bill. In 2009 they added another $800 billion to bailouts that did not work. Unemployment is much higher than it was when Obama got elected. Their cap & tax bill never passed. They wasted a year on a bogus health care bill when they should have been focused on jobs. And they are coddling terrorists, offering them Miranda Rights and civilian court trials designed to waste billions of taxpayer dollars.
Not to mention that since they took power in 2006, a total of 57 Democrats have been caught in corrupt or immoral acts that run the gamut of wrongdoing. Even you, Ms. Pelosi, going on camera saying the CIA never told you about waterboarding, and now reports have come out that prove you either lied about that, or you suffer from senility - in either case, it makes you unqualified to serve.
I have a suggestion for Ms. Pelosi - the Democrats may fare better in the elections if they try to HIDE what they have done.
But not to leave us without a good laugh, Pelosi then went even further, making the absolute absurd claim that the "Tea Partiers" will likely vote Democrat because they have so much in common with Democrats. The example she gave was a "shared dislike of special interests."
Oh, you mean like the Unions, whose head, Andy Stearn has visited the White House more often than any other person? Or like all the special interests that became apparent as the Democrats tried to float their health care bill - interests like Big Pharma?
According to recent studies, the lion's share of special interest money is funneled to Democrats, and there are far more lobbyists who were formerly Democrat politicians (like Tom Daschle) than any other group.
Ms. Pelosi, anyone who stays current on the news already knows you cannot tell the truth to save your soul. So when you say the Democrats will keep the House, that almost guarantees that they will lose the House. Thank you.
/
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Now We Know
Now we know the consequences of trying terrorists in civilian courts, as this fool-hardy administration likes to do.
A terror suspect, accused of plotting to blow up a New York subway and kill hundreds of people was given a 1.5 million dollar bond - which his wealthy Imam father posted. So now this (alleged) terrorist is walking the streets of New York, free as a bird.
This sort of thing could never happen with military tribunals. Get it, Holder? Obama?
And who should be held accountable if this person ends up succeeding, and killing many Americans?
By the way - Holder brought 9 far-left liberal lawyers into the DOJ who had defended some of the detainees at Gitmo. The DOJ, entrusted to protect the American people, seems more apt to protect those who would kill us.
/
A terror suspect, accused of plotting to blow up a New York subway and kill hundreds of people was given a 1.5 million dollar bond - which his wealthy Imam father posted. So now this (alleged) terrorist is walking the streets of New York, free as a bird.
This sort of thing could never happen with military tribunals. Get it, Holder? Obama?
And who should be held accountable if this person ends up succeeding, and killing many Americans?
By the way - Holder brought 9 far-left liberal lawyers into the DOJ who had defended some of the detainees at Gitmo. The DOJ, entrusted to protect the American people, seems more apt to protect those who would kill us.
/
Monday, February 22, 2010
Greater Understanding
During the Medieval period, temperatures were as much as 7 degrees warmer than temperatures today, and the people thrived like at no other time in recorded history. This was the period of the Renaissance when the great cathedrals were built in Europe, and the finest wines came from vineyards in England. Yes, England.
Bear in mind, according to Al Gore and the Global Warming crowd, an increase of even 2 degrees would result in devastation. They seem to ignore the warm period of Medieval times which was much warmer. Note, too, that it is still too cold to grow grapes in England, though it was warm enough in through the 12th century. An interesting note: we have beer and hard liquor today only because of the Little Ice Age. Since the vineyards died, Europeans had to turn to making other alcoholic beverages.
In fact, the famed Piri Reis map used by Columbus and drawn centuries before showed something remarkable - Antarctica, free of ice and accurately showing the land mass beneath. It would seem that during the warm period, there was no ice at the poles. Yet, mankind thrived like never before.
Then in the 13th century, the Little Ice Age (LIA) hit, and cooled the Earth by as much as 4 degrees colder than it is even today. During this period, we now know that an average of 5 large volcanic eruptions occured each century, spewing massive amounts of ash into the atmosphere, reducing the amount of radiation the Earth collected from the sun.
(As an aside, just one such volcano - Krakatoa in 1815 - gave rise to "The Year Without A Summer". Making Mount St Helen look like a firecracker, Krakatoa put forth so much as that nearly the entire Earth was subject to cold temperatures for an entire year. Especially in Europe, people starved because no crops could be grown. And that was just one volcano... )
During the coldest period of the LIA, from 1645-1750, the temperature dropped another 4 degrees. This was caused by an event termed the "Maunder Minimum", affecting our sun periodically. It will happen again. (As a side note, it is thought the famous Stradivarius violins are of such fine tonal quality only because the trees harvested at that time had grown during the coldest period of the Maunder Minimum, creating a denser wood that produces finer depth of tone.)
