From Breitbart TV
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina
I know this a couple of years old, and I've posted it before... But with the current administration we have in the White House, I don't think it would take much of an incident for them to declare Martial Law and try this nationwide.
Listen and learn...
Wake up America!
Listen and learn...
Wake up America!
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Weasel Has Spoken
The big news today was the so-called apology by one Eldric 'Tiger' Woods to his wife, his fans and to the game of golf. He didn't apologize to me or to you!
Well, I listened and I wasn't impressed.
Let me start by saying I have been playing golf since I was 18 years old... and that's a very long time!
The folks that helped me to learn the game and the 'teachers' I had, all had one central theme... Golf is a game of honor and respect, that is to be played with integrity, good manners, and a deep sense of fairness.
I have watched Mr. Woods for a very long time.
He was very fortunate that his father placed a golf club in his hands before he could walk.
I saw him on The Johnny Carson Show... I watched him perform 'tricks' at a very early age... I watched his amature career at Stanford... And I've watched his performance as a touring professional.
Now, golf is an unusual sport(heck, many guys feel that golf is really NOT a sport!), in that it is self governed- (except in tournement play). There are no umpires, no referees, no time keepers, no score keepers. Each golfer is responsible for his own actions on the course.
If you shot 92 and you mark your scorecard as shooting an 86, nobody is going to penalize you for cheating. You are just going to have to live with that fact on your own. If you do it often enough, your playing partners will catch on and disown you - never to invite you into their foursome again.
My father once told me that the only thing I had when I entered this world and began to interact with other folks, was my own personal reputation.
If I damaged that reputation, I not only damaged my family and friends, but I most likely damaged my future. The MOST important thing in MY life is MY REPUTATION, period!
Mr. Woods has severely damaged his reputation. It remains to be seen if it can be repaired or regained.
In his prepared statement to 'his friends', Mr. Woods said he was deeply sorry for his transgressions.
Well good. That's a start.
But his damage to 'the game of golf' may be beyond repair.
His behavior is not new.
I have watched his spitting, his throwing of clubs, his cursing, his gutter behavior on national TV.
Hardly respect, honor or good manners.
He has never made any excuses, and the media has never chastised him for such behavior. I suspect the media is so enamored of his unique skills that they simply excuse his rude and vulgar behavior because he is such a competent golfer.
Frankly, I'm shocked that these so-called 'private' clubs, (where most professional events are played), would tolerate such behavior to be shown in a public forum on their courses. Are we to believe that Mr. Wood's on course behavior represents their values?
Now please understand I have committed some of the same transgressions... Just not in front of other people and certianly not on National TV!
I have no issues with Mr. Wood's off course behavior as an individual, but I have MANY issues with him being a role model and the respect he is granted by the media.
His off-course behavior was obviously influenced by his peers - other pro atheletes - (obviously not his wife!), and we have all seen their life styles on public display. Atheletes like Kobe Bryant come to mind. But that is basketball, a sport now dominated by mostly black individuals that bring a sense of 'gansta' and 'street values' to the court.
If Mr Woods wants to be like his peers, fine. But that is not how golfers behave. His 'double life' must come to an end!
And why is it that every other golfer is listed by their actual names? Fred Couples is known affectionally as "Boob-Boom", but is listed as Fred Couples on the leader board. Greg Norman is affectionately known as 'The Shark", but is listed on the leader board as Greg Norman. Arnold Palmer was known as "The King', but was always listed on the leader board as Arnold Palmer. The list goes on and on... but they ALL used their REAL name!
Why is Eldric Woods ALWAYS listed as "Tiger Woods"?
Because of his reputation?
Well. if that is so, then that practice MUST stop! And NOW!
He has damaged his reputation and no longer deserves ANY nickname at all... Well, maybe one... "LOSER!" or, 'CHEATER!"
Eldric Woods must answer to his wife, his family and his God for what he has done off the course.
For his actions on the course, he must answer to you and I, to history and the ancient game itself. Sure, he's very good.
But he's NOT bigger than the game.
I hope he just goes away.
The game will be better off without a "CHEATER'!
____________________
Well, I listened and I wasn't impressed.
Let me start by saying I have been playing golf since I was 18 years old... and that's a very long time!
The folks that helped me to learn the game and the 'teachers' I had, all had one central theme... Golf is a game of honor and respect, that is to be played with integrity, good manners, and a deep sense of fairness.
I have watched Mr. Woods for a very long time.
He was very fortunate that his father placed a golf club in his hands before he could walk.
I saw him on The Johnny Carson Show... I watched him perform 'tricks' at a very early age... I watched his amature career at Stanford... And I've watched his performance as a touring professional.
Now, golf is an unusual sport(heck, many guys feel that golf is really NOT a sport!), in that it is self governed- (except in tournement play). There are no umpires, no referees, no time keepers, no score keepers. Each golfer is responsible for his own actions on the course.
If you shot 92 and you mark your scorecard as shooting an 86, nobody is going to penalize you for cheating. You are just going to have to live with that fact on your own. If you do it often enough, your playing partners will catch on and disown you - never to invite you into their foursome again.
My father once told me that the only thing I had when I entered this world and began to interact with other folks, was my own personal reputation.
If I damaged that reputation, I not only damaged my family and friends, but I most likely damaged my future. The MOST important thing in MY life is MY REPUTATION, period!
Mr. Woods has severely damaged his reputation. It remains to be seen if it can be repaired or regained.
In his prepared statement to 'his friends', Mr. Woods said he was deeply sorry for his transgressions.
Well good. That's a start.
But his damage to 'the game of golf' may be beyond repair.
His behavior is not new.
I have watched his spitting, his throwing of clubs, his cursing, his gutter behavior on national TV.
Hardly respect, honor or good manners.
He has never made any excuses, and the media has never chastised him for such behavior. I suspect the media is so enamored of his unique skills that they simply excuse his rude and vulgar behavior because he is such a competent golfer.
Frankly, I'm shocked that these so-called 'private' clubs, (where most professional events are played), would tolerate such behavior to be shown in a public forum on their courses. Are we to believe that Mr. Wood's on course behavior represents their values?
