The Ugly Ugly Truth

George Will calls it!

2010-01-20T12:51:00.000-08:00

January 20, 2010

The Curse of Opportunity

By George Will

"We are on the precipice of an achievement that's eluded congresses and presidents for generations."

-- President Barack Obama, Dec. 15, on health care legislation.

Precipice, 1. a headlong fall or descent, esp. to a great depth.

-- Oxford English Dictionary

WASHINGTON -- Trying to guarantee Americans the thrill of the precipice, the president dashed to Massachusetts on Sunday, thereby conceding that he had already lost Tuesday's Senate election, which had become a referendum on his signature program. By promising to cast the decisive 41st vote against the president's health care legislation, the Republican candidate forced all congressional Democrats to contemplate this: Not even frenzied national mobilization of Democratic manpower and millions of dollars could rescue one of the safest Democratic seats in the national legislature from national dismay about the incontinent government expansion, of which that legislation is symptomatic.

Because the legislation is frightening and unpopular, Democrats have had to resort to serial bribery to advance it. Massachusetts voted immediately after the corruption of exempting, until 2018, union members from the tax on high-value health insurance plans. This tax was supposedly the crucial component of what supposedly was reform's primary goal -- reducing costs.

The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., thought Bill Clinton's presidency was crippled by the 1993 decision to pursue health care reform rather than welfare reform. So slight was public enthusiasm for the former, Clinton's program never even came to a vote in either the House or Senate, both controlled by Democrats. There was such fervor for welfare reform that in 1996, after two Clinton vetoes, he finally signed the decade's most important legislation.

In their joyless, tawdry slog toward passage of their increasingly ludicrous bill, Democrats cling grimly to Robert Frost's axiom that "the best way out is always through." Their sole remaining reason for completing the damn thing is that they started it. They seem to have convinced themselves that Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994 because they did not pass an unpopular health bill in 1993. Actually, their 1994 debacle had more to do with the arrogance and malfeasance arising from 40 years of control of the House of Representatives (e.g., the House banking scandal), a provocative crime bill (gun control, federal subsidies for midnight basketball), and other matters.

With one piece of legislation, Obama and his congressional allies have done in one year what it took President Lyndon Johnson and his allies two years to do in 1965 and 1966 -- revive conservatism. Today conservatism is rising on the stepping stones of liberal excesses.

Between FDR's reprimand by voters in the 1938 midterm congressional elections (partly because of his anti-constitutional plan to enlarge and pack the Supreme Court) and LBJ's 1964 trouncing of Barry Goldwater, there was no liberal legislating majority in Congress: Republicans and conservative Democrats combined to temper liberalism's itch to overreach. In 1965 and 1966, however, liberalism was rampant. Today, Democrats worrying about a reprise of 1994 should worry more about a rerun of the 1966 midterm elections, which began a Republican resurgence that presaged victories in seven of the next 10 presidential elections.

The 2008 elections gave liberals the curse of opportunity, and they have used it to reveal themselves ruinously. The protracted health care debacle has highlighted this fact: Some liberals consider the legislation's unpopularity a reason to redouble their efforts to inflict it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to understand that their betters know best. The essence of contemporary liberalism is the illiberal conviction that Americans, in their comprehensive incompetence, need minute supervision by government, which liberals believe exists to spare citizens the torture of thinking and choosing.

Last week, trying to buttress the bovine obedience of most House Democrats, Obama assured them that if the bill becomes law, "the American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like." Suddenly?

If the Democrats' congressional leaders are determined to continue their kamikaze flight to incineration, they will ignore Massachusetts' redundant evidence of public disgust. They will leaven their strategy of briberies with procedural cynicism -- delaying certification of Massachusetts' Senate choice, or misusing "reconciliation" to evade Senate rules, or forcing the House to swallow its last shred of pride in order to rush the Senate bill to the president's desk. Surely any such trickery would be one brick over a load for some hitherto servile members of the Democratic House and Senate caucuses, giving them an excuse to halt their party's Gadarene rush toward the precipice.

In Memorium

2010-01-20T03:03:00.000-08:00

Obamacare - 1/20/09 - 1/19/10

Cap & Trade - 1/20/09 - 1/19/10

Union Card Check - 1/20/09 - 1/19/10

Government Takeover of the Economy - 1/20/09 - 1/19/10

Stimulus 2 - 12/15/09 - 1/19/10

Immigration Reform - 1/20/09 - 1/19/10

Progressive Agenda - 1/20/09 - 1/19/10

Obama Presidency - 1/20/09 - 1/19/10

The delicious ironies that the election of a conservative Republican being elected to fill Ted Kennedy's seat specifically to KILL Kennedy's (and the Democratic Left's) signature issue for 40 years is TOO TOO much to discuss rationally. This election is big, VERY BIG. The judgement of history has now been rendered on the Progressive Movement, and they are now well on their way to being tossed onto the dustbin of history.

Perhaps this can be, in the words of President Obama, a "Teachable Moment".

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

Don Imus Quote of the Day!

2009-11-17T02:14:00.000-08:00

When discussing on his show yesterday the idiotic decision to try KSM in New York, with FULL constitutional rights instead of in a Military Tribunal where he deserves to be treated as a war criminal, Don Imus summed it up best by describing the Obama Administration as "Jimmy Carter-Stupid".

I couldn't have put it better!

Bill Clinton's Nightmare

2009-11-13T09:21:00.000-08:00

Fascinating article - worth a read!

Our Daily Krauthammer

2009-11-13T01:56:00.000-08:00

Medicalizing Mass Murder

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- What a surprise -- that someone who shouts "Allahu Akbar" (the "God is great" jihadist battle cry) as he is shooting up a room of American soldiers might have Islamist motives. It certainly was a surprise to the mainstream media, which spent the weekend after the Fort Hood massacre downplaying Nidal Hasan's religious beliefs.

"I cringe that he's a Muslim. ... I think he's probably just a nut case," said Newsweek's Evan Thomas. Some were more adamant. Time's Joe Klein decried "odious attempts by Jewish extremists ... to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs." While none could match Klein's peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif, the popular story line was of an Army psychiatrist driven over the edge by terrible stories he had heard from soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

They suffered. He listened. He snapped.

Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents?

And what about civilian psychiatrists -- not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics -- who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder?

It's been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic.

But, of course, if the shooter is named Nidal Hasan, whom National Public Radio reported had been trying to proselytize doctors and patients, then something must be found. Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.

And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won't find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as "compassion fatigue." The poor man -- pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity.

Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It's a danger, clear and present.

Consider the Army's treatment of Hasan's previous behavior. NPR's Daniel Zwerdling interviewed a Hasan colleague at Walter Reed about a hair-raising Grand Rounds that Hasan had apparently given. Grand Rounds are the most serious academic event at a teaching hospital -- attending physicians, residents and students gather for a lecture on an instructive case history or therapeutic finding.

I've been to dozens of these. In fact, I gave one myself on post-traumatic retrograde amnesia -- as you can see, these lectures are fairly technical. Not Hasan's. His was an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war. It included an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers -- consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat. This "really freaked a lot of doctors out," reported NPR.

Nor was this the only incident. "The psychiatrist," reported Zwerdling, "said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway saying: Do you think he's a terrorist, or is he just weird?"

Was anything done about this potential danger? Of course not. Who wants to be accused of Islamophobia and prejudice against a colleague's religion?

One must not speak of such things. Not even now. Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist. As late as Tuesday, The New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.

What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didn't cry "Allahu Akbar" as they squeezed the trigger.

The delicacy about the religion in question -- condescending, politically correct and deadly -- is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: "Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center."

Ah yes, those Jersey men -- so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.

Stossel Nails it!

2009-11-11T03:13:00.000-08:00

The U.S. House of Presumptuous Meddlers

By John Stossel

As an American, I am embarrassed that the U.S. House of Representatives has 220 members who actually believe the government can successfully centrally plan the medical and insurance industries.

I'm embarrassed that my representatives think that government can subsidize the consumption of medical care without increasing the budget deficit or interfering with free choice.

Receive news alerts

Sign Up

John Stossel RealClearPolitics

Health care

It's a triumph of mindless wishful thinking over logic and experience.

The 1,990-page bill is breathtaking in its bone-headed audacity. The notion that a small group of politicians can know enough to design something so complex and so personal is astounding. That they were advised by "experts" means nothing since no one is expert enough to do that. There are too many tradeoffs faced by unique individuals with infinitely varying needs.

Government cannot do simple things efficiently. The bureaucrats struggle to count votes correctly. They give subsidized loans to "homeowners" who turn out to be 4-year-olds. Yet congressmen want government to manage our medicine and insurance.

Competition is a "discovery procedure," Nobel-prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek taught. Through the competitive market process, we producers and consumers constantly learn things that force us to adjust our behavior if we are to succeed. Central planners fail for two reasons:

First, knowledge about supply, demand, individual preferences and resource availability is scattered -- much of it never articulated -- throughout society. It is not concentrated in a database where a group of planners can access it.

Second, this "data" is dynamic: It changes without notice.

No matter how honorable the central planners' intentions, they will fail because they cannot know the needs and wishes of 300 million different people. And if they somehow did know their needs, they wouldn't know them tomorrow.

Proponents of so-called reform -- it's not really reform unless it makes things better -- have shamefully avoided criticism of their proposals. Often they just dismiss their opponents as greedy corporate apologists or paranoid right-wing loonies. That's easier than answering questions like these:

1) How can the government subsidize the purchase of medical services without driving up prices? Econ 101 teaches -- without controversy -- that when demand goes up, if other things remain equal, price goes up. The politicians want to have their cake and eat it, too.

2) How can the government promise lower medical costs without restricting choices? Medicare already does that. Once the planners' mandatory insurance pushes prices to new heights, they must put even tougher limits on what we may buy -- or their budget will be even deeper in the red than it already is. As economist Thomas Sowell points out, government cannot really reduce costs. All it can do is disguise and shift costs (through taxation) and refuse to pay for some services (rationing).

3) How does government "create choice" by imposing uniformity on insurers? Uniformity limits choice. Under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill and the Senate versions, government would dictate to all insurers what their "minimum" coverage policy must include. Truly basic high-deductible, low-cost catastrophic policies tailored to individual needs would be forbidden.

4) How does it "create choice" by making insurance companies compete against a privileged government-sponsored program? The so-called government option, let's call it Fannie Med, would have implicit government backing and therefore little market discipline. The resulting environment of conformity and government power is not what I mean by choice and competition. Rep. Barney Frank is at least honest enough to say that the public option will bring us a government monopoly.

Advocates of government control want you to believe that the serious shortcomings of our medical and insurance system are failures of the free market. But that's impossible because our market is not free. Each state operates a cozy medical and insurance cartel that restricts competition through licensing and keeps prices higher than they would be in a genuine free market. But the planners won't talk about that. After all, if government is the problem in the first place, how can they justify a government takeover?

Many people are priced out of the medical and insurance markets for one reason: the politicians' refusal to give up power. Allowing them to seize another 16 percent of the economy won't solve our problems.

Freedom will.

Mexican Standoff

2009-11-10T17:53:00.000-08:00

How delicious is it to watch the Democrats wrangle with the Mexican Standoff they have just gotten themselves into.

With the Stupak ammendment (which disallows ANY private insurance bought on the "exchange" as part of the public "option" from being used to abortion) the Democrats were able to barely pass the House of Representatives.

Now it appears that shrill shrieking Marxists like Representative Wasserman-Schultz of Florida have realized that, if that ammendment stays in the Bill, their ultimate goal of putting all Private Health Insurance out of business (which is the ultimate goal of this so-called "reform" effort) will have an unitended consequence of essentially making all abortions in the country illegal.

Oh the delcious irony! In order to socialize medicine they have to outlaw abortion. In order to protect abortion they have to kill the public option and give up the dream of socializing medicine. If the bill does not have a public option or outlaws abortion, the progressives will walk. If the bill allows for federal funds to ever be allowed for abortions, Blue Dogs will walk, and if either group walks, the bill dies.

I think the odds of this bill passing just got a LOT worse over the weekend.

And the best part about it will be that it is the leftists that will kill it.

Sit back and enjoy the show.

Father Zakaria Boutros

2009-11-09T02:57:00.000-08:00

Speaking of Ugly Ugly Truth, here is a man, a hero, who is not afraid to speak it.