The resulting cold spell resulted in death and devastation, as over 2 million people died of famine related diseases as crops failed. Soon after, this scenario made the "black death" possible, resulting in over 1/3 of the world's population dying from bubonic plague. Over 50,000 hapless people were burned at the stake as communities would blame witchcraft for the change in climate.
Meanwhile, the Vikings suffered the most, with winters so cold that even livestock could not survive. This forced them to raid countries to the south - England and Ireland. Others, like Leif Erikson, sailed west in search of new resources. History tells us he likely made it to Newfoundland, but most certainly to Greenland.
In the 1500's, Spaniards returning from Peru brought back a new plant - the potato - which survives well in colder climes. It became the noted crop of Ireland, and many people still believe the potato originated there. For decades, Europeans refused to eat potatoes, as they thought it to be the Devil's plant. But as starvation plagued the world, the people eventually accepted the potato, and the tide of famine began to turn.
The Little Ice Age persisted until roughly 1850. At that point, the Earth's temperature once again started to rise, struggling to get back to normal. It takes centuries to recover fully from a mini ice age, and we are still coming out of it, which accounts for rising temperatures. But the average mean temperature of the Earth is still 3-4 degrees colder than it was during the renaissance of the Medieval period.
In nature, nothing ever stagnates. Everything is always in a state a flux. What this means is that the Earth will either get warmer, or it will get colder. But it will not remain as it is. We have seen through history that cooling periods are destructive and devastating to humans, while the warmest periods were the most conducive to survival and growth. Given a choice, I would prefer to see the Earth getting warmer.
What our government should be doing is making preparations for the time when the Earth once again cools, as it surely will one day.
One thing that all scientists understand and agree on, regardless of where they stand on global warming, is that the Earth will experience both warming and cooling periods, over and over again. A warm period will cause events (such as the oceanic "conveyor" shutting down from melting glaciers) that will eventually result in a cool period, which will in turn create new glaciers. This is nature. We cannot stop it. But we can and should learn to deal with it, and do more to prepare.
/
Bear in mind, according to Al Gore and the Global Warming crowd, an increase of even 2 degrees would result in devastation. They seem to ignore the warm period of Medieval times which was much warmer. Note, too, that it is still too cold to grow grapes in England, though it was warm enough in through the 12th century. An interesting note: we have beer and hard liquor today only because of the Little Ice Age. Since the vineyards died, Europeans had to turn to making other alcoholic beverages.
In fact, the famed Piri Reis map used by Columbus and drawn centuries before showed something remarkable - Antarctica, free of ice and accurately showing the land mass beneath. It would seem that during the warm period, there was no ice at the poles. Yet, mankind thrived like never before.
Then in the 13th century, the Little Ice Age (LIA) hit, and cooled the Earth by as much as 4 degrees colder than it is even today. During this period, we now know that an average of 5 large volcanic eruptions occured each century, spewing massive amounts of ash into the atmosphere, reducing the amount of radiation the Earth collected from the sun.
(As an aside, just one such volcano - Krakatoa in 1815 - gave rise to "The Year Without A Summer". Making Mount St Helen look like a firecracker, Krakatoa put forth so much as that nearly the entire Earth was subject to cold temperatures for an entire year. Especially in Europe, people starved because no crops could be grown. And that was just one volcano... )
During the coldest period of the LIA, from 1645-1750, the temperature dropped another 4 degrees. This was caused by an event termed the "Maunder Minimum", affecting our sun periodically. It will happen again. (As a side note, it is thought the famous Stradivarius violins are of such fine tonal quality only because the trees harvested at that time had grown during the coldest period of the Maunder Minimum, creating a denser wood that produces finer depth of tone.)
The resulting cold spell resulted in death and devastation, as over 2 million people died of famine related diseases as crops failed. Soon after, this scenario made the "black death" possible, resulting in over 1/3 of the world's population dying from bubonic plague. Over 50,000 hapless people were burned at the stake as communities would blame witchcraft for the change in climate.
Meanwhile, the Vikings suffered the most, with winters so cold that even livestock could not survive. This forced them to raid countries to the south - England and Ireland. Others, like Leif Erikson, sailed west in search of new resources. History tells us he likely made it to Newfoundland, but most certainly to Greenland.
In the 1500's, Spaniards returning from Peru brought back a new plant - the potato - which survives well in colder climes. It became the noted crop of Ireland, and many people still believe the potato originated there. For decades, Europeans refused to eat potatoes, as they thought it to be the Devil's plant. But as starvation plagued the world, the people eventually accepted the potato, and the tide of famine began to turn.