Now please understand I have committed some of the same transgressions... Just not in front of other people and certianly not on National TV!
I have no issues with Mr. Wood's off course behavior as an individual, but I have MANY issues with him being a role model and the respect he is granted by the media.
His off-course behavior was obviously influenced by his peers - other pro atheletes - (obviously not his wife!), and we have all seen their life styles on public display. Atheletes like Kobe Bryant come to mind. But that is basketball, a sport now dominated by mostly black individuals that bring a sense of 'gansta' and 'street values' to the court.
If Mr Woods wants to be like his peers, fine. But that is not how golfers behave. His 'double life' must come to an end!
And why is it that every other golfer is listed by their actual names? Fred Couples is known affectionally as "Boob-Boom", but is listed as Fred Couples on the leader board. Greg Norman is affectionately known as 'The Shark", but is listed on the leader board as Greg Norman. Arnold Palmer was known as "The King', but was always listed on the leader board as Arnold Palmer. The list goes on and on... but they ALL used their REAL name!
Why is Eldric Woods ALWAYS listed as "Tiger Woods"?
Because of his reputation?
Well. if that is so, then that practice MUST stop! And NOW!
He has damaged his reputation and no longer deserves ANY nickname at all... Well, maybe one... "LOSER!" or, 'CHEATER!"
Eldric Woods must answer to his wife, his family and his God for what he has done off the course.
For his actions on the course, he must answer to you and I, to history and the ancient game itself. Sure, he's very good.
But he's NOT bigger than the game.
I hope he just goes away.
The game will be better off without a "CHEATER'!
____________________
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Mount Vernon Statement
From The Heritage Foundation
The Mount Vernon Statement
Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century
We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding.
Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law.
They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.
These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world.
They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.
Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics.
The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.
Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?
The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles.
At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.
The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.
A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles.
It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.
- It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
- It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
- It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
- It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
- It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.
If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.
We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.
February 17, 2010
_________________________
Add your name to the Mount Vernon Statement -
HERE
The Mount Vernon Statement
Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century
We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding.
Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law.
They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.
These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world.
They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.
Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics.
The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.
Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?
The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles.
At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.
The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.
A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles.
It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.
- It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
- It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
- It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
- It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
- It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.
If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.
We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.
February 17, 2010
_________________________
Add your name to the Mount Vernon Statement -
HERE
Monday, February 15, 2010
Obama Declares He Will Rule by Authoritarian Decree
By Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
Obama Declares He Will Rule by Authoritarian Decree
The Obama administration has announced it will now rule by fascist decree and ignore Congress and the American people.
“With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities,” reports The New York Times. “We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff who is fond of cracking his knuckles in Obama’s face.
According to The New York Times, ruling in authoritarian fashion is normal and acceptable. “Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat.”
In fact, Obama’s plan to rule by authoritarian decree is unconstitutional.
Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article II, Section 3 states that the president may call Congress into emergency session during a national crisis.
In other words, rule buy fiat is treason.
Another section of the Constitution covers treason. Article II, Section. 4 states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Rahm Emanuel should be arrested and prosecuted for treason under federal statute, specifically Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. It states: “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”
Treason is spelled out in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason,” it states.
“White House officials said the increased focus on executive authority reflected a natural evolution from the first year to the second year of any presidency,” The New York Times continues.
Hitler exploited this “natural evolution” to turn Germany into a fascist dictatorship through executive orders. In fact, Reagan, Clinton and Bush the Lesser issued a flurry of executive orders that surpassed anything Hitler or Stalin issued.
Executive orders have been around since the beginning of the republic. George Washington issued a number of proclamations, dispositions and recommendations. For instance, a suggestion that a day of Thanksgiving take place on Thursday, November26, 1789. He was severely criticized for issuing a proclamation suggesting U.S. citizens joining or aiding the war between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Britain and the Netherlands be prosecuted. George Washington’s proclamations, however, did not over rule legislation passed by Congress.
Executive orders did not really pick up steam until the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. During the invasion of the South for opposing the federal government, Lincoln issued a large number of executive orders allowing the federal military to steal land and turn prisoners of war into forced labor slaves.
The grand daddy of executive orders was Franklin Roosevelt. He issued 3,723 of them. Here is a sample. Roosevelt’s most notorious executive order was 6102. It permitted the federal government to steal all privately held gold in the United States.
Ronald Reagan — sold to the people as a “conservative” — issued 381 executive orders, more than George W. Bush. Clinton came close to Reagan. He issued 364. Reagan violated the Constitution directly when he issued Executive Order 12611 ordering “Assistance for Central American Democracies and the Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance,” in other words providing assistance to the Contras, a violation of the Boland Amendment.
Clinton used executive orders to defy Congress and conduct a murder campaign against the people of Yugoslavia. Clinton also violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution when he bombed the European country. Article 1, Section 8 states that “Congress shall have power to… declare War,” not the president.
During the election, Obama not only said he would not issue executive orders but he would reverse those issued during the Bush era. On his very first day in office, Obama broke this pledge and implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489 barring the release of presidential records (presumably including his birth certificate).
Obama also signed executive orders allowing Interpol to operate beyond the law in the United States and establishing the Council of Governors.
Obama will continue the process of rule by decree established by his predecessors. He will rule in the tradition of the Roman Second Triumvirate and the Lex Titia decree under Gaius Octavian, general Mark Antony and pontifex maximus Aemilius Lepidus.
It should be noted that the resolution paved the way for the Final War of the Roman Republic and the total collapse of republican government.
__________________________________________
Buckle Up My Friends!
A 2nd American Civil War is just over the horizon!
Infowars.com
Obama Declares He Will Rule by Authoritarian Decree
The Obama administration has announced it will now rule by fascist decree and ignore Congress and the American people.
“With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities,” reports The New York Times. “We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff who is fond of cracking his knuckles in Obama’s face.
According to The New York Times, ruling in authoritarian fashion is normal and acceptable. “Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat.”
In fact, Obama’s plan to rule by authoritarian decree is unconstitutional.
Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article II, Section 3 states that the president may call Congress into emergency session during a national crisis.