Ugly Ugly Truth about Islam

More on Father Boutros here, very interesting reading.

Father Zakaria Boutros

2 Presidents, 20 Years, Compare & Contrast

2009-11-09T02:07:00.000-08:00

This week Germans will be celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall. For historical purposes, let's look at how 2 different presidents, seperated by 20 years have responded. Some events illuminate much more than people think.

1987

2009

Compare and contrast and draw your own conclusions.

Ask an adorable Kitten

2009-11-07T04:40:00.000-08:00

From MSNBC: MSNBC is proud to annouce its newest member to join it's team of special experts, Bitsy, the adorable Kitten. Bitsy will head up MSNBC's special expert panel on Islamic Terrorism. Below is a Q&A session with Bitsy on the attack at Fort Hood.

Question: Bitsy, given the horrorifc attack on Fort Hood on Thursday, many people are troubled by the ties the murderer had to Radical Islam. Do you know how the FBI or Homeland Security is investiating these links.

Bitsy: People were mean to Dr. Hasan and that is what should be investigated. Imagine! A poor defenseless Major in the Army is being ridiculed for his beliefs that Suicide Bombers are justified in killing American Soldiers in their war on "terrorism". This is the real tragedy, see what meanness gets you! This is a warning for all Americans.

Question: Bitsy, you really can't be serious are you? I mean, this man had a history of posting anti-American rants on the internet and claimed he was a Muslim first and an American second. Shouldn't that be what is investigated?

Bitsy: Absolutely NOT! I think the fact that this poor man was going to be forced to fight in our Imperialistic Endeavors in Afghanistan is what the real root of this problem is. What the real mystery is is why MORE soldiers aren't killing each other over our wrong-headed policies.

Question: Bitsy, are you saying that this guy was justified in what he was doing? No one FORCED this guy to join the army and have us pay for his schooling? This guy was a Major for God's sake, this is not some downtrodden crazy guy, this guy appears to be a terrorist.

Bitsy: Mean people suck. I would like some milk now.

Question: Don't you think it SIGNIFICANT that Hasan was chanting Alah Akbar as he was killing innocent soldiers? Don't you think it might have some relevance that this guy was seen at various Homeland Security events on Palestine/Israel tensions? Don't you think the guys activities prior to the murders (giving away Korans, writing Allah on his door, etc) might lead the FBI to consider a terrorist link?

Bitzy: Meow, do you have any yarn? I am getting sleepy now.

Question: Ok, well ladies and gentlemen, Bitsy has dozed off, so we are going to have to cut our interview short. Thank you for tuning in, and join us next time for another session with "Ask and Adorable Kitten".

Our Daily Krauthammer

2009-11-07T04:17:00.000-08:00

The Myth of '08, Demolished

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Sure, Election Day 2009 will scare moderate Democrats and make passage of Obamacare more difficult. Sure, it makes it easier for resurgent Republicans to raise money and recruit candidates for 2010. But the most important effect of Tuesday's elections is historical. It demolishes the great realignment myth of 2008.

In the aftermath of last year's Obama sweep, we heard endlessly about its fundamental, revolutionary, transformational nature. How it was ushering in an FDR-like realignment for the 21st century in which new demographics -- most prominently, rising minorities and the young -- would bury the GOP far into the future. One book proclaimed "The Death of Conservatism," while the more modest merely predicted the terminal decline of the Republican Party into a regional party of the Deep South or a rump party of marginalized angry white men.

This was all ridiculous from the beginning. 2008 was a historical anomaly. A uniquely charismatic candidate was running at a time of deep war weariness, with an intensely unpopular Republican president, against a politically incompetent opponent, amid the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression. And still he won by only seven points.

Exactly a year later comes the empirical validation of that skepticism. Virginia -- presumed harbinger of the new realignment, having gone Democratic in '08 for the first time in 44 years -- went red again. With a vengeance. Barack Obama had carried it by six points. The Republican gubernatorial candidate won by 17 -- a 23-point swing. New Jersey went from plus 15 Democratic in 2008 to minus 4 in 2009. A 19-point swing.

What happened? The vaunted Obama realignment vanished. In 2009 in Virginia, the black vote was down by 20 percent; the under-30 vote by 50 percent. And as for independents, the ultimate prize of any realignment, they bolted. In both Virginia and New Jersey they'd gone narrowly for Obama in '08. This year they went Republican by a staggering 33 points in Virginia and by an equally shocking 30 points in New Jersey.

White House apologists will say the Virginia Democrat was weak. If the difference between Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds was so great, how come when the same two men ran against each other statewide for attorney general four years ago the race was a virtual dead heat? Which made the '09 McDonnell-Deeds rematch the closest you get in politics to a laboratory experiment for measuring the change in external conditions. Run them against each other again when it's Obamaism in action and see what happens. What happened was a Republican landslide.

The Obama coattails of 2008 are gone. The expansion of the electorate, the excitement of the young, came in uniquely propitious Democratic circumstances and amid unparalleled enthusiasm for electing the first African-American president.

November '08 was one-shot, one-time, never to be replicated. Nor was November '09 a realignment. It was a return to the norm -- and definitive confirmation that 2008 was one of the great flukes in American political history.

The irony of 2009 is that the anti-Democratic tide overshot the norm -- deeply blue New Jersey, for example, elected a Republican governor for the first time in 12 years -- because Democrats so thoroughly misread 2008 and the mandate they assumed it bestowed. Obama saw himself as anointed by a watershed victory to remake American life. Not letting the cup pass from his lips, he declared to Congress only five weeks after his swearing-in his "New Foundation" for America -- from remaking the one-sixth of the American economy that is health care to massive government regulation of the economic lifeblood that is energy.

Moreover, the same conventional wisdom that proclaimed the dawning of a new age last November dismissed the inevitable popular reaction to Obama's hubristic expansion of government, taxation, spending and debt -- the tea party demonstrators, the town hall protesters -- as a raging rabble of resentful reactionaries, AstroTurf-phony and Fox News-deranged.

Some rump. Just last month Gallup found that conservatives outnumber liberals by 2 to 1 (40 percent to 20 percent) and even outnumber moderates (at 36 percent). So on Tuesday, the "rump" rebelled. It's the natural reaction of a center-right country to a governing party seeking to rush through a left-wing agenda using temporary majorities created by the one-shot election of 2008. The misreading of that election -- and of the mandate it allegedly bestowed -- is the fundamental cause of the Democratic debacle of 2009.

The Beginning of the End of Healthcare Reform

2009-11-05T02:19:00.000-08:00

Not So Fast: Reid Signals Delay in Health Reform

By Karen Tumulty / Washington Tuesday, Nov. 03, 2009

Senate majority leader Harry Reid at a news conference on Capitol Hill on Nov. 3, 2009

Still struggling to line up the 60 votes that are needed to overcome a potential filibuster of health care reform, Senate majority leader Harry Reid sent a strong signal on Tuesday that President Obama is unlikely to be signing his top domestic priority into law this year, as Democrats had hoped. "We're not going to be bound by timelines," Reid told reporters as he emerged from a weekly lunch with Democratic Senators. He vowed to pass a bill "as expeditiously as we can," which is another way of saying it will probably be slow going over the weeks to come.

Reid: Reconciliation Not Needed for Health CareReid's comments were such a departure from the official line that, as soon as reports of them began appearing, his office issued a statement attempting to take the edge off of them. "Our goals remain unchanged. We want to get health insurance reform done this year, and we have unprecedented momentum to achieve that," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "There is no reason why we can't have a transparent and thorough debate in the Senate and still send a bill to the President by Christmas."

No reason, that is, except for the fact that it is already November.

All year, Democratic strategists on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have made no secret of the fact that they do not view time as their friend on enacting health reform, a goal that has eluded every President since Harry Truman who has attempted it. At one point, Democrats hoped to have the bill passed by both houses over the summer and on Obama's desk in the fall. Instead, the August recess was dominated by cable-television images of near riots at congressional town-hall meetings, and it took a dramatic, game-changing presidential address to a joint session of Congress to get health reform back on track.

But with the turning of a page in the calendar comes a new challenge — Congress will be entering an election year, not normally a time when it likes to take big political risks. Nor are lawmakers generally prone to be quick off the starting blocks when they return to Washington from the holiday recess, which means that the health care debate could drag on through the winter.

Reid's decision to include a public option in the bill that he takes to the floor has also complicated matters. While applauded by the party's liberal base, the idea of adding a government-run alternative plan to the choices for covering the uninsured faces resistance from some of the Senate's more conservative Democrats as well as Olympia Snowe of Maine, the only Republican who has shown any serious interest in supporting the bill. And to get anything over the hurdle of a threatened GOP filibuster, Reid will need to hold together his entire caucus of 60 Democrats. At this point, said a senior Democratic aide, the majority leader is only "cautiously optimistic" that he has the votes to simply bring the bill to the floor — under a normally non-controversial "motion to proceed" — and is still at least several votes short of 60 on the more serious subsequent procedural vote, known as cloture, that would be needed to cut off debate.

There are also more practical hurdles, including the fact that Reid has not yet received an official analysis of his legislation from the Congressional Budget Office, and may not until late next week. Senators will not want to begin debating the legislation until they have the CBO's projection of how much it will cost and how it will affect the deficit. Between next week's Veteran's Day recess and the subsequent Thanksgiving break, that means it may well be December before the bill even gets to the Senate floor.

If that is so, the best-case scenario becomes this: both the House and the Senate pass their versions of the health care bill before leaving at the end of the year, and a conference committee begins its work while they are gone; a conference committee report, while controversial, would likely pass a Democratic Congress. If not, a loss of momentum could dampen the sense of inevitability that, as much as anything else, has brought health care reform to the point of being nearly within reach.

How we got to where we are

2009-11-05T02:01:00.000-08:00

Fascinating interview with a former KGB agent from the early 1980s who defected to the United States. Amazingly predictive of how we ended up with the situation we have now. The truth not only is very ugly, but it hurts to admit it. Ignore some of the whacky comments on youtube about this video, and just watch it for what it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBshLCx2elI&feature=PlayList&p=FF4416BEE5D2ED02&index=9&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

Top Visual Metaphors for the Democrats Performance Tonight

2009-11-03T21:20:00.000-08:00

Get Involved!

2009-11-03T10:01:00.000-08:00

Nothing gets politicians more worried than Voters, and Voters who write letters worry them more than Voters who do not.

Do your part and email or mail your Senator your thoughts on WHY they should oppose Health Care Reform.

If you don't know how to contact your senator, here is a website that will guide you how to do it:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Being from Virginia, I wrote both my Senators and emailed them my thoughts. It is best to keep things polite, short and professional. Below is the text of my letter to Senator Webb. Feel free to cut and paste and make it your own for your own Senator.

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

The Honorable James Webb

144 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-4604

Dear Senator Webb,

I writing to urge you to oppose efforts currently moving through the House of Representatives and the Senate to Nationalize our Healthcare system under the fig leaf of “so-called” reform. Our country since its founding has been based on the concept of the free-market system, and this system has allowed our nation to have the most advanced and prosperous country on the earth.

The Health Care bills that have been proposed are so monstrously ill-conceived that I and a majority of voters in Virginia believe they will essentially set our country on a path towards socialized medicine. The bills are so flawed as to have no merit for passage, and must be opposed entirely. Whether there is a public option or a trigger, the long-term effect will be the same, and that will be the destruction of the free-market in Health Care and the inevitable decline in quality and innovation that that destruction will bring forth.

The increased governmental regulation on every aspect of our lives is an affront to liberty. The regulations that this will impose on private individuals and small business will cripple and stifle our economy. The enormous costs involved in this proposed system, over a trillion dollars, and most likely to really be many times more that cost, will saddle future generations with unsustainable debt and enslave our children and grandchildren for generations.

The enormous power shift away from individuals and states to the federal government that these bills represent, make a mockery of the founding principles of our Republic. Being a Senator from the great Commonwealth of Virginia, and the home of James Madison, you should be particularly offended by this power grab that is an offense to the founders memory.

I urge you strongly to oppose Health Care reform in whatever form it emerges from conference. Very few votes you will make as a Senator will be more important, and there are legions of Virginians that will remember if you voted for the enlargement of the Federal Government over the wishes of your state, and will hold you accountable at the next election.