The Little Ice Age persisted until roughly 1850. At that point, the Earth's temperature once again started to rise, struggling to get back to normal. It takes centuries to recover fully from a mini ice age, and we are still coming out of it, which accounts for rising temperatures. But the average mean temperature of the Earth is still 3-4 degrees colder than it was during the renaissance of the Medieval period.
In nature, nothing ever stagnates. Everything is always in a state a flux. What this means is that the Earth will either get warmer, or it will get colder. But it will not remain as it is. We have seen through history that cooling periods are destructive and devastating to humans, while the warmest periods were the most conducive to survival and growth. Given a choice, I would prefer to see the Earth getting warmer.
What our government should be doing is making preparations for the time when the Earth once again cools, as it surely will one day.
One thing that all scientists understand and agree on, regardless of where they stand on global warming, is that the Earth will experience both warming and cooling periods, over and over again. A warm period will cause events (such as the oceanic "conveyor" shutting down from melting glaciers) that will eventually result in a cool period, which will in turn create new glaciers. This is nature. We cannot stop it. But we can and should learn to deal with it, and do more to prepare.
/
Dominoes (no, not the pizza)
It seems that the Global Warming data is falling like dominoes. Every week we get more information about the defects in the "data". And today, perhaps the "death knell"...
First, Thomas Karl, the "scientist" who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department's new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject, and has been accused of such by none other than Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who resigned from the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change because his data had been suppressed.
But this next blow is a doozie: Scientists have been forced to retract a paper that claimed sea level were rising thanks to the effects of global warming, after mistakes were discovered that undermined the results. The study was published in Nature Geoscience and predicted that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century and was used by the U.N. to bolster their own claims which warned of the dangerous of "man-made climate change".
As reported by Fox News, " mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the results."
The authors of the report, Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark now state, "We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors .
Can any of these "scientists" be believed?
/
First, Thomas Karl, the "scientist" who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department's new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject, and has been accused of such by none other than Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who resigned from the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change because his data had been suppressed.
But this next blow is a doozie: Scientists have been forced to retract a paper that claimed sea level were rising thanks to the effects of global warming, after mistakes were discovered that undermined the results. The study was published in Nature Geoscience and predicted that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century and was used by the U.N. to bolster their own claims which warned of the dangerous of "man-made climate change".
As reported by Fox News, " mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the results."
The authors of the report, Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark now state, "We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors .
Can any of these "scientists" be believed?
/
Reality Check
Yesterday, published in "Daily Finance":
"You don't have to look hard to discern what many, if not most, Tea Partiers think of globalization: Their first plank is free market/limited government. So it's go, globalization, go!Further, Tea Partiers would no doubt be thrilled to see a simultaneous dismantling of the federal social safety net."
They went on to say that the globalization, which they claim is free markets, is responsible for our job losses.
Apparently the Daily Finance has no clue whatever as to what the Tea Partiers are saying. What's worse, they seemingly have no clue as to what a "free market" is. They are confusing "free market" with "free trade."
Yes, globalization is a major cause of job loss in America. But the fallacy of their claim is that globalization is somehow synonymous with free markets.
When tea partiers - and most sane Americans - refer to "free markets", they are referring to markets that are not constrained by government and by unions. Excessive government regulation, high taxes and union power has destroyed the ability of American business to compete fairly with those in China and India that are not hobbled in that way. So, Daily Finance, your so-called "free market" is not a ee market at all.
When Tea Partiers speak of free markets, they are saying they want free markets, but they want them to be FAIR. There is a huge difference betweeen FREE trade and FAIR trade. The Daily Finance should know that, but apparently do not. Our government already knows that, but does not care.
Americans want our American businesses to be able to compete on the world stage. In a truly free market, they could. But in a market where the cards are arbitrarily stacked against American business by our own government and by power-grabbing unions that drive costs sky-high, there is no such thing as a free market.
/
"You don't have to look hard to discern what many, if not most, Tea Partiers think of globalization: Their first plank is free market/limited government. So it's go, globalization, go!Further, Tea Partiers would no doubt be thrilled to see a simultaneous dismantling of the federal social safety net."
They went on to say that the globalization, which they claim is free markets, is responsible for our job losses.
Apparently the Daily Finance has no clue whatever as to what the Tea Partiers are saying. What's worse, they seemingly have no clue as to what a "free market" is. They are confusing "free market" with "free trade."
Yes, globalization is a major cause of job loss in America. But the fallacy of their claim is that globalization is somehow synonymous with free markets.