In other words, rule buy fiat is treason.
Another section of the Constitution covers treason. Article II, Section. 4 states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Rahm Emanuel should be arrested and prosecuted for treason under federal statute, specifically Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. It states: “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”
Treason is spelled out in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason,” it states.
“White House officials said the increased focus on executive authority reflected a natural evolution from the first year to the second year of any presidency,” The New York Times continues.
Hitler exploited this “natural evolution” to turn Germany into a fascist dictatorship through executive orders. In fact, Reagan, Clinton and Bush the Lesser issued a flurry of executive orders that surpassed anything Hitler or Stalin issued.
Executive orders have been around since the beginning of the republic. George Washington issued a number of proclamations, dispositions and recommendations. For instance, a suggestion that a day of Thanksgiving take place on Thursday, November26, 1789. He was severely criticized for issuing a proclamation suggesting U.S. citizens joining or aiding the war between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Britain and the Netherlands be prosecuted. George Washington’s proclamations, however, did not over rule legislation passed by Congress.
Executive orders did not really pick up steam until the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. During the invasion of the South for opposing the federal government, Lincoln issued a large number of executive orders allowing the federal military to steal land and turn prisoners of war into forced labor slaves.
The grand daddy of executive orders was Franklin Roosevelt. He issued 3,723 of them. Here is a sample. Roosevelt’s most notorious executive order was 6102. It permitted the federal government to steal all privately held gold in the United States.
Ronald Reagan — sold to the people as a “conservative” — issued 381 executive orders, more than George W. Bush. Clinton came close to Reagan. He issued 364. Reagan violated the Constitution directly when he issued Executive Order 12611 ordering “Assistance for Central American Democracies and the Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance,” in other words providing assistance to the Contras, a violation of the Boland Amendment.
Clinton used executive orders to defy Congress and conduct a murder campaign against the people of Yugoslavia. Clinton also violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution when he bombed the European country. Article 1, Section 8 states that “Congress shall have power to… declare War,” not the president.
During the election, Obama not only said he would not issue executive orders but he would reverse those issued during the Bush era. On his very first day in office, Obama broke this pledge and implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489 barring the release of presidential records (presumably including his birth certificate).
Obama also signed executive orders allowing Interpol to operate beyond the law in the United States and establishing the Council of Governors.
Obama will continue the process of rule by decree established by his predecessors. He will rule in the tradition of the Roman Second Triumvirate and the Lex Titia decree under Gaius Octavian, general Mark Antony and pontifex maximus Aemilius Lepidus.
It should be noted that the resolution paved the way for the Final War of the Roman Republic and the total collapse of republican government.
__________________________________________
Buckle Up My Friends!
A 2nd American Civil War is just over the horizon!
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Rep. Deal speaks out on Obama Eligibility Letter
SAYS REQUEST... “DESERVES HIS RESPONSE”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Feb. 8, 2010) — Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) has gone on camera answering questions regarding a letter he wrote to Obama regarding his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
On February 6, 2010, Carl Swensson, Republican Precinct Captain for Morrow, GA, interviewed Deal for about five minutes, during which he asked about the letter. Deal, who currently represents the 9th congressional district of Georgia, is running for that state’s governor. The interview took place at the “Faith, Family and Freedom Kickoff” at Riverside High School in Atlanta, GA on Saturday.
As reported by The Post & Email on January 5, 2010, Deal’s letter was sent electronically to the White House on December 1, 2009. The contents of the letter have not been made public, and Deal stated Saturday that he did not have a copy of it with him at the time.
According to a January 8, 2010 report from the Political Insider, “The White House…confirmed receipt of a letter from U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal that formally asks Barack Obama to address questions about his place of birth – and thus, whether he is qualified to be president.”
When Swensson asked Deal if he had received a response, Deal replied that he has not.
Deal states on camera that he is not questioning Obama’s legitimacy for the presidency but is requesting a source of verifiable information for his constituents who have questions about it.
________________
Isn't that what we all want???
It's really pretty simple...
Show us the damn Birth Certificate!
Monday, February 8, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Man-Made Climate Change A Hoax?
Many of us have known for quite some time that this 'global warming' whining we've been hearing is just that... a bunch of liberal tree huggers complaining about how humans are killing the Earth.
In my view, I have always wondered how a mere bunch of human beings could possible have ANY effect on the 'old red hot rock'?
Just who do these folks think they are to believe that this Earth is susceptable to their smog, their factories, their automobiles and their lifestyles?
I have always thought such people must surely think a lot of themselves, to believe that THEY could actually cause harm to Mother Earth! Call me a skeptic, but man is really an insignificant element compared to the mechanisms that are at work on our planet!
The folks complaining about Man-Made Global Warming are mostly extremists, alarmists, and don't have a clue about the Earth's history.
Here's a report from Investors Business Daily - 2/3/10:
The Ruse Unravels
Climate Change:
Not long ago, we were pestered almost daily with another global warming scare. But the weather has changed.
Now, it seems, each sunrise comes with fresh evidence that the scare is a fraud.
The latest setback for global warm-mongers is a probe conducted by the British Guardian newspaper, which discovered a prominent climate scientist "sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based."
The Guardian, which has a history of pumping the global warming scare, looked over the leaked e-mail exchanges from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and "found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced."
At the center is the familiar Phil Jones, the CRU director who's been temporarily relieved of his duties.
He and the University at Albany's Wei-Chyung Wang, named as a collaborator by the Guardian, are accused of making "apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations."
These data, the Guardian reported Monday, "provide the first link between the e-mail scandal and the U.N.'s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades."
Researchers apparently failed to provide as a matter of public record the location history of 49 of the 84 Chinese weather stations used to generate the data.
Jones and Wang are also thought to have neglected to consider the movement of Chinese weather stations. They failed as well to adjust for the heat-island effect in stations that had been in rural regions but are now in urban areas.
"The story has a startling postscript," says the Guardian.
"In 2008, Jones prepared a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining temperatures in eastern China. It found that, far from being negligible, the urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951 and 2004."