Old Cartoon from 1948

2009-11-03T02:29:00.000-08:00

As true today as it was then!

http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html

The Costs of Medical Care

2009-11-03T01:00:00.000-08:00

November 3, 2009

The "Costs" of Medical Care

By Thomas Sowell

We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too high"-- either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.

There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor's office and more in taxes-- or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.

Costs are not reduced simply because you don't pay them. It would undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in generations past.

Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them alive-- but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is no free lunch.

Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance-- and fewer people who can afford it.

Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.

If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors' incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors' offices.

What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.

Britain has had a government-run medical system for more than half a century and it has to import doctors, including some from Third World countries where the medical training may not be the best. In short, reducing doctors' income is not reducing the cost of medical care, it is refusing to pay those costs. Like other ways of refusing to pay costs, it has consequences.

Any one of us can reduce medical costs by refusing to pay them. In our own lives, we recognize the consequences. But when someone with a gift for rhetoric tells us that the government can reduce the costs without consequences, we are ready to believe in such political miracles.

There are some ways in which the real costs of medical care can be reduced but the people who are leading the charge for a government takeover of medical care are not the least bit interested in actually reducing those costs, as distinguished from shifting the costs around or just refusing to pay them.

The high costs of "defensive medicine"-- expensive tests, medications and procedures required to protect doctors and hospitals from ruinous lawsuits, rather than to help the patients-- could be reduced by not letting lawyers get away with filing frivolous lawsuits.

If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys' fees and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to do this.

Why should they, when it is so much easier just to start a political stampede with fiery rhetoric and glittering promises?

History Favors the Motivated

2009-11-02T03:20:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow is election day in Virginia, New Jersey and upstate New York. NOW is the time to begin the long slog to take back America by electing Bob McDonnell Governor in Virginia, Chris Christie Governor in New Jersey and Doug Hoffman congressman in upstate New York. This election is part of a continum that has been building for MONTHS and is a key event in stopping Obama in his tracks.

The Town Hall meetings over the Summer, the 100,000 Tea Party members that marched on Washington on 9-12 and now hopefully a Conservative sweep in the off-year elections is and will send a message loud and clear to congress that Americans are beginning to fight back.

Many people do not realize that almost 100 democratic congressmen are in essentially conservative districts, and approximately 10 democratic Senators are from Red States. YOU have an opportunity tomorrow to send these people a message, clear and loud, that you are PISSED OFF and Taking Names. They need to be spooked into stopping this Socialistic takeover of America, and if enough of us show up tomorrow and vote these candidates into office in high enough numbers, it is possible that the entire Obama Agenda will collapse as endangered Democrats flee the leftist plans their party is trying to shove down our throats.

We lost in 2008 not because our ideas were wrong, or even that most people aren't conservative. Polls consistently show that not only are Conservatives the highest polling idealogical group in the country, there has been a markedly sharp increase in their numbers since Obama was elected. We lost because our "party" lost its way and we were dispirited and unmotivated. Their side on the other hand were highly motivated and that is how they won.

Well, the shoe is on the other foot now, and history has shown repeatedly that History favors the motivated. Well, time to get motivated!!!!

More Halloween Goodies!

2009-11-01T02:57:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deoJUBW9CI8&feature=related

Happy Halloween

2009-11-01T01:55:00.000-07:00

31 October and 1 and 2 November are called, colloquially (not officially), "Hallowtide" or the "Days of the Dead" because on these days we pray for or remember those who've left this world.

The days of the dead center around All Saints' Day (also known as All Hallows') on November 1, when we celebrate all the Saints in Heaven. On the day after All Hallows', we remember the saved souls who are in Purgatory being cleansed of the temporal effects of their sins before they can enter Heaven. The day that comes before All Hallows', though, is one on which we unofficially remember the damned and the reality of Hell. The schema, then, for the Days of the Dead looks like this:

31 October:

Hallowe'en: unofficially recalls the souls of the damned. Practices center around the reality of Hell and how to avoid it.

1 November:

All Saints': set aside to officially honor the Church Triumphant. Practices center around recalling our great Saints, including those whose names are unknown to us and, so, are not canonized

2 November:

All Souls': set aside officially to pray for the Church Suffering (the souls in Purgatory). Practices center around praying for the souls in Purgatory, especially our loved ones

The earliest form of All Saints' (or "All Hallows'") was first celebrated in the 300s, but originally took place on 13 May, as it still does in some Eastern Churches. The Feast first commemorated only the martyrs, but came to include all of the Saints by 741. It was transferred to 1 November in 844 when Pope Gregory III consecrated a chapel in St. Peter's Basilica to All Saints (so much for the theory that the day was fixed on 1 November because of a bunch of Irish pagans had harvest festivals at that time).

All Souls' has its origins in A.D. 1048 when the Bishop of Cluny decreed that the Benedictines of Cluny pray for the souls in Purgatory on this day. The practice spread until Pope Sylvester II recommended it for the entire Latin Church.

The Vigil of, or evening before, All Hallows' ("Hallows' Eve," or "Hallowe'en") came, in Irish popular piety, to be a day of remembering the dead who are neither in Purgatory or Heaven, but are damned, and these customs spread to many parts of the world. Thus we have the popular focus of Hallowe'en as the reality of Hell, hence its scary character and focus on evil and how to avoid it, the sad fate of the souls of the damned, etc. 1

How, or even whether, to celebrate Hallowe'en is a controversial topic in traditional circles. One hears too often that "Hallowe'en is a pagan holiday" -- an impossibility because "Hallowe'en," as said, means "All Hallows' Evening" which is as Catholic a holiday as one can get. Some say that the holiday actually stems from Samhain, a pagan Celtic celebration, or is Satanic, but this isn't true, either, any more than Christmas "stems from" the Druids' Yule, though popular customs that predated the Church may be involved in our celebrations (it is rather amusing that October 31 is also "Reformation Day" in Protestant circles -- the day to recall Luther's having nailed his 95 Theses to Wittenberg's cathedral door -- but Protestants who reject "Hallowe'en" because pagans used to do things on October 31 don't object to commemorating that event on this day).

Some traditional Catholics, objecting to the definite secularization of the holiday and to the myth that the entire thing is "pagan" to begin with, refuse to celebrate it in any way at all, etc. Other traditional Catholics celebrate it without qualm, though keeping it Catholic and staying far away from some of the ugliness that surrounds the day in the secular world. However one decides to spend the day, it is hoped that the facts are kept straight, and that Catholics refrain from judging other Catholics who decide to celebrate differently.

For those who do want to celebrate Hallowe'en, customs of this day are a mixture of Catholic popular devotions, and French, Irish, and English customs all mixed together. From the French we get the custom of dressing up, which originated during the time of the Black Death when artistic renderings of the dead known as the "Danse Macabre," were popular. These "Dances of Death" were also acted out by people who dressed as the dead. Later, these practices were moved to Hallowe'en when the Irish and French began to intermarry in America.

From the Irish come the carved Jack-o-lanterns, which were originally carved turnips. The legend surrounding the Jack-o-Lantern is this:

There once was an old drunken trickster named Jack, a man known so much for his miserly ways that he was known as "Stingy Jack," He loved making mischief on everyone -- even his own family, even the Devil himself! One day, he tricked Satan into climbing up an apple tree -- but then carved Crosses on the trunk so the Devil couldn't get back down. He bargained with the Evil One, saying he would remove the Crosses only if the Devil would promise not to take his soul to Hell; to this, the Devil agreed.

After Jack died, after many years filled with vice, he went up to the Pearly Gates -- but was told by St. Peter that he was too miserable a creature to see the Face of Almighty God. But when he went to the Gates of Hell, he was reminded that he couldn't enter there, either! So, he was doomed to spend his eternity roaming the earth. The only good thing that happened to him was that the Devil threw him an ember from the burning pits to light his way, an ember he carried inside a hollowed-out, carved turnip.

Guess what's in the Healthcare Bill

2009-10-31T04:10:00.000-07:00

Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers
by Capitol Confidential

The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

So, you can’t try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you’ve actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits. Brilliant! The trial lawyers must be very happy today!

While there is debate over the details, it is clear that medical malpractive lawsuits have some impact on driving health care costs higher. There are likely a number of procedures that are done simply as a defense against future possible litigation. Recall this from the Washington Post:

“Lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, congressional budget analysts said today — a substantial sum that could help cover the cost of President Obama’s overhaul of the nation’s health system. New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but would also spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).”

Stay tuned. There are certainly many more terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad provisions in this massive bill.

Our Daily Krauthammer

2009-10-31T03:48:00.000-07:00

October 30, 2009

Obama's Bush Blame Game

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Old Soviet joke:

Moscow, 1953. Stalin calls in Khrushchev.

Receive news alerts

Sign Up

Charles Krauthammer RealClearPolitics

Barack Obama foreign policy

Afghanistan

[+] More

"Niki, I'm dying. Don't have much to leave you. Just three envelopes. Open them, one at a time, when you get into big trouble."

A few years later, first crisis. Khrushchev opens envelope 1: "Blame everything on me. Uncle Joe."

A few years later, a really big crisis. Opens envelope 2: "Blame everything on me. Again. Good luck, Uncle Joe."

Third crisis. Opens envelope 3: "Prepare three envelopes."

In the Barack Obama version, there are 50 or so such blame-Bush free passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn't blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad -- everything but swine flu.

It's as if Obama's presidency hasn't really started. He's still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to "long years of drift" in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.

This compulsion to attack his predecessor is as stale as it is unseemly. Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He then solemnly announced his own "comprehensive new strategy" for Afghanistan seven months ago. And it was not an off-the-cuff decision. "My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats," the president assured us. "We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations" and "with members of Congress. "

Obama is obviously unhappy with the path he himself chose in March. Fine. He has every right -- indeed duty -- to reconsider. But what Obama is reacting to is the failure of his own strategy.

There is nothing new here. The history of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is a considered readjustment of policies that have failed. In each war, quick initial low-casualty campaigns toppled enemy governments. In the subsequent occupation stage, two policy choices presented themselves: the light or heavy "footprint."

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we initially chose the light footprint. For obvious reasons: less risk and fewer losses for our troops, while reducing the intrusiveness of the occupation and thus the chances of creating an anti-foreigner backlash that would fan an insurgency.

This was the considered judgment of our commanders at the time, most especially Centcom commander (2003-2007) Gen. John Abizaid. And Abizaid was no stranger to the territory. He speaks Arabic and is a scholar of the region. The overriding idea was that the light footprint would minimize local opposition.

It was a perfectly reasonable assumption, but it proved wrong. The strategy failed. Not just because the enemy proved highly resilient but because the allegiance of the population turned out to hinge far less on resentment of foreign intrusiveness (in fact the locals came to hate the insurgents -- al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan -- far more than us) than on physical insecurity, which made them side with the insurgents out of sheer fear.

What they needed, argued Gen. David Petraeus against much Pentagon brass opposition, was population protection, i.e., a heavy footprint.

In Iraq, the heavy footprint -- also known as the surge -- dramatically reversed the fortunes of war. In Afghanistan, where it took longer for the Taliban to regroup, the failure of the light footprint did not become evident until more recently when an uneasy stalemate began to deteriorate into steady Taliban advances.

That's where we are now in Afghanistan. The logic of a true counterinsurgency strategy there is that whatever resentment a troop surge might occasion pales in comparison with the continued demoralization of any potential anti-Taliban elements unless they receive serious and immediate protection from U.S.-NATO forces.

In other words, Obama is facing the same decision on Afghanistan that Bush faced in late 2006 in deciding to surge in Iraq.

In both places, the deterioration of the military situation was not the result of "drift," but of considered policies that seemed reasonable, cautious and culturally sensitive at the time, but ultimately turned out to be wrong.

Which is evidently what Obama now thinks of the policy choice he made on March 27.

He is to be commended for reconsidering. But it is time he acted like a president and decided. Afghanistan is his. He's used up his envelopes.

Obama authorizes 40,000 troops

2009-10-29T10:15:00.000-07:00

From AP Washington: Obama expands the war

Soldiers of the Great United States, a grateful nation salutes you. Once again, it is up to you, the good men and women of our armed forces to protect America from its great enemies.