When tea partiers - and most sane Americans - refer to "free markets", they are referring to markets that are not constrained by government and by unions. Excessive government regulation, high taxes and union power has destroyed the ability of American business to compete fairly with those in China and India that are not hobbled in that way. So, Daily Finance, your so-called "free market" is not a ee market at all.
When Tea Partiers speak of free markets, they are saying they want free markets, but they want them to be FAIR. There is a huge difference betweeen FREE trade and FAIR trade. The Daily Finance should know that, but apparently do not. Our government already knows that, but does not care.
Americans want our American businesses to be able to compete on the world stage. In a truly free market, they could. But in a market where the cards are arbitrarily stacked against American business by our own government and by power-grabbing unions that drive costs sky-high, there is no such thing as a free market.
/
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Say What?
One of Tiger Woods' supposed affairs has hired the famous ambulance-chasing lawyer, Gloria Allred. Seems she considers herself a "victim", as she was under the impression Tiger would leave his wife, Elin, for her.
I had to rewind that, because I could not believe the idiocy of her and her lawyer, making her out to be a victim.
Look, for the benefit of those who may empathize with that woman, please note: if you knowingly sleep with a man who you know to be married, NEITHER of you are victims. You are both PERPETRATORS and both deserve whatever may befall them.
It's like two guys holding up a liquor store. On the way out, crook #1 clobbers crook #2 and takes off with all the money. This does not may crook #1 a victim - he is still a thief, and it was not HIS money that was stolen.
Get it, Gloria? You have become as big a loser as the people you represent.
/
I had to rewind that, because I could not believe the idiocy of her and her lawyer, making her out to be a victim.
Look, for the benefit of those who may empathize with that woman, please note: if you knowingly sleep with a man who you know to be married, NEITHER of you are victims. You are both PERPETRATORS and both deserve whatever may befall them.
It's like two guys holding up a liquor store. On the way out, crook #1 clobbers crook #2 and takes off with all the money. This does not may crook #1 a victim - he is still a thief, and it was not HIS money that was stolen.
Get it, Gloria? You have become as big a loser as the people you represent.
/
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Chicago Mob Strikes Again
From AP:
"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama signed an order Thursday unilaterally creating a bipartisan commission to rein in unruly deficits after Congress rejected a similar body with considerably more enforcement power.In making the announcement, Obama said that unless lawmakers put aside partisan differences, the continuing red-ink trend could "hobble our economy."
Excuse me, Mr. President, but it occurs to me that the "red-ink trend" was created primarily by you and your minions in Congress. All you have done since your inauguration is spend, spend, spend. Now that there is no money left to spend, you are suddenly fiscally conservative? Who are you trying to kid?
Here is what is REALLY going on:
The liberal administration and Congress has purposely bankrupted us in an effort to force a more socialist state upon us. Once broke, this "commission" will undoubtedly determine that the only "cure" is much higher taxes - probably the Value Added Tax the Dems have been wanting for decades. And there you have the foundation of a socialist state.
Obama, Pelosi and Reid still have a lot of less educated and lesser informed people fooled, but more are catching on every day, and if there is a Democrat left standing in November it will be a rarity. I just hope it's not too late to stop the "suicide train".
Meanwhile, also from AP:
"WASHINGTON – The White House and congressional leaders are preparing a detailed health care proposal designed to win passage without Republican support if GOP lawmakers fail to embrace bipartisan compromises at President Barack Obama's summit next week.A senior White House official said Thursday that Democratic negotiators are resolving final differences in House and Senate health bills that passed last year with virtually no Republican help. The White House plans to post the proposals online by Monday morning, three days ahead of the Feb. 25 summit, which GOP leaders are approaching warily."
In other words, the Dems are standing by their wacky definition of "bipartisan", which is defined by them as "we will write the bill without any input from you, and YOU just sit down, shut up and vote for it." By posting their bill online 3 days in advance, they are trying to strong-arm republicans into coming to the circus with tails between their legs. Ah-h-h, bipartisanship!
Here's how this is going down - the Dems, as noted above, wrote the entire bill. On February 25, Obama wants to meet with Republicans in a phony attempt at "bipartisanship". The Republicans will be told, "This is the bill. It already has our "compromises" (which the Republicans also had no say in), and "now we want you to vote for it, or we will call you obstructionists."
The democrats have no intention of seeking bipartisanship - they simply want an excuse to color Republicans as the "party of 'no' " so they can proceed to bully their bill through without any real compromise. It's called "stacking the deck", or "dealing off the bottom." In any other profession it would land Obama, Pelosi and Reid behind bars.Can anyone say, "Chicago Mob Tactics?"