A day later, the Guardian continued the serial reporting of its e-mail probe, this time focusing on the researchers' efforts to suppress the work of skeptics and critics.
Again, Jones plays a central role.
Fred Pearce wrote in Tuesday's edition that Jones "was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers (criticizing) his work."
Jones also vowed to keep skeptical papers out of "the next IPCC report ... even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"
Another researcher, Tom Wigley, suggested in 2005 that he and his colleagues "could go through official" channels to oust a journal editor they believed to be too willing to allow contrarian opinions to be published.
Two years earlier, Keith Briffa, a scientist at the CRU, told a colleague: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting" a paper that was unnamed.
If the speculation that man is warming the planet through his activities were indisputable fact, why did these researchers have to fudge the numbers?
Why did they feel the need to crush dissent?
For those not keeping score at home, the result of the Guardian's e-mail investigation is simply another ugly layer of deception stripped from the carefully constructed global warming con.
In the last two weeks alone the public learned -
(1) that the U.N. claim that man-made climate change would melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was fiction, the speculation of one man whose guess was reported in a magazine then played as scientific fact;
(2) that federal researchers left out temperature data from cold regions;
and (3) that the U.N. was wrong in its contention that "the rapidly rising costs" of natural disasters since the 1970s is linked to global warming.
The climate change movement is losing its credibility at a pace much faster than any warming it predicted.
A quick burnout would be an appropriate, and long overdue, ending.
__________________
My..my..
Algore may have to return his Oscar?
Maybe he'll produce another slide show about all the criticism and win another one?
Maybe he'll just go away?
Well, we can only hope...
In my view, I have always wondered how a mere bunch of human beings could possible have ANY effect on the 'old red hot rock'?
Just who do these folks think they are to believe that this Earth is susceptable to their smog, their factories, their automobiles and their lifestyles?
I have always thought such people must surely think a lot of themselves, to believe that THEY could actually cause harm to Mother Earth! Call me a skeptic, but man is really an insignificant element compared to the mechanisms that are at work on our planet!
The folks complaining about Man-Made Global Warming are mostly extremists, alarmists, and don't have a clue about the Earth's history.
Here's a report from Investors Business Daily - 2/3/10:
The Ruse Unravels
Climate Change:
Not long ago, we were pestered almost daily with another global warming scare. But the weather has changed.
Now, it seems, each sunrise comes with fresh evidence that the scare is a fraud.
The latest setback for global warm-mongers is a probe conducted by the British Guardian newspaper, which discovered a prominent climate scientist "sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based."
The Guardian, which has a history of pumping the global warming scare, looked over the leaked e-mail exchanges from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and "found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced."
At the center is the familiar Phil Jones, the CRU director who's been temporarily relieved of his duties.
He and the University at Albany's Wei-Chyung Wang, named as a collaborator by the Guardian, are accused of making "apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations."
These data, the Guardian reported Monday, "provide the first link between the e-mail scandal and the U.N.'s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades."
Researchers apparently failed to provide as a matter of public record the location history of 49 of the 84 Chinese weather stations used to generate the data.
Jones and Wang are also thought to have neglected to consider the movement of Chinese weather stations. They failed as well to adjust for the heat-island effect in stations that had been in rural regions but are now in urban areas.
"The story has a startling postscript," says the Guardian.
"In 2008, Jones prepared a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining temperatures in eastern China. It found that, far from being negligible, the urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951 and 2004."
A day later, the Guardian continued the serial reporting of its e-mail probe, this time focusing on the researchers' efforts to suppress the work of skeptics and critics.
Again, Jones plays a central role.
Fred Pearce wrote in Tuesday's edition that Jones "was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers (criticizing) his work."
Jones also vowed to keep skeptical papers out of "the next IPCC report ... even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"
Another researcher, Tom Wigley, suggested in 2005 that he and his colleagues "could go through official" channels to oust a journal editor they believed to be too willing to allow contrarian opinions to be published.
Two years earlier, Keith Briffa, a scientist at the CRU, told a colleague: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting" a paper that was unnamed.
If the speculation that man is warming the planet through his activities were indisputable fact, why did these researchers have to fudge the numbers?
Why did they feel the need to crush dissent?
For those not keeping score at home, the result of the Guardian's e-mail investigation is simply another ugly layer of deception stripped from the carefully constructed global warming con.
In the last two weeks alone the public learned -
(1) that the U.N. claim that man-made climate change would melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was fiction, the speculation of one man whose guess was reported in a magazine then played as scientific fact;
(2) that federal researchers left out temperature data from cold regions;
and (3) that the U.N. was wrong in its contention that "the rapidly rising costs" of natural disasters since the 1970s is linked to global warming.
The climate change movement is losing its credibility at a pace much faster than any warming it predicted.
A quick burnout would be an appropriate, and long overdue, ending.
__________________
My..my..
Algore may have to return his Oscar?
Maybe he'll produce another slide show about all the criticism and win another one?
Maybe he'll just go away?
Well, we can only hope...
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Obama Recruiting Radicals In High School
From Big Government
Obama Recruiting Radicals In High School
By Pamela Geller(Atlas Shrugs)
Barack Obama is using our public school system to recruit for his Alinsky-inspired private army.
Organizing for America (OFA), formerly Obama For America, is recruiting in our high schools to “build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda” – that is, his agenda of socialism for the United States of America.
Chuck, a reader of my website AtlasShrugs.com, has a daughter in the eleventh grade in a public high school, Perry Local in Massillon, Ohio.
The teacher in her government class passed out a propaganda recruiting paper – headed with Obama’s distinctive “O” logo — asking students to sign up as interns for Organizing for America. You can see the entire intern recruiting form at AtlasShrugs.com.
And what will these “interns” be force-fed? The mother’s milk of the left — anti-war agitation, anti-capitalism, Marx, Lenin, Ayers, LGBT agenda promotion, global warming, pro-jihad, and illegal immigration. For starters.
Maybe “Ellie Light,” who has in the last few weeks published the same Letter to the Editor supporting and defending Obama in over a dozen newspapers across the country, can give lessons in astroturfing.