Sadly, I come to you today with news that our oldest enemy is attacking the State. We MUST ACT NOW. This enemy is relentless in its mission to destroy not only our Country, but my Presidency. That enemy, old as time itself, is MATH.

As any 4th grader can tell you, the greatest enemy to mankind IS Math.

Why can't we have free healthcare for everyone?

MATH!

Why can't everyone in the country buy a house they cannot afford?

MATH!

Why can't Harry Reid get my Socialist (ahem) I mean Public Option Healthcare Program through the Senate?

MATH AGAIN!

How long ladies and gentlemen do we stand by and let the evil forces of math destroy our country and my agenda? NO MORE I say! This will NOT STAND!

As of Today I am declaring all out full scale war on MATH!

Just think of the world we can create without Math! Everyone gets a house! Free Healthcare for EVERYONE! No more poverty and injustice! ALL WITHOUT MATH!

I ran as a multiplier not a divider!

I ran for addition NOT subtraction!

We cannot allow this tyranny of math go unchecked. We must stop it. Math, Man's oldest enemy, must be stopped and STOP IT WE WILL!

As of today, I am authorizing 40,000 troops to be immediately deployed in the REAL war on Terror, the war as old as mankind itself. The WAR ON MATH.

Soon my friends, we will live in a world where math will no longer keep us enslaved to its cold relentless logic. Join me in my fight and we can destroy Math forever! We are the change we were waiting for.

Thank you, and God Bless America.

Our Daily Krauthammer

2009-10-28T02:12:00.000-07:00

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,656501,00.html

An Evening with Rudy!

2009-10-28T01:24:00.000-07:00

Last night, my wife and I were privileged enough to be invited to a fund raiser for Bob McDonnell for Govenor of Virginia, and also to attend a special reception with the honorable Rudy Giuliani. Rudy in person was even better than he is on TV. Rudy says that the first step in taking back America, and resetting the agenda that has gone so far off the rails, is to get Bob McDonnell elected in Virginia and hopefully Chris Christie in New Jersey.

I agree! Everyone should go out next Tuesday and pull that lever for Bob McDonnell and send a chilling message to every leftist in the country that their days are numbered! For those in New Jersey, send a message by voting for Chris Christie and for those in the 23rd congressional district of New York, send a message not only to democrats but also republicans by voting for Doug Hoffman!

Rudy also answered questions from the crowd, and I asked him if he was going to run in 2012. He gave a vague answer and said it would depend on what was happening at the time but did not rule it out! RUDY 2012!!!!!

It was a great evening of Rudiliciousness!

The debate we SHOULD be having about Global Warming

2009-10-27T03:08:00.000-07:00

The SuperFreakonomics Global-Warming Fact Quiz

By Steven D. Levitt

By the time you finish this blog post, you will understand why we differ from our critics in our conclusions.

As we write in SuperFreakonomics, there are many misconceptions about the facts surrounding global warming. Take the following true/false quiz to test your knowledge of the science, economics, and technology of global warming.

Global-warming science questions:

1. The Earth has gotten substantially warmer over the past 100 years.

TRUE / FALSE

2. Even if we were to immediately and permanently stabilize our carbon emissions at the current levels, or even cut these emissions substantially, climate models predict that Earth will continue to get warmer for decades.

TRUE / FALSE

3. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it spewed millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. Scientists believe that the haze generated by the eruption reflected some of the Sun’s light, causing the Earth’s temperature to temporarily drop as a consequence.

TRUE / FALSE

4. Because the half-life of sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere is relatively short (on the order of one year), the cooling effects of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption faded within a few years.

TRUE / FALSE

5. Dark surfaces absorb more sunlight than light surfaces. Thus, all else equal, light surfaces cause less global warming because more of the sunlight that strikes these surfaces is reflected back into space.

TRUE / FALSE

6. Clouds, which are white or gray, are lighter in color than the oceans, which are blue.

TRUE / FALSE

The correct answer to all six of these questions, we believe, is “TRUE.” You can see our chapter on global warming (pp. 165-209) and particularly the endnotes (pp. 247-256) for citations and elaboration. It is our impression that none of the six scientific statements above is at all controversial among climate scientists. I do not believe that any of our global-warming critics would quibble with any of these facts.

And just to be perfectly clear, despite all the bluster that has surrounded our chapter on global warming, these are the six scientific facts that are critical to our analysis of geo-engineering in that chapter, a point I will expand upon below. We document many other interesting facts in the chapter, but these are the only ones that are central to our argument.

It is simply not the case that criticisms of the geo-engineering solutions that we highlight in the chapter arise because we get the scientific facts wrong, unless the critics think that any of the six statements above are false.

So let’s move on to the economic issues surrounding global warming, and let’s see if that is where we differ from the critics in our assumptions.

Global warming economics questions:

1. If the Earth’s warming leads to global catastrophe, that would be a really bad outcome.

TRUE / FALSE

2. Even when there is enormous uncertainty about the likelihood of future cataclysms, it makes sense to invest now in finding ways to avoid such cataclysms.

TRUE / FALSE

3. Economists estimate that the costs of reducing carbon emissions are likely to be upwards of $1 trillion per year.

TRUE / FALSE

The correct answer to all three of these economic questions is “TRUE.” These are the three key economic facts that are critical to the arguments in our chapter. The first question doesn’t require any further explanation. The answer to the second question has been hammered home by Martin Weitzman’s work in the area, which we cite in SuperFreakonomics, as well as a newer paper that Weitzman has written. The third fact is based on the analysis of Nicholas Stern. These cost estimates are obviously highly speculative, but the true cost of reducing carbon emissions is likely to be within two orders of magnitude of this number.

As far as I know, none of our critics would disagree with any of these three economic facts about global warming. Indeed, Paul Krugman’s attack of our chapter largely focuses on the misconception that we do not agree with fact No. 2, when clearly we do. Somehow Krugman has come to the conclusion that we are in favor of inaction, missing the main point of the chapter, which is that we think immediate and aggressive action is warranted, in the form of investment in (or implementation of) geoengineering solutions. Perhaps Krugman does not consider those steps taking action.

So if there is no disagreement on either the six key scientific facts or the three key economic facts, where is the disagreement coming from?

Perhaps it is coming from a lack of agreement over technological facts.

Global warming technological questions:

1. There exists an engineering design that provides a means of delivering enough sulfur dioxide to the stratosphere on a continuous basis to effectively cool the Earth. The estimated cost of building and implementing this technology is a few hundred million dollars.

TRUE / FALSE

2. There exists an engineering design that provides a means of increasing oceanic cloud cover by seeding such clouds with salt-water that is sprayed into the air by a fleet of solar powered dinghies. The estimated cost of building and implementing this technology is a few hundred million dollars.

TRUE / FALSE

The answer to these questions is once again “TRUE.” As we describe in SuperFreakonomics, the Seattle-based company Intellectual Ventures has designs for both a “stratoshield” (No. 1) and the cloud-seeding project (No. 2).

I don’t see how the critics could argue with the answers to those two questions. They might argue that the technology won’t work as Intellectual Ventures hopes it will, but there is no arguing with the fact that Intellectual Ventures has the blueprints to try to build these contraptions, and could have them up and working within a year or two.

With all of this as preamble, let’s get to the fundamental question we try to answer in the chapter:

If we need to cool the Earth in a hurry, what is the best way to do it?

Our answer to that question follows directly from the three sets of facts I presented above. Reducing carbon emissions is not a great way of cooling the Earth in a hurry for two key reasons: (1) even if we cut carbon emissions today, the Earth will continue warming for decades; and (2) reducing carbon emissions is expensive, with a price tag of at least $1 trillion per year. (There is a third problem with reducing carbon emissions, which is that it requires worldwide behavioral change, which will be hard to achieve. But even beyond that, carbon mitigation is not a great solution to the question posed above. There might be other significant benefits tor reducing carbon emissions — addressing ocean acidification, for instance.)

A much better approach, we conclude, is geoengineering. The scientific evidence suggests that either the stratoshield or increased oceanic clouds would have a large and immediate impact on cooling the Earth, unlike carbon-emission reductions. The cost of these solutions is trivial compared to the cost of lowering carbon emissions — literally thousands of times cheaper! Perhaps best of all, if something goes wrong and we decide we don’t like the results of the stratoshield or the oceanic clouds, we can stop the programs immediately and any effects will quickly disappear. These two geo-engineering solutions are completely reversible. Given the huge costs of global cataclysm and how cheap the solutions are, it would be crazy not to move forward with geoengineering research in order to have these solutions ready to go in case we decide we need to cool the Earth.

Why then, are our our conclusions so radically different from those of our critics? The answer:

We are answering a different question than our critics.

Our question, at noted above, is what is the cheapest, fastest way to quickly cool the Earth. Like every question we tackle in Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics, we approach the question like economists, using data and logic to conclude that the answer to that question is geo-engineering. Not coincidentally, almost every economist who has asked the same question has come to the same conclusion, including Martin Weitzman and the economists at the Copenhagen Consensus.

But that is not the question that Al Gore and the climate scientists are trying to answer. The sorts of questions they tend to ask are “What is the ‘right’ amount of carbon to emit?” or “Is it moral for this generation to put carbon into the air when future generations will pay the price?” or “What are the responsibilities of humankind to the planet?”

Unlike the question that we are asking — How can we most efficiently cool the Earth fast? — the types of questions that environmentalists are trying to answer mix together both scientific issues and moral/ethical issues. If you have any doubts about this, watch Al Gore’s movie, in which he says explicitly that reducing carbon emissions is not a political issue, but a moral issue.

That is why someone like Ken Caldeira can agree with the facts presented in our chapter, say that the chapter is written in good faith, but still disagree with the conclusion that geoengineering is the answer. It is because the question Ken Caldeira is trying to answer is not the question we are trying to answer. The same is true of our critics. But instead of just making this simple point — that we are asking different questions — the critics have either intentionally or unintentionally confused the issues by making all sorts of extraneous arguments.

I do not mean to imply that the question we answer in the book is the most important question. It may be that the questions that environmentalists are trying to ask are more important and more interesting, but that certainly does not mean that we don’t want to know the answer to our question, a question that the environmentalists don’t bother to ask very often because they are focused on their more philosophical questions.

So for all the blogosphere shouting against our chapter, I have to be honest and say that I just don’t get it. I can’t understand why any environmentalist who really cares about the Earth’s future could say with a straight face that geoengineering doesn’t deserve a seat at the table as the global-warming debate heats up.

Dismantling America - by Thomas Sowell

2009-10-27T02:29:00.000-07:00

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.

Green is the new Red - Part 1

2009-10-25T03:37:00.000-07:00

Watch this video! It is time to write your senator and oppose this treaty when and if it comes up for ratification.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug8dEhYm4yM

Looks like some Hopey Change is Coming!

2009-10-24T04:54:00.000-07:00

Some times pictures say so much more than words.

Dick Cheney schools Obama Administration AGAIN

2009-10-23T03:28:00.000-07:00

To summarize

Obama Administration is:

1. Lying about the plan they were given on Afghanistan
2. Dithering on the war
3. Prosecuting American Heros who protected us from Terrorists
4. Making America weaker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzLbTDvqOKA

Nixon 2 worse than Nixon 1

2009-10-23T03:04:00.000-07:00

With President Obama's new Imperial attacks on his critics and the creation of an "Enemies List", many on both the left and the right are beginning to see comparisons between President Obama and President Nixon.

This theory should be tested, so let's compare and contrast.