Any sane person will realize that it is the Democrats that are the obstructionists by not allowing a true bipartisan bill. Under bipartisanship, no bill is presented. Instead, BOTH sides contribute to creating a bill BOTH sides can support, then BOTH sides vote for it.
But that does not happen in the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumverate of unconscionable governance.
/
"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama signed an order Thursday unilaterally creating a bipartisan commission to rein in unruly deficits after Congress rejected a similar body with considerably more enforcement power.In making the announcement, Obama said that unless lawmakers put aside partisan differences, the continuing red-ink trend could "hobble our economy."
Excuse me, Mr. President, but it occurs to me that the "red-ink trend" was created primarily by you and your minions in Congress. All you have done since your inauguration is spend, spend, spend. Now that there is no money left to spend, you are suddenly fiscally conservative? Who are you trying to kid?
Here is what is REALLY going on:
The liberal administration and Congress has purposely bankrupted us in an effort to force a more socialist state upon us. Once broke, this "commission" will undoubtedly determine that the only "cure" is much higher taxes - probably the Value Added Tax the Dems have been wanting for decades. And there you have the foundation of a socialist state.
Obama, Pelosi and Reid still have a lot of less educated and lesser informed people fooled, but more are catching on every day, and if there is a Democrat left standing in November it will be a rarity. I just hope it's not too late to stop the "suicide train".
Meanwhile, also from AP:
"WASHINGTON – The White House and congressional leaders are preparing a detailed health care proposal designed to win passage without Republican support if GOP lawmakers fail to embrace bipartisan compromises at President Barack Obama's summit next week.A senior White House official said Thursday that Democratic negotiators are resolving final differences in House and Senate health bills that passed last year with virtually no Republican help. The White House plans to post the proposals online by Monday morning, three days ahead of the Feb. 25 summit, which GOP leaders are approaching warily."
In other words, the Dems are standing by their wacky definition of "bipartisan", which is defined by them as "we will write the bill without any input from you, and YOU just sit down, shut up and vote for it." By posting their bill online 3 days in advance, they are trying to strong-arm republicans into coming to the circus with tails between their legs. Ah-h-h, bipartisanship!
Here's how this is going down - the Dems, as noted above, wrote the entire bill. On February 25, Obama wants to meet with Republicans in a phony attempt at "bipartisanship". The Republicans will be told, "This is the bill. It already has our "compromises" (which the Republicans also had no say in), and "now we want you to vote for it, or we will call you obstructionists."
The democrats have no intention of seeking bipartisanship - they simply want an excuse to color Republicans as the "party of 'no' " so they can proceed to bully their bill through without any real compromise. It's called "stacking the deck", or "dealing off the bottom." In any other profession it would land Obama, Pelosi and Reid behind bars.Can anyone say, "Chicago Mob Tactics?"
Any sane person will realize that it is the Democrats that are the obstructionists by not allowing a true bipartisan bill. Under bipartisanship, no bill is presented. Instead, BOTH sides contribute to creating a bill BOTH sides can support, then BOTH sides vote for it.
But that does not happen in the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumverate of unconscionable governance.
/
Resignation
Success comes from the truth, not from lies.
The U.N.'s climate chief is stepping down. From the Associated Press:
"De Boer, 55, was appointed in 2006 to shepherd through an agreement to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions an average 5 percent.
He said the high point of his efforts was the agreement by developing countries, reached at the 2007 conference in Bali, Indonesia, to join in efforts to contain global warming in return for financial and technical help from the wealthy nations."
Is anyone else actually noticing? The poor nations joined hands in an effort to extort trillions of dollars from the richer nations. That is exactly what that last paragragh says. Gee, I wonder how hard it was to get poor countries to join forces to rob the rich. "Hey, Myanmar - if you join in on this hoax, you can get 2 billion dollars from the U.S. Since you are not an industrial nation, you don't have to do a thing except take the money and use it to build your anti-American army."
Another point worthy of note - De Boer resigns on the heels of the world discovering that the U.N.'s report on climate change is full of more holes than a swiss cheese, and contains more factual errors and outright lies than the liberals' rewriting of history.
Any future built upon lies is a dark future.
/
The U.N.'s climate chief is stepping down. From the Associated Press:
"De Boer, 55, was appointed in 2006 to shepherd through an agreement to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions an average 5 percent.
He said the high point of his efforts was the agreement by developing countries, reached at the 2007 conference in Bali, Indonesia, to join in efforts to contain global warming in return for financial and technical help from the wealthy nations."