The form carries a recommended reading list, including Rules for Radicals by the notorious hard left community organizer and Obama mentor Saul Alinsky; two Huffington Post articles by Zack Exley, “The New Organizers” and “Obama Field Organizers Plot a Miracle.”
The first of those, published in October 2008, enthuses about “an insurgent generation of organizers” inside the Obama campaign that has, “almost without anyone noticing … built the Progressive movement a brand new and potentially durable people’s organization, in a dozen states, rooted at the neighborhood level.”
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Exley operated the website www.gwbush.com, which was filled with lies about George W. Bush that were designed to kill his chance to become President. The site’s headline was “Just Say ‘No’ to a Former Cocaine User for President.”
Also included on the OFA internship recommended reading list are Stir It Up: Lessons from Community Organizing and Advocacy by the leftist activist Rinku Sen, and sections of Obama’s book Dreams from My Father dealing with his days as a community organizer in Chicago.
And what is the point of all this propaganda and community organizing? To elect more Democrats, of course.
This internship program is geared towards the 2010 elections, using our kids as the Democrats’ goons.
The internship form begins with a nakedly partisan and propagandistic appeal: “Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda of change.
OFA is launching a national internship program connecting students all over the country with our organization on the ground – working to make the change we fought so hard for in 2008 a reality in 2010 and beyond.”
Can you imagine if the Republicans attempted such a stunt?
Obama is using the public school system to help ensure Democratic victories in 2010, 2012, and thereafter.
This is incredible.
And evil.
And it is no accident.
Obama is poisoning our public school system.
He acts as if it’s his own private recruiting farm.
This isn’t the first time, either. In September 2009, all public school students were forced to listen to his creepy speech about working hard in school. During the campaign the Obama camp had “Kids for Obama Parades.” And public school teachers more than once were caught indoctrinating children into the Obama cult.
Remember the uniformed children chanting about how Obama had motivated them to succeed? P.J. Gladnick wrote about that video at Newsbusters in October 2008 that it was “reminiscent of North Korean kids chanting out their praises for the ‘Dear Leader.’” And don’t forget those many videos of public school kids singing brainwashed tunes of Obama praise.
Long before he was President, Obama’s camp had targeted children and started building a cult of adulation around their hero.
The children’s book Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope by Nikki Grimes sets Obama up as a demigod: “Ever since Barack Obama was young, Hope has lived inside him. From the beaches of Hawaii to the streets of Chicago, from the jungles of Indonesia to the plains of Kenya, he has held on to Hope. Even as a boy, Barack knew he wasn’t quite like anybody else, but through his journeys he found the ability to listen to Hope and become what he was meant to be: a bridge to bring people together.”
And now once again our perverse public school system abandons academic standards and achievement, replacing them with radical leftist activism from leftwing Alinsky indoctrinators.
Children must be advised to expose this ugly propaganda.
Children must tell their parents how they are being used and manipulated.
Parents, warn your kids.
Better yet, home school.
Don’t let Barack Obama recruit his drones from your family.
Obama Recruiting Radicals In High School
By Pamela Geller(Atlas Shrugs)
Barack Obama is using our public school system to recruit for his Alinsky-inspired private army.
Organizing for America (OFA), formerly Obama For America, is recruiting in our high schools to “build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda” – that is, his agenda of socialism for the United States of America.
Chuck, a reader of my website AtlasShrugs.com, has a daughter in the eleventh grade in a public high school, Perry Local in Massillon, Ohio.
The teacher in her government class passed out a propaganda recruiting paper – headed with Obama’s distinctive “O” logo — asking students to sign up as interns for Organizing for America. You can see the entire intern recruiting form at AtlasShrugs.com.
And what will these “interns” be force-fed? The mother’s milk of the left — anti-war agitation, anti-capitalism, Marx, Lenin, Ayers, LGBT agenda promotion, global warming, pro-jihad, and illegal immigration. For starters.
Maybe “Ellie Light,” who has in the last few weeks published the same Letter to the Editor supporting and defending Obama in over a dozen newspapers across the country, can give lessons in astroturfing.
The form carries a recommended reading list, including Rules for Radicals by the notorious hard left community organizer and Obama mentor Saul Alinsky; two Huffington Post articles by Zack Exley, “The New Organizers” and “Obama Field Organizers Plot a Miracle.”
The first of those, published in October 2008, enthuses about “an insurgent generation of organizers” inside the Obama campaign that has, “almost without anyone noticing … built the Progressive movement a brand new and potentially durable people’s organization, in a dozen states, rooted at the neighborhood level.”
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Exley operated the website www.gwbush.com, which was filled with lies about George W. Bush that were designed to kill his chance to become President. The site’s headline was “Just Say ‘No’ to a Former Cocaine User for President.”
Also included on the OFA internship recommended reading list are Stir It Up: Lessons from Community Organizing and Advocacy by the leftist activist Rinku Sen, and sections of Obama’s book Dreams from My Father dealing with his days as a community organizer in Chicago.
And what is the point of all this propaganda and community organizing? To elect more Democrats, of course.
This internship program is geared towards the 2010 elections, using our kids as the Democrats’ goons.
The internship form begins with a nakedly partisan and propagandistic appeal: “Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda of change.
OFA is launching a national internship program connecting students all over the country with our organization on the ground – working to make the change we fought so hard for in 2008 a reality in 2010 and beyond.”
Can you imagine if the Republicans attempted such a stunt?
Obama is using the public school system to help ensure Democratic victories in 2010, 2012, and thereafter.
This is incredible.
And evil.
And it is no accident.
Obama is poisoning our public school system.
He acts as if it’s his own private recruiting farm.
This isn’t the first time, either. In September 2009, all public school students were forced to listen to his creepy speech about working hard in school. During the campaign the Obama camp had “Kids for Obama Parades.” And public school teachers more than once were caught indoctrinating children into the Obama cult.
Remember the uniformed children chanting about how Obama had motivated them to succeed? P.J. Gladnick wrote about that video at Newsbusters in October 2008 that it was “reminiscent of North Korean kids chanting out their praises for the ‘Dear Leader.’” And don’t forget those many videos of public school kids singing brainwashed tunes of Obama praise.