Nixon:

Fairly liberal Big Government Domestic Agenda:

Revenue Sharing (vastly increasing the power of the Federal Government over the State Governments)
Wage and Price Controls (huge failure as well as being Socialistic)
Expanded Social Security through SSI which sped up the insolvency of the program
Firm Keynesian (We are all Keynesian's Now - direct quote from Richard Nixon)
Devalued Dollar
Loved Regulation and Federal Control over the economy (created EPA, OSHA, Clean Air Act, Consumer Product Safety Commission)
Proposed but failed to get HUGE Comprehensive Health Insurance
Hated Jews but employed them (Kissinger)

Obama

Dramatically increasing Federal Control of Economy (BIG double check)
Wage and Price Controls (price controls for Health Care, Salary Caps, Check)
Keynesian (BIG check again - see failed stimulus program, etc)
Devalued Dolar (check again)
Regulation (Big Big Check - cap & trade, Financial regulation, Car Czars etc)
Proposed Comprehensive Health Insurance (Check)
Hates Jews but employs them (Emmanuel - Check)

Nixon had a goofy, corrupt and embarrassing Vice President (Spiro Agnew)
Obama has Joe (Check)

Nixon had a ruthless criminal as his Chief of Staff (Haldeman) who led the President into darkness and a thwarting of the Constitution

Obama has Rahm (Check)

Now let's look at the differences:

Nixon

Knew what he was doing in foreign policy

Anti-Communist

Obama

Doesn't know what he is doing in foreign policy

Communist

Wow, Nixon 2 IS much worse than Nixon 1, who thought that was possible. All of his bad qualities without any of his good ones.

I wonder how long it will be until Nixon 2 gives THIS speech?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNmHFCY9MI0&feature=related

Our Daily Krauthammer

2009-10-23T02:07:00.000-07:00

White House Tactics Go Too Far

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster. Now he's put a horse's head in Roger Ailes' bed.

Not very subtle. And not very smart. Ailes doesn't scare easily.

The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox "not really a news station." And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to "be led (by) and following Fox."

Meaning? If Fox runs a story critical of the administration -- from exposing White House czar Van Jones as a loony 9/11 "truther" to exhaustively examining the mathematical chicanery and hidden loopholes in proposed health care legislation -- the other news organizations should think twice before following the lead.

The signal to corporations is equally clear: You might have dealings with a federal behemoth that not only disburses more than $3 trillion every year but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry -- finance, autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox.

At first, there was little reaction from other media. Then on Thursday, the administration tried to make them complicit in an actual boycott of Fox. The Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations -- except Fox. The other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down.

This was an important defeat because there's a principle at stake here. While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the current White House goes beyond that. It wants to delegitimize any significant dissent. The objective is no secret. White House aides openly told Politico that they're engaged in a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants, from Fox to health insurers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

There's nothing illegal about such search-and-destroy tactics. Nor unconstitutional. But our politics are defined not just by limits of legality or constitutionality. We have norms, Madisonian norms.

Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was to understand "the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties." They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and restraining each other -- and an otherwise imperious government.

Factions should compete, but also recognize the legitimacy of other factions and, indeed, their necessity for a vigorous self-regulating democracy. Seeking to deliberately undermine, delegitimize and destroy is not Madisonian. It is Nixonian.

But didn't Teddy Roosevelt try to destroy the trusts? Of course, but what he took down was monopoly power that was extinguishing smaller independent competing interests. Fox News is no monopoly. It is a singular minority in a sea of liberal media. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC vs. Fox. The lineup is so unbalanced as to be comical -- and that doesn't even include the other commanding heights of the culture that are firmly, flagrantly liberal: Hollywood, the foundations, the universities, the elite newspapers.

Fox and its viewers (numbering more than CNN's and MSNBC's combined) need no defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN -- which recently unleashed its fact-checkers on a "Saturday Night Live" skit mildly critical of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?

Defend Fox from whom? Fox's flagship 6 o'clock evening news out of Washington (hosted by Bret Baier, formerly by Brit Hume) is, to my mind, the best hour of news on television. (Definitive evidence: My mother watches it even on the odd night when I'm not on.) Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She's been attacked for extolling Mao's political philosophy in a speech at a high school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one's own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?

The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?

American Exceptionalism at Risk

2009-10-21T10:21:00.001-07:00

Walter Williams: America’s ‘exceptionalism’ is increasingly at risk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER

Posted Oct 21, 2009 @ 12:01 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Americans are harder workers, more philanthropic, individualistic, self-reliant, anti-government than people in most other countries. We’ve turned what was an 18th-century Third World nation into the freest and most prosperous nation in mankind’s entire history. Throughout our history, United States has been a magnet for immigrants around the world. What accounts for what some have called American exceptionalism?

We Americans, as human beings, are no different from any other people, including Germans, Russians, Chinese, Africans and other people who have produced tyrannical regimes such as those of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Idi Amin. As such, we are just as capable of committing acts of gross evil that have been a part of mankind throughout his history. We’ve not been a perfect nation, but we’ve never approached the level of hideousness seen in other nations. That’s despite the fact that our population consists of people who have for centuries been trying to slaughter one another in their home countries, whether it’s between the French and Germans, English and Irish, Japanese and Chinese, or Palestinians and Jews, Igbos and the Hausa of Nigeria.

Thrown into the American mosaic are religions that have been in conflict for centuries such as Catholic and Protestant, and Christian and Muslim. The question is: Why is the United States an exception and will it remain so?

At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today’s Americans. Some of the founders’ distrust is seen in our Constitution’s language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections.

After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God. Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution’s separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution.

The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages. The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another. Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution?

That question is not part of the debate. The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not. What Congress does have is the brute force to enforce compliance with their unconstitutional acts.

You say, “What do you mean, Williams?” Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to tax and spend for the enumerated activities therein. Every American is duty bound to pay his share. Congress has neither constitution nor moral authority to take the earnings of one American for the benefit of another American.

What do you think will happen to you if don’t comply, say with Congress’ demand that part of your earnings be taken to bail out a failing business? You’ll see all the brute force that you want to see and if you resist too much, death is not off the table.

We are losing what’s made our country great. Instead of moving toward greater liberty, we’re moving toward greater government control of our lives.

Walter Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a columnist for Creators Syndicate.

AMEN!

In their own words - The Truth about the Public Option

2009-10-21T03:50:00.000-07:00

I know that the Obama administration misuse of language is now so rampant that words have no meaning anymore, but the "Public Option" is competition myth must be exposed as the big lie that it is.

The best way to expose the lies, is to listen to the actual words their biggest supporters have said about the Public Option over the years, starting with none other than President Obama himself.

Public Option

Barack Obama in his own words

2009-10-21T03:29:00.000-07:00

Redistributive Change

Some Inside Baseball stuff, but a HUGE DEAL for the future of the Episcopal Church

2009-10-21T02:36:00.000-07:00

Vatican invites Anglicans

All you need to know about the two parties

2009-10-20T09:42:00.000-07:00

All you need to know about the 2 parties can be gathered by looking at whose vote they want to "suppress"

Republicans want to suppress the Felon Vote

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2008/08/obamas-felon-di.html

Democrats want to suppress the Military Vote

http://www.thenextright.com/soren-dayton/is-the-fairfax-county-va-registrar-suppressing-the-military-vote

Speaks volumes doesn't it?

More Czary Goodness - Ron Bloom (Manufacturing Czar)

2009-10-20T03:35:00.000-07:00

Now with more Mao!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!! This is getting ridiculous.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-czar-agrees-with-mao-too-and-thinks-free-market-is-nonsense/

Decline of the West

2009-10-20T02:20:00.000-07:00

Watch this Video - Very Disturbing

Rush Bad, Mao Good

2009-10-20T02:11:00.000-07:00

Great Op/Ed by Mark Steyn below:

Mark Steyn: Limbaugh bad, Mao good

Lies cost the talk-show host a shot at NFL ownership; a White House honcho praises a murderer of millions to schoolkids.

Mark Steyn

Syndicated columnist

Here is a tale of two sound bites. First:

"Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

Second:

"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa. Not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is: You're going to make choices. ... But here's the deal: These are your choices; they are no one else's. In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his own plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army. … They had everything on their side. And people said 'How can you win? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?' And Mao Tse Tung says, 'You fight your war, and I'll fight mine.' You don't have to accept the definition of how to do things. … You fight your war, you let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path."

The first quotation was attributed to Rush Limbaugh. He never said it. There is no tape of him saying it. There is no transcript of him saying it. After all, if he had done so at any point in the past 20 years, someone would surely have mentioned it at the time.

Yet CNN, MSNBC, ABC and other networks and newspapers all around the country cheerfully repeated the pro-slavery quotation and attributed it, falsely, to Rush Limbaugh. And planting a flat-out lie in his mouth wound up getting Rush bounced from a consortium hoping to buy the St. Louis Rams. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said the talk-show host was a "divisive" figure, and famously nondivisive figures like the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson expressed the hope that, with Mr. Divisive out of the picture, the NFL could now "unify."

The second quotation – hailing Mao – was uttered back in June to an audience of high school students by Anita Dunn, the White House communications director. I know she uttered it because I watched the words issuing from her mouth on "The Glenn Beck Show" on Fox News. But don't worry. Nobody else played it.

So if I understand correctly:

Rush Limbaugh is so "divisive" that to get him fired Leftie agitators have to invent racist sound bites to put in his mouth.

But the White House communications director is so undivisive that she can be invited along to recommend Chairman Mao as a role model for America's young.

From my unscientific survey, U.S. school students are all but entirely unaware of Mao Tse Tung, and the few that aren't know him mainly as a T-shirt graphic or "agrarian reformer." What else did he do? Here, from Jonathan Fenby's book "Modern China," is the great man in a nutshell:

"Mao's responsibility for the extinction of anywhere from 40 million to 70 million lives brands him as a mass killer greater than Hitler or Stalin."

Hey, that's pretty impressive when they can't get your big final-score death toll nailed down to within 30 million. Still, as President Barack Obama's communications director says, he lived his dream, and so can you, although if your dream involves killing, oh, 50-80 million Chinamen you may have your work cut out. But let's stick with the Fenby figure: He killed 40-70 million Chinamen. Whoops, can you say "Chinamen" or is that racist? Oh, and sexist. So hard keeping up with the Sensitivity Police in this pansified political culture, isn't it? But you can kill 40-70 million Chinamen, and that's fine and dandy: You'll be cited as an inspiration by the White House to an audience of high school students. You can be anything you want to be! Look at Mao: He wanted to be a mass murderer, and he lived his dream! You can, too!

The White House now says that Anita Dunn was "joking." Anyone tempted to buy that spin should look at the tape: If this is her Friars Club routine, she needs to work on her delivery. But, for the sake of argument, try a thought experiment:

Midway through Bush's second term, press secretary Tony Snow goes along to Chester A. Arthur High School to give a graduation speech. "I know it looks tough right now. You're young, you're full of zip, but the odds seem hopeless. Let me tell you about another young man facing tough choices 80 years ago. It's last orders at the Munich beer garden – gee, your principal won't thank me for mentioning that – and all the natural blonds are saying, 'But Adolf, see reason. The Weimar Republic's here to stay, and, besides, the international Jewry control everything.' And young Adolf Hitler puts down his foaming stein and stands on the table and sings a medley of 'I Gotta Be Me', '(Learning To Love Yourself Is) The Greatest Love Of All' and 'The Sun'll Come Out Tomorrow.' And by the end of that night there wasn't a Jewish greengrocer's anywhere in town with glass in its windows. Don't play by the other side's rules; make your own kind of music. And always remember: You've gotta have a dream, if you don't have a dream, how you gonna have a dream come true?"

Anyone think he'd still have a job?

Well, so what? All those dead Chinese are no-name peasants a long way away. What's the big deal? If you say, "Chairman Mao? Wasn't he the wacko who offed 70 million Chinks?," you'll be hounded from public life for saying the word "Chinks." But, if you commend the murderer of those 70 million as a role model in almost any schoolroom in the country from kindergarten to the Ivy League, it's so entirely routine that only a crazy like Glenn Beck would be boorish enough to point it out.

Which is odd, don't you think? Because it suggests that our present age of politically correct hypersensitivity is not just morally unserious but profoundly decadent.

Twenty years ago this fall, the Iron Curtain was coming down in Europe. Across the Warsaw Pact, the jailers of the Communist prison states lost their nerve, and the cell walls crumbled. Matt Welch, the editor of Reason magazine, wonders why the anniversary is going all but unobserved: Why aren't we making more of the biggest mass liberation in history?

Well, because to celebrate it would involve recognizing it as a victory over Communism. And, after the Left's long march through the institutions of the West, most are not willing to do that. There's the bad totalitarianism (Nazism) and the good totalitarianism (Communism), whose apologists and, indeed, fetishists can still be found everywhere, even unto the White House.

Rush Limbaugh's remarks are "divisive"; Anita Dunn's are entirely normal. But don't worry, the new Fairness Doctrine will take care of the problem.