Is anyone else actually noticing? The poor nations joined hands in an effort to extort trillions of dollars from the richer nations. That is exactly what that last paragragh says. Gee, I wonder how hard it was to get poor countries to join forces to rob the rich. "Hey, Myanmar - if you join in on this hoax, you can get 2 billion dollars from the U.S. Since you are not an industrial nation, you don't have to do a thing except take the money and use it to build your anti-American army."
Another point worthy of note - De Boer resigns on the heels of the world discovering that the U.N.'s report on climate change is full of more holes than a swiss cheese, and contains more factual errors and outright lies than the liberals' rewriting of history.
Any future built upon lies is a dark future.
/
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Do You Believe In Magic?
Most educated, sane folks do not believe in magic. But apparently the Obama administration does. As I listened to his speech this morning (between bouts of laughter), I noticed that his administration not only believes in magic, but bases policies on it.
For example, Obama stated that he would increase the number of exports of American products. Now THAT would be magic of the highest order. For one thing, American products are so expensive because of the costs of unions and taxes that other nations simply do not want them - why import $50 shoes from America when they can import $10 shoes from China? Second, in order to SHIP product (assuming anyone wants to import them), we must first have product to ship. We do not. Very little is "Made in the USA" anymore. So, as usual, Obama "speechifies" a great speech, but it has no real content. It relies upon magic.
He went on to say that 95 million folks got tax cuts from his Stimulus Bill. First, according to the IRS only 60 million filers even pay any taxes. Therefore, IF his statement is true, then 35 million people who pay no taxes got a "tax cut". In other words, increased welfare. But in looking over his claim, I do not know of one single person who has claimed they saw any tax cut. I certainly did not see one. If there is ANYONE out there who saw a tax cut that was really a tax cut (and not simply a deferment on their withholding), I would like to hear from you.
Again, it would appear those "tax cuts" are some sort of magic - slight of hand.
Obama also said that Republicans, who voted against the Stimulus bill, were all too willing to attend ribbon cutting ceremonies of projects paid for by the stimulus. That, too, would be magic, since the GAO has already stated that of all stimulus money spent to date, 87% went to DEMOCRAT districts and for UNION jobs.
He then stated that he and Biden were proud to claim that the Stimulus bill did not include any earmarks. That is not magic - it is an out-right lie. Again the GOA gives data that shows over $4,000,000,000 of the stimulus money went for pork projects, including a water park in Florida, golf course maintenance, under-the-highway tunnels for turtles, and saving some mouse in San Francisco.
Frankly, I do not believe in magic. And I do not believe a word that comes out of Obama's lips.
/
For example, Obama stated that he would increase the number of exports of American products. Now THAT would be magic of the highest order. For one thing, American products are so expensive because of the costs of unions and taxes that other nations simply do not want them - why import $50 shoes from America when they can import $10 shoes from China? Second, in order to SHIP product (assuming anyone wants to import them), we must first have product to ship. We do not. Very little is "Made in the USA" anymore. So, as usual, Obama "speechifies" a great speech, but it has no real content. It relies upon magic.
He went on to say that 95 million folks got tax cuts from his Stimulus Bill. First, according to the IRS only 60 million filers even pay any taxes. Therefore, IF his statement is true, then 35 million people who pay no taxes got a "tax cut". In other words, increased welfare. But in looking over his claim, I do not know of one single person who has claimed they saw any tax cut. I certainly did not see one. If there is ANYONE out there who saw a tax cut that was really a tax cut (and not simply a deferment on their withholding), I would like to hear from you.
Again, it would appear those "tax cuts" are some sort of magic - slight of hand.
Obama also said that Republicans, who voted against the Stimulus bill, were all too willing to attend ribbon cutting ceremonies of projects paid for by the stimulus. That, too, would be magic, since the GAO has already stated that of all stimulus money spent to date, 87% went to DEMOCRAT districts and for UNION jobs.
He then stated that he and Biden were proud to claim that the Stimulus bill did not include any earmarks. That is not magic - it is an out-right lie. Again the GOA gives data that shows over $4,000,000,000 of the stimulus money went for pork projects, including a water park in Florida, golf course maintenance, under-the-highway tunnels for turtles, and saving some mouse in San Francisco.
Frankly, I do not believe in magic. And I do not believe a word that comes out of Obama's lips.
/
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Deja Vu
From a news release today: "In an interview on MSNBC this morning, newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh declared the American political system "dysfunctional," riddled with "brain-dead partisanship" and permanent campaigning. Bayh stated that the American people needed to deliver a "shock" to Congress by voting incumbents out in mass and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups."