Long before he was President, Obama’s camp had targeted children and started building a cult of adulation around their hero.
The children’s book Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope by Nikki Grimes sets Obama up as a demigod: “Ever since Barack Obama was young, Hope has lived inside him. From the beaches of Hawaii to the streets of Chicago, from the jungles of Indonesia to the plains of Kenya, he has held on to Hope. Even as a boy, Barack knew he wasn’t quite like anybody else, but through his journeys he found the ability to listen to Hope and become what he was meant to be: a bridge to bring people together.”
And now once again our perverse public school system abandons academic standards and achievement, replacing them with radical leftist activism from leftwing Alinsky indoctrinators.
Children must be advised to expose this ugly propaganda.
Children must tell their parents how they are being used and manipulated.
Parents, warn your kids.
Better yet, home school.
Don’t let Barack Obama recruit his drones from your family.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
U.S. Cancels No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Democratic Donor
If it weren't for FOX news we likely would not have even heard about this... And these jerks would continue to pay off their cronies at will!
You just KNOW there's more to come...
I can't wait!
Chicago-style politics at it's finest!
U.S. Cancels No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Democratic Donor
FOXNews.com
The U.S. canceled a $25 million federal contract for working in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor that was awarded without entertaining competitive bids.
The U.S. has canceled a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan awarded to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids.
The cancellation comes after Fox News first reported on the details of the contract last week, prompting lawmakers to make inquiries into the deal. State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley told Fox News that USAID terminated the award and is now working on an appropriate resolution.
The contract had been awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi that was hired to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.
A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site said Checchi & Company would "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."
The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator.
When Checchi was contacted by Fox News for its earlier report, he confirmed that his company had indeed received the nearly $25 million contract but declined to say why it had been awarded on a no-bid basis, referring a reporter to USAID.
Asked if he or his firm had been aware that the contract was awarded without competitive bids, Checchi replied: "After it was awarded to us, sure. Before, we had no idea."
Joseph A. Fredericks, director of public information at USAID, told Fox News the Checchi deal was actually a renewal of an existing contract, awarded in 2004 by the Bush administration after a competitive bid process.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News the no-bid contract in this case "disturbed" him.
Issa had written to USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah requesting that the agency "produce all documents related to the Checchi contract" on or before Feb. 5. Citing the waiver that enabled USAID to award the contract on a no-bid basis, Issa noted that the exemption was intended to speed up the provision of services in a crisis environment.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, told Fox News she, too, was seeking answers about the Checchi contract.
As a candidate for president in 2008, Obama, then a senator, frequently derided the Bush administration for the awarding of federal contracts without competitive bidding.
Less than two months after he was sworn into office, President Obama signed a memorandum that he claimed would "dramatically reform the way we do business on contracts across the entire government."
"If you want to say this violates the basis on which this administration came into office and campaigned, fair enough," Crowley told Fox News.
Federal campaign records show Checchi has been a frequent contributor to liberal and Democratic causes and candidates in recent years, including to Obama's presidential campaign. The records show Checchi has given at least $4,400 to Obama dating back to March 2007, close to the maximum amount allowed.
You just KNOW there's more to come...
I can't wait!
Chicago-style politics at it's finest!
U.S. Cancels No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Democratic Donor
FOXNews.com
The U.S. canceled a $25 million federal contract for working in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor that was awarded without entertaining competitive bids.
The U.S. has canceled a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan awarded to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids.
The cancellation comes after Fox News first reported on the details of the contract last week, prompting lawmakers to make inquiries into the deal. State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley told Fox News that USAID terminated the award and is now working on an appropriate resolution.
The contract had been awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi that was hired to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.
A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site said Checchi & Company would "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."
The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator.
When Checchi was contacted by Fox News for its earlier report, he confirmed that his company had indeed received the nearly $25 million contract but declined to say why it had been awarded on a no-bid basis, referring a reporter to USAID.
Asked if he or his firm had been aware that the contract was awarded without competitive bids, Checchi replied: "After it was awarded to us, sure. Before, we had no idea."
Joseph A. Fredericks, director of public information at USAID, told Fox News the Checchi deal was actually a renewal of an existing contract, awarded in 2004 by the Bush administration after a competitive bid process.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News the no-bid contract in this case "disturbed" him.
Issa had written to USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah requesting that the agency "produce all documents related to the Checchi contract" on or before Feb. 5. Citing the waiver that enabled USAID to award the contract on a no-bid basis, Issa noted that the exemption was intended to speed up the provision of services in a crisis environment.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, told Fox News she, too, was seeking answers about the Checchi contract.
As a candidate for president in 2008, Obama, then a senator, frequently derided the Bush administration for the awarding of federal contracts without competitive bidding.
Less than two months after he was sworn into office, President Obama signed a memorandum that he claimed would "dramatically reform the way we do business on contracts across the entire government."
"If you want to say this violates the basis on which this administration came into office and campaigned, fair enough," Crowley told Fox News.
Federal campaign records show Checchi has been a frequent contributor to liberal and Democratic causes and candidates in recent years, including to Obama's presidential campaign. The records show Checchi has given at least $4,400 to Obama dating back to March 2007, close to the maximum amount allowed.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Meaning of Brown
From Townhall.Com
The Meaning of Brown
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health care reform.
"If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have."
The bravado lasted three days.
When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health care bill.
When your candidate is sinking, you don't throw her a millstone.
After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."
Let's get this straight:
The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts?
Why, the man is omnipotent.
And the Democrats are delusional:
Scott Brown won by running against Obama not Bush.
He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare.
Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.
Bull's-eye.
An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue.
In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare.
Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.
Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda.
Stop health care.
Don't Mirandize terrorists.
Don't raise taxes; cut them.
And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.
These deals -- the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback -- had engendered a national disgust with the corruption and arrogance of one-party rule.
The final straw was the union payoff -- in which labor bosses smugly walked out of the White House with a five-year exemption from a ("Cadillac") health insurance tax Democrats were imposing on the 92 percent of private-sector workers who are not unionized.