Where are the Prinicipled Liberals of Today?

2009-10-18T03:39:00.000-07:00

http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/16/the-new-deal-made-them-right

Sadly, they don't exist anymore.

Most Prolific Mass Murderers of all time: Rachel Carson, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and Hitler

2009-10-17T04:04:00.000-07:00

Chairman Mao - Number killed - 78 Million

Adolf Hitler - Number Killed - 12 Million

Joseph Stalin - Number killed - 23 Million

Pol Pot - Number killed - 1.7 Million

Rachel Carson - Junk Science leading to the banning of DDT and the explosion of Malaria deaths in the third world that resulted from her policy.

Number Killed - 90 Million and RISING
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

http://newsbusters.org/node/13341

Pol Pot is a Piker compared to Rachel Carson. Years from now, I wonder where Al Gore will be on this list?

This is a MUCH bigger story than is being reported.

2009-10-17T03:02:00.003-07:00

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/10/16/how_turkey_was_lost_to_the_west_97269.html

Our Daily Krauthammer

2009-10-16T03:32:00.000-07:00

All I can say is AMEN!

October 16, 2009

Debacle in Moscow

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- About the only thing more comical than Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was the reaction of those who deemed the award "premature," as if the brilliance of Obama's foreign policy is so self-evident and its success so assured that if only the Norway Five had waited a few years, his Nobel worthiness would have been universally acknowledged.

To believe this, you have to be a dreamy adolescent (preferably Scandinavian and a member of the Socialist International) or an indiscriminate imbiber of White House talking points. After all, this was precisely the spin on the president's various apology tours through Europe and the Middle East: National self-denigration -- excuse me, outreach and understanding -- is not meant to yield immediate results; it simply plants the seeds of good feeling from which foreign policy successes shall come.

Chauncey Gardiner could not have said it better. Well, at nine months, let's review.

What's come from Obama holding his tongue while Iranian demonstrators were being shot and from his recognizing the legitimacy of a thug regime illegitimately returned to power in a fraudulent election? Iran cracks down even more mercilessly on the opposition and races ahead with its nuclear program.

What's come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taking human rights off the table on a visit to China and from Obama's shameful refusal to see the Dalai Lama (a postponement, we are told). China hasn't moved an inch on North Korea, Iran or human rights. Indeed it's pushing with Russia to dethrone the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

What's come from the new-respect-for-Muslims Cairo speech and the unprecedented pressure on Israel for a total settlement freeze? "The settlement push backfired," reports The Washington Post, and Arab-Israeli peace prospects have "arguably regressed."

And what's come from Obama's single most dramatic foreign policy stroke -- the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection.

But maybe not gratuitous. Surely we got something in return for selling out our friends. Some brilliant secret trade-off to get strong Russian support for stopping Iran from going nuclear before it's too late? Just wait and see, said administration officials, who then gleefully played up an oblique statement by President Dmitry Medvedev a week later as vindication of the missile defense betrayal.

The Russian statement was so equivocal that such a claim seemed a ridiculous stretch at the time. Well, Clinton went to Moscow this week to nail down the deal. What did she get?

"Russia Not Budging On Iran Sanctions: Clinton Unable to Sway Counterpart." Such was The Washington Post headline's succinct summary of the debacle.

Note how thoroughly Clinton was rebuffed. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that "threats, sanctions and threats of pressure" are "counterproductive." Note: It's not just sanctions that are worse than useless, but even the threat of mere pressure.

It gets worse. Having failed to get any movement from the Russians, Clinton herself moved -- to accommodate the Russian position! Sanctions? What sanctions? "We are not at that point yet," she averred. "That is not a conclusion we have reached ... it is our preference that Iran work with the international community."

But wait a minute. Didn't Obama say in July that Iran had to show compliance by the G-20 summit in late September? And when that deadline passed, did he not then warn Iran that it would face "sanctions that have bite" and that it would have to take "a new course or face consequences"?

Gone with the wind. It's the U.S. that's now retreating from its already flimsy position of just three weeks ago. We're not doing sanctions now, you see. We're back to engagement. Just as the Russians suggest.

Henry Kissinger once said that the main job of Anatoly Dobrynin, the perennial Soviet ambassador to Washington, was to tell the Kremlin leadership that whenever they received a proposal from the United States that appeared disadvantageous to the United States, not to assume it was a trick.

No need for a Dobrynin today. The Russian leadership, hardly believing its luck, needs no interpreter to understand that when the Obama team clownishly rushes in bearing gifts and "reset" buttons, there is nothing ulterior, diabolical, clever or even serious behind it. It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity. In short, the very stuff of Nobels.

Anita Dunn is DONE! This is an AMAZING video of the White House Communications Director!!!

2009-10-15T19:13:00.000-07:00

Anita Dunn - White House Communications Director

Hilarious Story on Multiple Levels - Clueless Carter, Communists and Kennedys

2009-10-15T10:22:00.001-07:00

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28317.html

I now pronounce you Man and Trout

2009-10-15T03:23:00.000-07:00

Language means something. How we define things ultimately determines what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Marriage traditionally, for the last say 4 or 5 thousand years, has been defined as the union between a man and a woman. Sometimes it has included multi-women or men in the past, but our modern sensibilities and morality have defined it pretty clearly as One Man and One Woman.

Now, in the endless quest for fairness and as the forces of Political Correctness marches on in this country, a debate has opened on changing the definition of Marriage. This isn't about discrimination, or even civil rights. Most opponents of Gay Marriage (myself included) support full and equal rights for domestic partnerships and no legalized discrimination for traditional "rights" married couples have (taxes, visitation in the hospital, etc.). However, once you start changing the definitions of things, you move beyond Civil Rights and towards an activist agenda of changing what is defined as "acceptable".

Now, in order for Gay Marriage to have the same status as Traditional Marriage, you have to make the argument that people who are gay are born that way, and thus cannot be denied the rights any heterosexual couple would have.

In order for this argument to be true, you would have to somehow get around the cold logic of evolution. If evolution is true (and ironically almost ALL supporters of Gay Marriage accept evolution as inarguable fact) then how do you reconcile natural selection with homosexuality? If homosexuality were actually a genetic condition, that is therefore something you inherit, by its very NATURE homosexuality would be bred out of the species, since those with that tendency would obviously tend NOT to reproduce.

And if it is NOT an inherited trait, than it must be a lifestyle choice.

And if it is a choice, well, that opens up a can of worms on the marriage front. For example, what would be the logical argument against allowing the following marriages all of which are lifestyle choices?

I now pronounce you Man and Wife and Wife

I now pronounce you Man and Horse

I now pronounce you Man and Duck

I now pronounce you "Sexy Red boots that go with the purse I bought at Stony Point Mall last weekend when I stopped into target to buy catfood with my best friend Julie who also bought a blouse that I think makes her look fat" and Wife

I now pronounce you Man and Trout

You say you are against Human/Trout marriages? Why are you such a fishaphobe? Why are you a hater? Marriage is a Human (and fish) Right!

We should be very careful when dealing with language because once you start down a road, it can lead to destinations you never envisioned.

Ironic News Story of the Day

2009-10-15T02:48:00.000-07:00

Cuba gives 'socialism lite' a try as recession deepens

By Frances Robles
The Miami Herald

Cuba's workplace cafeterias are closing, President Raúl Castro keeps saying the well-off shouldn't get the same subsidies as the poor, and now there are rumblings that one of the stalwart vestiges of the revolution -- the ration booklet -- has outlived its usefulness.

As the Cuban government struggles through a deep recession, its leaders have begun picking away at socialism in order to save it. But experts say the latest buzz by the Cuban government is simply another desperate fix to stem the slide of a failed economy that buckled long ago.

Even one of Havana's leading economists recently said Cuba's economy needed to be turned upside down -- "feet up." So taxi drivers got private licenses, farmers now have their own plots of land and government workers have to pack their own lunches.

"I think what they are trying to do is prepare the people for a hard landing," said Cuba expert Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado of the University of Nebraska. "The government is really saying in so many words: We've got limited resources and can only do so much. I think they are stuck."

Since he took office early last year, Raúl Castro has been saying that the country's severely battered economy needs fixing. In a widely quoted August speech, Castro said Cuba was spending more than it made.

"Nobody, no individual nor country, can indefinitely spend more than she or he earns. Two plus two always adds up to four, never five," he said. "Within the conditions of our imperfect socialism, due to our own shortcomings, two plus two often adds up to three."

In the 18 months since he took office, Castro restructured the nation's agricultural system to give idle land to farmers, hoping they would revive a deeply troubled state-run agricultural industry plagued by inefficiency. He also allowed taxi drivers to have private licenses; many were working illegally anyway.

Isn't it ironic that Cuba is moving TOWARDS Capitalism while we are moving TOWARDS Communism? Who knows, in the future we may have refugees piloting rafts from Florida TO Cuba.

The Only speech worth listening to from the UN General Assembly

2009-10-14T11:02:00.001-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c-_355yS0o

Obamacare as visual metaphor

2009-10-12T20:24:00.000-07:00

Imagine that Health Insurance is like meat. Everyone likes meat, who doesn't. For this metaphor lets say health insurance is like cows.

Like health insurance has been definied now, food is in this metaphor considered a "right" and therefore MUST be provided by the government.

Now, cows are expensive, and are subjected to the laws of supply and demand like everything else is (as is healthcare). Would doing the following raise or lower the cost (and /or) quality of meat?

Step 1. Require EVERYONE to eat meat, regardless of their desires.

Now some people like vegetables and some people eat only fish or chicken, but NOW we are going to require everyone to eat cows.

But we as Americans cannot allow people to make these choices. People are going to be REQUIRED to eat meat.

Now, question 1 is this. Will the requiring of EVERYONE to eat meat INCREASE or DECREASE the demand on meat?

If you said decrease, well..... math obviously wasn't your strong suit. So, we now have a big increase in the demand for meat and we move on to step 2.

Step 2. We are not only going to require EVERYONE to not only eat meat but to eat FILET MIGNON.

Some people like hamburger (which would be the equivalent of catastrophic health insurance coverage)

Relatively cheap and does the job. Although not as tasty as higher cost plans, eating hamburger will essentially get cow meat into your body for the least amount of money.

And some people want more exotic coverage (mental health services, holistic medicine, plastic surgery etc). This would be like Filet Mignon in the insurance example.

Now if we view the Massachusetts model as a guide (and it makes sense to since it is the model that most resembles the Bacus bill now in the Senate) mandates from the state legislature have required that all citizens that were buying hamburger now must start buying filet mignon.

There is no reason to not strongly suspect that Congress, in their infinite mischief in the future and their uncontrollable urge to "help" people, will pile more and more mandates for covering more and more health conditions. It is probable that low-cost, high deductible, catastrophic coverage that is common now for peope to buy will essentially be mandated out of existence.

So, we now have a double whammy. Everyone has to buy MEAT and everyone has to make sure that meat is FILET MIGNON.

Again, is this increasing or decreasing the demand on meat?

Now let's move on to Step 3.

Let's tell ranchers, those who invest in growing the cows to provide the meat, that they are not going to be highly regulated and that we are going to reduce their potential to make profits.

Will that increase the number of ranchers? or decrease them?

With a decreased profit motive, would ranchers invest in genetic research or other expensive techniques to increase their herd size (this would be like the pharmaceutical and drug devices business), or would they find that the billions of investment would not be best spent elsewhere, say chickens perhaps?

Will decreasing research and development in herd size increase and reducing the number of ranchers INCREASE or DECREASE the supply of cows?

So, now we have an increased demand on cows, and we have also severely restricted what part of the cow people are allowed to buy and we have (through regulation, increased taxes) decreased the supply of cows. What happens to the price?

Ah, but you say, HERE is where we need the public option. The Public Option will keep this from happening.

So, the competition immune Government will come in to save the day and will crush those evil ranchers who are refusing to provide cows for low prices to honest Americans who want meat.

Now there are no ranchers left, and only the government is left to provide all Americans their Filet Mignon. Yummy, I can't wait.

Now, the basic rules of Supply and Demand have not changed. The demand for Cows is still blisteringly high and the supply of cows is permamently diminished, so....... Now that the government is involved what are our options?