Now, if you have been reading my blogs for any length of time, you might remember that I have been calling for the voting out of ALL incumbents for years. The only way to clean house is to sweep ALL the floors clean and toss the dirt OUT.
I never thought I would see the day when a Democrat would agree with me. But Bayh has always been a man whom I have respected, though I may not have agreed with his beliefs. He has always been a man with honor.
Apparently my respect for him is well-founded.
/
Now, if you have been reading my blogs for any length of time, you might remember that I have been calling for the voting out of ALL incumbents for years. The only way to clean house is to sweep ALL the floors clean and toss the dirt OUT.
I never thought I would see the day when a Democrat would agree with me. But Bayh has always been a man whom I have respected, though I may not have agreed with his beliefs. He has always been a man with honor.
Apparently my respect for him is well-founded.
/
Thank You, Joe
I always appreciate a good laugh, and this time we were all treated to a great one.
As every person on the planet knows, then Senators Joe Biden and Barak Obama both voted against the surge in Iraq, and both worked tirelessly to give up in Iraq and pull out.
Now that Iraq has quieted down quite a bit because of the Bush "surge", Obama and Biden just jumped up with the statement, "Iraq may well be the crowning achievement of the Obama Administration."
The sheer, unmitigated gall of them trying to take credit for Iraq. I laughed so hard I nearly had to change my pants.
On second thought, the way the Obama administration is going, letting the Bush policy in Iraq work may well be his only achievement.
/
As every person on the planet knows, then Senators Joe Biden and Barak Obama both voted against the surge in Iraq, and both worked tirelessly to give up in Iraq and pull out.
Now that Iraq has quieted down quite a bit because of the Bush "surge", Obama and Biden just jumped up with the statement, "Iraq may well be the crowning achievement of the Obama Administration."
The sheer, unmitigated gall of them trying to take credit for Iraq. I laughed so hard I nearly had to change my pants.
On second thought, the way the Obama administration is going, letting the Bush policy in Iraq work may well be his only achievement.
/
Monday, February 8, 2010
Health Care Summit
President Obama wants a summit on health care, and has (finally) invited the Republicans to join in the discussion, supposedly in an attempt at bipartisanship. But is that what this is really about?
The president has already said he does not plan on changing what the Democrats have offered in their bill. He does not plan on starting over. So just what IS the game plan?
It's not a summit. It's a set-up.
I will go on record right here and now - I think the "bipartisan summit" is a sham, and an intentional sham. There will be no real attempt at bipartisanship, and I can almost guarantee that Obama and the Democrats will let Republicans speak, but will refuse to adopt any meaningful Republican ideas.
One of two things will happen:
1) Either the Democrats will reject any meaningful Republican ideas out of hand, and then go forward saying, "Gee, we tried to be bipartisan, but those obstructionist Republicans just would not cooperate." Or...
2) The Democrats will choose some small, meaningless part of a Republican idea and offer to include it if the Republicans will back the Democrat bill. Obviously, the Republicans would be forced to refuse because they really are not getting anything at all. And again the Democrats will go forth and say, "Gee, we tried to be bipartisan. We even offered to adopt part of their plan, but those obstructionist Republicans just would not cooperate."
In other words, it will be business as usual, the same old Chicago-style politics we have been witnessing for a year. The health care summit will only be a bogus attempt to make the Democrats APPEAR to be bipartisan while making the Republicans APPEAR to be obstructionist. But the reverse would actually be the truth.
Suffice it to say that I seriously doubt the Democrats have any intention of seriously listening to, or adopting any Republican ideas to cut health care costs and get more people covered.
Time will tell. But for the last year, the Democrat's idea of "bipartisan" means they write the bill, then Republicans shut up and vote for it. I have a newsflash for the Democrats - that line of thinking is why you are now losing so many Democrat strongholds like Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Bipartisanship means both sides get to provide input and write the bill, so members of both sides can vote for it. It's called compromise. But that is a word that the administration, Pelosi and Reid simply do not understand.
/
The president has already said he does not plan on changing what the Democrats have offered in their bill. He does not plan on starting over. So just what IS the game plan?
It's not a summit. It's a set-up.
I will go on record right here and now - I think the "bipartisan summit" is a sham, and an intentional sham. There will be no real attempt at bipartisanship, and I can almost guarantee that Obama and the Democrats will let Republicans speak, but will refuse to adopt any meaningful Republican ideas.
One of two things will happen:
1) Either the Democrats will reject any meaningful Republican ideas out of hand, and then go forward saying, "Gee, we tried to be bipartisan, but those obstructionist Republicans just would not cooperate." Or...