The reason both wings of American liberalism -- congressional and mainstream media -- were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they'd spent Obama's first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer.
With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.
You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year's two gubernatorial elections.
The evidence was unmistakable:
Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey.
On Tuesday, it was even worse:
Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts.
Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.
Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to diss Curt Schilling.
True, Brown had Schilling.
But Coakley had Obama.
When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal -- of a man who had them swooning only a year ago -- something is going on beyond personality.
That something is substance -- political ideas and legislative agendas.
Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger.
That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power -- even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can't even see is in your own interest.
Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don't want it, could they possibly have a point?
"If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call," said moderate -- and sentient -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "there's no hope of waking up."
I say: Let them sleep.
________________________
Mr Krauthammer is one of my all-time favorite commentators...
He has a wonderful feel of America's political pulse!
And, a brilliant mind!
The Meaning of Brown
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health care reform.
"If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have."
The bravado lasted three days.
When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health care bill.
When your candidate is sinking, you don't throw her a millstone.
After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."
Let's get this straight:
The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts?
Why, the man is omnipotent.
And the Democrats are delusional:
Scott Brown won by running against Obama not Bush.
He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare.
Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.
Bull's-eye.
An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue.
In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare.
Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.
Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda.
Stop health care.
Don't Mirandize terrorists.
Don't raise taxes; cut them.
And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.
These deals -- the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback -- had engendered a national disgust with the corruption and arrogance of one-party rule.
The final straw was the union payoff -- in which labor bosses smugly walked out of the White House with a five-year exemption from a ("Cadillac") health insurance tax Democrats were imposing on the 92 percent of private-sector workers who are not unionized.
The reason both wings of American liberalism -- congressional and mainstream media -- were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they'd spent Obama's first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer.
With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.
You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year's two gubernatorial elections.
The evidence was unmistakable:
Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey.
On Tuesday, it was even worse:
Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts.
Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.
Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to diss Curt Schilling.
True, Brown had Schilling.
But Coakley had Obama.
When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal -- of a man who had them swooning only a year ago -- something is going on beyond personality.
That something is substance -- political ideas and legislative agendas.
Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger.
That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power -- even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can't even see is in your own interest.
Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don't want it, could they possibly have a point?
"If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call," said moderate -- and sentient -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "there's no hope of waking up."
I say: Let them sleep.
________________________
Mr Krauthammer is one of my all-time favorite commentators...
He has a wonderful feel of America's political pulse!
And, a brilliant mind!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
3 Dozen Lawmakers Want Proof of Obama Eligibility
Well I'll be darned! FINALLY!
Somebody is taking some interest in this charlatan's background!
From WND
3 Dozen Lawmakers Want Proof of Obama Eligibility
Proposal would demand state officials independently verify information
By Bob Unruh
Lawmakers in Arizona have proposed a law that would require state officials to begin independently verifying the accuracy of newly required documents affirming the constitutional eligibility of any candidate for the U.S. presidency.
"Certainly, there has been controversy over President Obama and his birth certificate, where he was born, etc.," state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, told the Arizona Capitol Times. "It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen."
She is one of about three dozen lawmakers to sign on as co-sponsors.
The plan would essentially have the same effect as the federal law proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
The provisions of Posey's H.R. 1503 are straightforward:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
The bill also provides:
"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."
The sponsors' goal is to have the bill become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.
But whatever support it does have, it faces massive obstacles in a House and Senate dominated by Democrats, as well as a president whose own status could be impacted by its requirements.
Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, earlier told the East Valley Tribune her plan is not aimed directly at Obama, although she does have concerns about his loyalties.
"When someone bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I have a problem with that," she told the newspaper.
"We want to make sure that we have candidates that are going to stand up for the United States of America. This is my home. I want to leave my children a better country than I inherited," she said.
"Obama has a book and it said, when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side," Burges said. "Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?"
Any state adopting – and enforcing – requirements similar to the federal plan would have an equal impact, since the information submitted to meet the requirements presumably would be public.
Democrats in the state already are arguing that the plan to demand all presidential candidates submit proof they were born in the U.S. and sign an affidavit stating they are a U.S. citizen is not needed.
"He [Obama] clearly met the standards to run for president and hold office as president because the federal government installed him as president in January of last year," said Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat. "The question has been asked and answered."
As WND has reported, however, no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution's requirements to be president, that is being 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."
The proposal, H2442, also would require that the secretary of state in Arizona independently verify that the documents submitted are correct. Any failure could cause the candidate's name to be withheld from the ballot, officials said.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in excess of $1.7 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
_________________________
Somebody is taking some interest in this charlatan's background!
From WND
3 Dozen Lawmakers Want Proof of Obama Eligibility
Proposal would demand state officials independently verify information
By Bob Unruh
Lawmakers in Arizona have proposed a law that would require state officials to begin independently verifying the accuracy of newly required documents affirming the constitutional eligibility of any candidate for the U.S. presidency.
"Certainly, there has been controversy over President Obama and his birth certificate, where he was born, etc.," state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, told the Arizona Capitol Times. "It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen."
She is one of about three dozen lawmakers to sign on as co-sponsors.
The plan would essentially have the same effect as the federal law proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
The provisions of Posey's H.R. 1503 are straightforward:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
The bill also provides:
"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."
The sponsors' goal is to have the bill become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.
But whatever support it does have, it faces massive obstacles in a House and Senate dominated by Democrats, as well as a president whose own status could be impacted by its requirements.
Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, earlier told the East Valley Tribune her plan is not aimed directly at Obama, although she does have concerns about his loyalties.
"When someone bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I have a problem with that," she told the newspaper.
"We want to make sure that we have candidates that are going to stand up for the United States of America. This is my home. I want to leave my children a better country than I inherited," she said.
"Obama has a book and it said, when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side," Burges said. "Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?"
Any state adopting – and enforcing – requirements similar to the federal plan would have an equal impact, since the information submitted to meet the requirements presumably would be public.
Democrats in the state already are arguing that the plan to demand all presidential candidates submit proof they were born in the U.S. and sign an affidavit stating they are a U.S. citizen is not needed.