Well, we could just keep borrowing the money to provide Filet Mignon to everyone and hope this works itself out in the future. One major Downside to this theory is we could end up like Zimbabwe thus making hamburgers cost approximately 3 billion dollars each through rampant inflation and currency devaluation.

Or, we could start rationing care, which would lead to that situation that the left keeps saying is a myth. The much maligned "Death Panel" which means the government will decide who gets to eat meat and YOU as an individual will have no say in it what-so-ever.

Wouldn't the BEST SOLUTION just be that we allow the Supply and Demand for meat work itself out and avoid all of this nonsense in the first place. If the demand for cows gets big, and ranchers think there is money to be made, they will raise more cows and thus decrease the cost of meat but also make sure it is of high quality and widely available.

If people want to eat hamburger, let them, or chicken, fish, corn etc.

It works for cows NOW so there is no reason for it not to work on Health Insurance (and medical devices, drugs, etc.)

Regardless of the fairness of the issue, nothing is exempt from the laws of supply and demand, and there is no spinning the facts any way to show that anything has not ultimately been subjected to these pressures.

I think I will now go have some chicken, and maybe a salad now. I might even have a side of Tuna.

Mars & Venus

2009-10-11T03:10:00.000-07:00

It is obvious that the Left and the Right are never going to come to a consensus about pretty much anything. A large part of the reason for this is the fact that both sides so fundamentally are astonished by the logic of the other side, it is like we are living on different planets.
To give a glaring example, below is a post from the DAILY KOS. The thoughts expressed by this poster to me are so fundamentally anti-thetical to everything I know and can conceive of , the person who wrote it obviously lives on a different planet than I do.

Warning, HIGH LIBERAL WEENIE content below, read with caution, and keep a bucket to vomit in handy.

Nobel Shock shows America oblivious to its reign of terror

by Nashville fan

I find it truly mind boggling how very insulated and oblivous most Americans are to the sheer hell we have put the world through over the last 8 years.

President Obama deserves the Nobel Prize for bucking the conventional wisdom in BOTH political parties and charting a course for PEACE.

Why did the President win the Nobel Peace prize?

- Because he ended the policy of pre-emptive war, which basically stated that the United States can do whatever the hell it wants.

- Because he ended the mindless policy of not talking to our enemies. If you won't talk to someone, how can you make peace with them?

- Because the world was weary of America's capricious selection of enemies

based on our economic interests. A wink and a nod for China, our banker, and bombs for everyone else.

- Because after a war based on lies which killed THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of Iraqis, America has been smeared by the blood of all the innocents whose only crime was to be living in the wrong oil rich country at the wrong time.

- Because he ended the policy of torture and secret prisons and lawlessness that saw agents of OUR country terrorizing people around the globe.

These changes were not small ones and not to be belittled. . . we came within 7 percentage points of World War III, with Senator McCain wanting to take Georgia into Nato and go to war with Russia AND Iran.

Those folks cheering in the streets around the world weren't cheering for the "first black President". They were cheering for an end of tyranny and oppression from the "shining beacon on the hill".

We take all these things for granted, because the bombs don't blow up here, the carnage doesn't fill the streets here, President Bush said it plainly - we fight them over THERE so we don't have to fight them here.

So we Americans are oblvious and shocked at the impact our President has had on the lives of billions of people around the world, who once again can view the stars and stripes as a sign of a friend, and not a foe.

President Obama EARNED the Nobel prize by ignoring the "conventional wisdom" that said negotiating is weak, admitting error is weak, working in alliances is weak and finally recognizing that ALL PEOPLE are precious in God's sight, not just Americans.

Well done, Mr. President. Well done.

Obamanomics Explained

2009-10-10T04:36:00.000-07:00

Below is a visual metaphor which explains Obamanomics and the theories behind it.

First, we have a financial crisis that led to a credit contraction that led to a very severe recession. Our economy is essentially like a house on fire. This is how Obamanomics addresses that fire.

Help! Our economy tanked and the house is on fire!

Don't worry, let's pass a stimulus bill to fix this problem. What we need right now is more spending and what better project to spend our $787 Billion dollars on? Christmas Decorations! Everyone loves Christmas.

But Wait! We don't need any of that crap now. We need stuff that will grow the economy and help put out this fire, not this stuff. The House is Still on fire, and now getting worse!

Don't worry, we got this. What we need right now is Cap and Trade. Green Jobs, that is the answer. And by the way, we will save the Earth. Green Jobs will be like the new gasoline to power the American Economy.

Wait a minute, won't that make things worse? How does pouring gasoline on this fire help.

Don't worry, we Know what we are doing.

ARGH! Now things are even worse! You don't know what you are doing! HELP!

Don't worry, we have just the thing. HEALTHCARE REFORM! That will fix things. You don't hate old people do you? Don't you want people to have healthcare.

Wait, don't you think you should do something about this fire first?

Don't worry, we know what we are doing. Healthcare is like a roof that protects all Americans from bad weather.

Please stop! DO SOMETHING ELSE! The house is REALLY BURNING NOW!

Hmm, this is a puzzlement. OK, Now we know what to do. We need to pass card check so ALL Americans can join Unions. That will fix this up really quick. Union membership is like firewood, and when used properly can warm all Americans in prosperity.

FIREWOOD! Are you NUTS! We have a FIRE NOW!

And we really need to raise Taxes. Raising Taxes is kind of like getting rid of all of these excess RACIST Firemen that are just standing around doing nothing. These firemen are just like all of those greedy businesses and rich people that caused this problem in the first place. We need to teach them a lesson.

And we need more regulation. Just look at these Firehoses, how dangerous they are. Why, if they were used on full strength they could really hurt someone. We need to adjust these down so they are safer. They are dispensing WAY too much water.

But WAIT! We need MORE FIREMEN AND WATER NOT LESS!!

Don't worry, we know what we are doing.

There, things are all fixed up now. Thank GOD we saved America and the Economy.

Ok, next project. Let's build a new house, this time made of something less flammable, say ICE! Yeah, Ice is water and definitely won't burn. That will make the Economy impervious to downturns, and just think how much cooler it will be to be in a new ice house in August!

You guys really don't know what you are doing, do you?

Our Daily Krauthammer

2009-10-10T03:32:00.000-07:00

http://www.breitbart.tv/exercise-in-contraction-krauthammer-speech-blasts-obama/

More Accolades for President Obama!

2009-10-09T09:58:00.000-07:00

BREAKING NEWS!!!! MORE HONORS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA JUST ANNOUNCED TODAY!

HONORARY CARE BEAR - NOW NAMED LOVING CUDDLY APPEASEMENT BEAR

BESTUS PRESIDENT EVER!!!! JULIE SMITH AGE 6 - PS 32 NEWARK NJ

NAMED PRESIDENT MCDREAMY - TIGERBEAT MAGAZINE CURRENT ISSUE

PEACE BE UPON HIM - ALEXA MOSQUE #2 - ISLAMABAD PAKISTAN

Will the honors never stop?

General McCrystal versus General Biden

2009-10-09T02:51:00.000-07:00

Recently, President Obama has received a request for more troops from his hand-picked commander in Afghanistan, General McCrystal. Although the request was received over a month ago, President Obama has yet to make a decision on the strategy. Sources say that he is weighing his options, and that the leader of the opposition to General McCrystal is Vice Presiden Joe Biden. Let us compare the records of the two men, and see who is most qualified to give the President advice on this very important matter.

General Stanley McCrystal

Commander of Joint Special Operation Command
His group under his command killed Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq
Acknowledged world-wide expert on 'counter-insurgency" strategy, which HE says won't work in Afghanistan but General Biden says will
Commander of our forces in Afghanistan
Fought in Operation Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom
Awarded Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star
Highest ranking military officer in the army to personally engage in direct combat missions

Vice President Joe Biden - Supposedly, Joe Biden in his 35 years of experience in the Senate and on the Senate Foreign Relations committee is an "expert" on Foreign Policy and thus is well qualified to advise the President on his Afghanistan Policy. Despite being a plagiarist and an national joke, let's look at some of Joe's foreign policy decisions over his long Senate career.

For Nuclear Freeze under Reagan's buildup against the Soviet Union - Judgement of History - WRONG
Against the first Gulf War - Judgement of History - WRONG
For the Second Gulf War - Judgement of History - WRONG (he would have gotten it right, but he later said he was wrong for supporting the Iraq War)
Against the surge in Iraq - Judgement of History - WRONG
For breaking up Iraq along Ethnic Lines - Judgement of History - WRONG
Claimed he was shot at in Green Zone in 2007 - Judgement of History - LIE AND WRONG
In October 2001, right after 9/11, said we should immediately send $200 million dollars to Iran to show them that our intentions are noble - Judgement of History - WRONG (and crazy)
Claimed in 2007 that Iran was NOT trying to acquire Nuclear Weapons - Judgement of History - WRONG
Said Saddam Hussein WAS trying to acquire Nuclear Weapons in 1998 - Judgement of History - WRONG (funny how he manages to ALWAYS be wrong)
Voted to defund Vietnam War in early 70's - Judgement of History - WRONG
Voted to cripple CIA in 1978 which eventually led to poor intelligence on Iraq AND 9/11 - Judgement of History - WRONG
Opposed Reagan's anti-communist activities in Nicaraqua, El Salvador and Angola - Judgement of History - WRONG
Originally opposed and tried to weaken Patriot Act (which ironically President Obama is now trying to keep) - Judgement of History - WRONG
One of 22 Senators (Obama was another one) who opposed declaring Iranian Revolutionary Guards a Terrorist Organization - Judgement of History - WRONG

Let's hope the President has the good sense to listen to the RIGHT man instead of the one who is, while not engaged in something that is embarrassing himself and his nation, ALWAYS WRONG ON EVERYTHING.

Run for your lives!!!! BULBZILLA!!!!!

2009-10-08T02:34:00.000-07:00

Your government, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided that begining in 2012 traditional incadescent light-bulbs will be illegal and are to be replaced by the newer "green" lightbulbs.

Once we have to switch over to these, pray to GOD you never break one. Below are the recommended steps to cleaning up after a new "green" lightbulb break.

Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:

1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

•

Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.

•

Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.

•

Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

•

Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.

•

Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and powder.

•

Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.

•

Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:

•

Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.

•

Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.

•

If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.

•

Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:

•

If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.

•

You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.

•

If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

5. Disposal of Clean-up Materials

•

Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.

•

Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.

•

Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.

6. Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming

•

The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.

•

Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.

Sounds much "Greener" doesn't it?

More Czary Goodness!

2009-10-07T00:56:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Senator Feingold (hardly a Right Wing Idealogue) called for Senate Hearings on the Administration's use of Czars. This was promptly dismissed by the White House and they ignored the Senator's request.

If and when hearings on Czars are ever held, it might be advisable to ask the White House exactly what their vetting process is. For example, let us look at the case of Kevin Jennings. I wonder if he disclosed any of the following issues when he applied for "Safe School Czar".

Advised a child to use a condom when being raped by an adult man, and then failed to report the incident.
Wrote the forward to "Queering Elementary Education" (which by the way was endorsed by Domestic Terrorist and Obama Pal Bill Ayers). This book is chocked full of such educational goodies as the following quote “Gender is just a bunch of stereotypes from society, but I am completely personal, and my gender is fluid.”
Founder of GLSEN (Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network)
On record as opposing the Boy Scouts in Public School, but was executive director of GSLEN and defended the organizations teaching of "Fisting" to children as young as 12 in public schools. Boy Scouts BAD, Fisting GOOD.
Considered Harry Hay a mentor and actively lauded his work. Harry Hay was active in NAMBLA (North American Association for Man Boy Love Association) which works to legalize sex between young boys and adult men.

Does it not seem ill advised to have a person so associated with pedophilia and an activist Gay Educational agenda to be in charge of "Safe Schools"?

Creepy Things

2009-10-06T04:05:00.000-07:00

Which one of these things doesn't belong?

Answer: The African Dung Beetle. Reason - It actually serves a purpose and is less creepy than the others.

Liberal Myth #5 - Debunked

2009-10-06T03:49:00.000-07:00

Part of the argument for health care "reform" is that those big old evil insurance companies keep denying honest hardworking American's medical claims.

Once again, the ugly ugly truth is far different than what you are being led to believe. Below is a chart showing the claim denial rate by insurer. Guess who is the worst?

Medicare!