2) The Democrats will choose some small, meaningless part of a Republican idea and offer to include it if the Republicans will back the Democrat bill. Obviously, the Republicans would be forced to refuse because they really are not getting anything at all. And again the Democrats will go forth and say, "Gee, we tried to be bipartisan. We even offered to adopt part of their plan, but those obstructionist Republicans just would not cooperate."
In other words, it will be business as usual, the same old Chicago-style politics we have been witnessing for a year. The health care summit will only be a bogus attempt to make the Democrats APPEAR to be bipartisan while making the Republicans APPEAR to be obstructionist. But the reverse would actually be the truth.
Suffice it to say that I seriously doubt the Democrats have any intention of seriously listening to, or adopting any Republican ideas to cut health care costs and get more people covered.
Time will tell. But for the last year, the Democrat's idea of "bipartisan" means they write the bill, then Republicans shut up and vote for it. I have a newsflash for the Democrats - that line of thinking is why you are now losing so many Democrat strongholds like Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Bipartisanship means both sides get to provide input and write the bill, so members of both sides can vote for it. It's called compromise. But that is a word that the administration, Pelosi and Reid simply do not understand.
/
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Simple Fiscal Responsibility
Simple Fiscal Responsibility
Everyone knows our country is way too far in debt, and it is getting worse by the minute. And in spite of paying our representatives and their staff a total of over 5 billion dollars a year, they seem incapable of solving the problem. Strange, since the answer has always been right in front of them.
According to the Constitution, Congress should not be paying for ANYTHING that is not of significant national value. In other words, the family dude in Idaho should not be paying taxes to build a golf course in Florida.
Fully 30% of all federal income taxes are used for non-federal use, such as grants, local bridges, schools, and the list goes on forever (Congress recently approved $100,000 for some guy to put on a PUPPET SHOW!)
So, the solution is simple, and I will list it in steps:
1) Pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for the federal government to spend any taxpayer funds on anything that does not have significant national purpose, for the general welfare of the nation as a whole, or the national defense etc.
2) This reduces the need for 30% of all income taxes, so all federal income taxes should be reduced by 20%. The remaining 10% excess taxes the government collects would be required, BY LAW, to be applied to the national debt until paid. Once paid, the remaining 10% would also be stricken from federal income taxes.
3) Since states would now be responsible (as they should be) for all local expenditures, they can raise state taxes to garnish 15% of the 20% the people are saving on federal taxes. That extra 15% would replace lost federal funding.
4) The average taxpayer saves a total of 5% of his taxes.
There you have it:
a) A balanced federal budget, with the deficit being paid down quickly and relatively easily
b) states regain their sovereignty
c) taxpayers save 5% on taxes
d) Congressmen cannot use pork to buy their seat in the next election - they will have to EARN their seats
e) Anyone wishing to put on a puppet show must do so at their own expense
Simple. And frankly, it is already in the Constitution.
/
Everyone knows our country is way too far in debt, and it is getting worse by the minute. And in spite of paying our representatives and their staff a total of over 5 billion dollars a year, they seem incapable of solving the problem. Strange, since the answer has always been right in front of them.
According to the Constitution, Congress should not be paying for ANYTHING that is not of significant national value. In other words, the family dude in Idaho should not be paying taxes to build a golf course in Florida.
Fully 30% of all federal income taxes are used for non-federal use, such as grants, local bridges, schools, and the list goes on forever (Congress recently approved $100,000 for some guy to put on a PUPPET SHOW!)
So, the solution is simple, and I will list it in steps:
1) Pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for the federal government to spend any taxpayer funds on anything that does not have significant national purpose, for the general welfare of the nation as a whole, or the national defense etc.
2) This reduces the need for 30% of all income taxes, so all federal income taxes should be reduced by 20%. The remaining 10% excess taxes the government collects would be required, BY LAW, to be applied to the national debt until paid. Once paid, the remaining 10% would also be stricken from federal income taxes.
3) Since states would now be responsible (as they should be) for all local expenditures, they can raise state taxes to garnish 15% of the 20% the people are saving on federal taxes. That extra 15% would replace lost federal funding.
4) The average taxpayer saves a total of 5% of his taxes.
There you have it:
a) A balanced federal budget, with the deficit being paid down quickly and relatively easily
b) states regain their sovereignty
c) taxpayers save 5% on taxes
d) Congressmen cannot use pork to buy their seat in the next election - they will have to EARN their seats
e) Anyone wishing to put on a puppet show must do so at their own expense
Simple. And frankly, it is already in the Constitution.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)