"He [Obama] clearly met the standards to run for president and hold office as president because the federal government installed him as president in January of last year," said Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat. "The question has been asked and answered."
As WND has reported, however, no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution's requirements to be president, that is being 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."
The proposal, H2442, also would require that the secretary of state in Arizona independently verify that the documents submitted are correct. Any failure could cause the candidate's name to be withheld from the ballot, officials said.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in excess of $1.7 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
_________________________
Yeah, us 'birthers' are very rude and hateful folks...
Never mind that all we want is the truth... everyone on The Left and EVERY Obama supporter has accused us of being deranged zealots refusing to accept the obvious truth of his birth and citizenship.
Just produce the legal, authentic documents and we'll go away... It's really that simple.
SHOW US THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Rep Todd Tiahrt: Mayors Wrong About Tiahrt Amendment
From The Wichitah Eagle, Kansas
Rep Todd Tiahrt: Mayors Wrong About Tiahrt Amendment
By Rep. Todd Tiahrt
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg knows a lot, and what he knows has helped bring him success on many levels. But when it comes to federal firearm laws and the Second Amendment, Bloomberg is either uninformed or intentionally deceptive.
In recent weeks, Bloomberg and his organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have used victims of the Fort Hood massacre as political tools to seek repeal of a law known as the Tiahrt amendment. This law protects the privacy rights of legal firearm owners and ensures undercover agents and their investigations are not compromised.
Bloomberg's inability to overturn the Tiahrt amendment has led to a series of brash accusations, wild theories and deceitful self-financed smear campaigns.
Bloomberg has brazenly charged that investigators were "blocked" from searching alleged terror suspect Maj. Nidal Hasan's records — and that maintaining records beyond the 24 hours permitted by the Tiahrt amendment "could have saved lives." One of his solutions to prevent another Fort Hood tragedy: repeal the Tiahrt amendment.
There's just one problem with Bloomberg's so-called solution — the FBI already has 90 days to maintain and investigate firearm sale records related to suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list. Not only are the FBI and counterterrorism agents notified when a suspect tries to purchase a firearm, but they can and do place holds on transactions to allow further review by field agents.
If Hasan was on the FBI's terrorist watch list, the agency would have had direct knowledge about his firearm purchase. If Hasan was not on the FBI watch list, that raises ample questions as to why not.
But it should not lead us to dangerously conclude that owning or purchasing a firearm makes you suspect for committing an act of terrorism.
The FBI is not restricted by the Tiahrt amendment in its ability to monitor actions of suspects being watched for terrorist activity. The recent attacks on the Tiahrt amendment and use of American deaths to achieve a solution that already exists are a disgrace on the mayors' reputations as public servants.
For all Bloomberg's pretenses about wanting to fight crime and stop illegal guns, maybe he should stop listening to his front organization and start paying attention to the one organization that really understands this issue — the Fraternal Order of Police.
As the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, the FOP supports the Tiahrt amendment. That's because, contrary to what Mayors Against Illegal Guns asserts, the Tiahrt amendment does not affect background-check outcomes, does not affect who is permitted to own a firearm, and does not restrict local law enforcement officials or the FBI from accessing all available firearm data for criminal investigations.
What is clear from the political smears is that gun-control advocates are willing to ignore the truth if it helps them achieve their objectives of establishing a national firearm registry and, ultimately, being able to sue firearm owners and manufacturers for crimes committed by criminals and terrorists.
________________________________________
Todd Tiahrt is a Republican member of Congress from Goddard.
Rep Todd Tiahrt: Mayors Wrong About Tiahrt Amendment
By Rep. Todd Tiahrt
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg knows a lot, and what he knows has helped bring him success on many levels. But when it comes to federal firearm laws and the Second Amendment, Bloomberg is either uninformed or intentionally deceptive.
In recent weeks, Bloomberg and his organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have used victims of the Fort Hood massacre as political tools to seek repeal of a law known as the Tiahrt amendment. This law protects the privacy rights of legal firearm owners and ensures undercover agents and their investigations are not compromised.
Bloomberg's inability to overturn the Tiahrt amendment has led to a series of brash accusations, wild theories and deceitful self-financed smear campaigns.
Bloomberg has brazenly charged that investigators were "blocked" from searching alleged terror suspect Maj. Nidal Hasan's records — and that maintaining records beyond the 24 hours permitted by the Tiahrt amendment "could have saved lives." One of his solutions to prevent another Fort Hood tragedy: repeal the Tiahrt amendment.
There's just one problem with Bloomberg's so-called solution — the FBI already has 90 days to maintain and investigate firearm sale records related to suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list. Not only are the FBI and counterterrorism agents notified when a suspect tries to purchase a firearm, but they can and do place holds on transactions to allow further review by field agents.
If Hasan was on the FBI's terrorist watch list, the agency would have had direct knowledge about his firearm purchase. If Hasan was not on the FBI watch list, that raises ample questions as to why not.
But it should not lead us to dangerously conclude that owning or purchasing a firearm makes you suspect for committing an act of terrorism.
The FBI is not restricted by the Tiahrt amendment in its ability to monitor actions of suspects being watched for terrorist activity. The recent attacks on the Tiahrt amendment and use of American deaths to achieve a solution that already exists are a disgrace on the mayors' reputations as public servants.
For all Bloomberg's pretenses about wanting to fight crime and stop illegal guns, maybe he should stop listening to his front organization and start paying attention to the one organization that really understands this issue — the Fraternal Order of Police.
As the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, the FOP supports the Tiahrt amendment. That's because, contrary to what Mayors Against Illegal Guns asserts, the Tiahrt amendment does not affect background-check outcomes, does not affect who is permitted to own a firearm, and does not restrict local law enforcement officials or the FBI from accessing all available firearm data for criminal investigations.
What is clear from the political smears is that gun-control advocates are willing to ignore the truth if it helps them achieve their objectives of establishing a national firearm registry and, ultimately, being able to sue firearm owners and manufacturers for crimes committed by criminals and terrorists.
________________________________________
Todd Tiahrt is a Republican member of Congress from Goddard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