The Ugly Ugly Truth about Political Violence and Assasinations

2009-10-05T02:47:00.000-07:00

Recently, Chris (I have a tingle running up my leg) Matthews, Nancy (Frozen Face Shrew) Pelosi, and Tom (everyone is stupid but me) Friedman, recently have desperately tried to start the meme that vigorous disagreement with the President through either rallies or rambunctious Town Hall Meetings will lead to poltical violence and perhaps even an assasination attempt.

This ploy is such a naked attempt to delegitimize opponents of the President that it is almost not worthy of commenting on, and those who are trying to push this "theory" should be held in total disregard and utter comtempt.

However, when actual facts about political violence are analyzed, the ugly ugly truth is far more different than Matthews,Pelosi and Friedman would have you believe.

First, it should be noticed that the two documented cases of political violence that took place over the August recess and the town hall meetings were a Union Thug from SEIU (see Acorn) roughing up protestors against socialized medicine and an Obama supporter biting off the finger of a town hall protestor.

So, lets make sure we keep things in Perspective.

Reviewing the last 100 years of Assasinations and attempted Assasinations of either Presidents or Presidential Candidates has been very interesting and some definite patterns arise. See if YOU can spot the pattern.

William McKinley - 1901 - Assasin - Leon Czolgosz - Politics (Leftist Anacharist - like today's WTO Protestors)

Theodore Roosevelt - 1912 - Attempted Assasin - John Schrank - Poltics (Unknown, but he was put in a mental hospital afterwards)

Franklin D. Roosevelt - 1933 - Attempted Assasin - Giuseppe Zangara - Politics (Communist)

Harry Truman - 1950 - Attempted Assasin - Oscar Col lazo & Griselio Torresola - Politics (Puerto Rican Nationalists)

John F. Kennedy - 1963 - Assasin - Lee Harvey Oswald - Poltics (Communist, Pro-Castro) - As much as Oliver Stone wants to create the myth that the CIA and the far-right killed Kennedy, facts do NOT back up his claim. Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the Soviet Union and was vigrously Pro-Castro, case CLOSED.

Robert Kennedy - 1968 - Assasin - Sirhan Sirhan - Poltics (Anti-Israel Palestinian Terrorist)

George Wallace - 1972 - Attempted Assasin (paralyzed) - Politics (unknown fame seeking nut (plotted to assasinate Richard Nixon as well)

Richard Nixon - 1974 - Attempted Assasin - Samuel Byck - Politics (Leftist, Attempted to join Black Panther party, communist)

Gerald Ford - 1975 - Attempted Assasin - Squeaky Fromme - Politics (Manson Family Nut)
Gerald Ford - 1975 - Attempted Assasin - Sarah Jane Moore - Politics ( Radical Leftist)

Ronald Reagan - 1981 - Attempted Assasin - John Hinkley - Politics (unknown fame seeking nut)

George H.W. Bush - 1993 - Attempted Assasin - Iraqi Security Agents - Politics (Revenge for Gulf War)

Bill Clinton - 1994 - Attempted Assasin - Frank Corder - Politics (unknown fame seeking nut)

George Bush - 2001 - Attempted Assasin - Unknown Arab Men - Poltics (Terrorists)

This last incidence is the most fascinating, as I had never heard of it before. The probable assasination plot was attempted on the morning of 9/11/01 when a group of Arab Men showed up at the Florida hotel that George Bush was staying in wanting to have an interview. When the Secret Service said they could not confirm that such an interview had been scheduled, they drove off and were never heard from again. Obviously this appears to be part of the overall terrorist attack of 9/11.

Amazingly I see no right wing nuts on this list, but I see quite a few communists, radical leftists, terrorists and generally mentally ill people. I think Matthews, Pelosi and Friedman should be worried more about their OWN supporters being the purveyors of political violence rather than people on the right of the political spectrum.

And lest we also forget, the incident that Nancy Pelosi was crying about, the assasination of Harvey Milk & George Moscone in San Francisco in 1978 was committed by DEMOCRAT Dan White not over politics but over a job dispute.

Racist Olympic Committee denies Chicago Olympics

2009-10-02T09:03:00.000-07:00

Our Daily Krauthammer

2009-10-02T02:01:00.000-07:00

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/02/obamas_french_lesson_98547.html

Jesse Jacskon on Race

2009-10-01T19:49:00.000-07:00

After the tremendous response to UglyUglyTruth's interview with the late General Curtis Lemay, I thought we might try and have topical interviews with world leaders (both living and dead) on a regular basis.

Given the recent controversy over President Jimmy Carter's unfortunate injection of race into the Healthcare debate, we thought it appropriate to ask Rev. Jesse Jackson, a prominent African American leader, leader of the Civil Rights movement and past candidate for the democratic nomination for President to weigh in on this sensitive subject.

Paul C. Rev. Jackson, first I am honored you could join me tonight. I know you are a busy man, so we will just jump right in. Do you think that the opponents of Obama are primarily driven by racist motivations or by idealogical differences?

Rev. Jackson: When the topic turns to RACE
The whites get in your FACE.
They simply cannot STAND
From Brother's Obama, Wright and VAN
when an African is THE MAN.

Paul C.: Well, that is just Hyperbole Reverend. I mean, you aren't really backing any of that up you are just stating things in Rhyme.

Rev. Jackson: The Repub's just say NOPE
when their Prez preaches HOPE
When their asses we do BEAT
They run and don the SHEET

Paul C: Really Rev., this really isn't going anywhere. You just keep chanting these.....

Rev. Jackson: It must be sad for you to HEAR
That everything you hold DEAR
Is racist and that's no SMEAR

Paul C: But, I was going to ask yo....

Rev Jackson: Let me not TRIANGULATE
Upon this you must CONCENTRATE
And the math you must then CALCULATE
The odds are good when you PERMUTATE
and in your stew you PERCOLATE
The fact that all you do is HATE

Paul C: Well, about President Cart...

Rev. Jackson: That Cracker knows no thing
and how that bell did ring
when he callled you out
and made you shout
It made my dear heart SING

Paul C: Okey Dokey, well (looking at my watch) I see we are running out of time here. Are there any last words you would like to add:

Rev. Jackson: Healthcare, welfare, Jailcare, homecare
Keep Hope Alive
Hope not Dope
Hugs not Drugs
I am somebody
Hymie Town
Keep Hope Alive

Paul C: Well folks, that's all we have time for tonight. I want to thank Rev Jackson for coming in and offering his "insights" into this issue

Rev. Jackson: If the glove don't fit, you MUST acquit

Paul C: I thought that was Johnny Cochrane

Rev. Jackson: He stole it from me, Keep hope alive.

A Gallery of Unfortunate Tramp Stamps

2009-10-01T18:55:00.000-07:00

Health Care is a right?

2009-10-01T07:20:00.000-07:00

So, if you accept that Healthcare is a Human Right...

Then wouldn't it be logical that liquids are a human right? You can live without Health Care, but you can't live without liquids.

And of course food. I mean, you can't live without food right?

And shelter? Isn't shelter more important than Healthcare?

Kinda makes you wonder where this might end.

What would Curtis Lemay Do?

2009-09-29T17:57:00.000-07:00

Its at times like this that our troubled nation must turn to its heroes of the past and ask, WWCLD (What would Curtis Lemay do?)

Through the magic of Technology, and despite the fact that General Lemay has been dead for almost 20 years, I have scored a coup and convinced the great General to sit down with me for an interview over the situation in Iran.

Below is a transcript of my interview:

Paul C: General, I am so glad you could join me this evening. Given the trouble we are having with our enemies on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, an anxious nation turns to you and asks what you would do in this situation.

General Lemay: Thanks for having me here Paul, and great blog by the way. That post on President Rainbow Brite Sparkles Snuggle Pony had me, Mcarthur, Patton and Eisenhower HOWLING at the great officers club in the sky. But I digress...

So, are the Nips acting up again? Bill, fire up the B27s!!!

Paul C: No General, it's not the Japanese this time. It's the Iranians. They are trying to develop nuclear weapons, have fired off some long range rockets, and appear to be dead set on moving ahead on going nuclear, threatening Israel and becoming a Hegemon in the Middle East.

General Lemay: Oh! Bill, Kill that request! Well, hmmmm, seems like we have an interesting situation here. Now, according to what I have learned, we roughly know where these weapons are being developed right?

Paul C: Right.

General Lemay: Well Paul, I would get Akmawhatever, Bill, what is that Falfafel Vendor in the Member's Only Jacket's name?

Bill (offstage) : Ahmadinejad

General Lemay:   Whatever. I would tell Haji that he has 48 hours to destroy those sites and another 48 hours to let our inspectors in, or else.

Paul C: Or else what?

General Lemay: Or else we launch a tit-load of bunker busters on those sites so that those "mountains" can be scaled with a step ladder. Then if he doesn't let our inspectors in we will move to phase 2.

Paul C: What is Phase 2

General Lemay:   Phase 2 would be the systematic destruction of their entire military infrastructure through smart bombs. Hell son, the bombs you got today are LIGHT years better than what we had. Jesus Christ Mary and Joseph, if I had these weapons, I could have whipped the Nips in a weekend.

Paul C: What if they still don't let in the inspectors.

General Lemay: Damn boy, if they didn't like Phase 2, they are going to HATE phase 3. Phase 3 would be the total eradication of their entire industrial infrastructure (plants, factories) etc.

Paul C: How many phases would you go? How would this end?

General Lemay: Oh, it would end... Trust me, it would end. Phase 4 would be the destruction of all power plants and water treatment facilities. Still, we would be careful to limit casualities as much as possible, but we wouldn't use nuclear weapons. As I said before " I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that's been fed to them. " actual Curtis Lemay quote

Paul C: Is there a phase 5?

General Lemay: Ever heard of Saturation Carpet Bombing?

Paul C: They still might not give in. They still might not allow in inspectors. Would you then suggest we invade on land?

General Lemay: Boy, you aint too bright are you? After the complete leveling of the entire infrastructure of their country, I think they are going to be more worried about how to get the water going for the next 20 years and which goat to take to the prom than screwing around with developing nuclear weapons. We can bomb them back into the stone age without having to resort to that.

Paul C: But General, won't that just create more terrorists? Won't that hand the enemies a propaganda victory?

General Lemay: Total Bullshit!   As I remember, we destroyed 80% of Japan and German cities and infrastructure, killed millions of their citizens and yet..... are we overrun with Japanese or German Terrorists?

Paul C: Hmmmmm..... That is an interesting point General. So, why do you think that is?

General Lemay: If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting. actual Curtis Lemay quote

Paul C: Thanks again for coming tonight General. Our Nation owes you a great debt for your service.

General Lemay: Keep up the good work Paul, and keep your eyes on those commies.

Guys, Mandals look stupid. Put some shoes on!

2009-09-29T02:18:00.000-07:00

Liberal Myth # 4 - Debunked!

2009-09-29T01:51:00.000-07:00

FDR pulled us out of the Depression. We need more FDR style policies to prevent ANOTHER Depression.

UCLA Economists: Government Intervention Prolonged Great Depression

2004 study found FDR's 'misguided policies' delayed recovery.

By Paul Detrick

Business & Media Institute

10/28/2008 10:08:51 AM

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

In 2004, economists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), studied the policies of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and determined his policies prolonged the Depression by seven years.

Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian blamed anti-free market measures for the slow recovery in an article published in the August 2004 issue of the Journal of Political Economy.

Cole and Ohanian asserted that Roosevelt thought excessive business competition led to low prices and wages, adding to the severity of the Depression.

“[Roosevelt] came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies," Cole said in a press release dated Aug. 10, 2004.

The professors paid particular attention to the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and the effect it had on competition. Passed in June 1933, the NIRA required companies to write industry-wide fair competition codes that fixed prices and wages, established production quotas, and imposed restrictions on companies if they wanted to enter into alliances, according to OurDocuments.gov.

The Supreme Court declared the NIRA unconstitutional two years after it was passed, but Cole and Ohanian said that the act caused enough damage during those two years leading to even more regulation.

Roosevelt pushed on after the NIRA was declared unconstitutional with the 1935 National Relations Act (NRA), which sought to regulate private sector labor and management practices, according to the National Labor Relations Board.

The NRA swelled the strength of Labor unions in 1936 and 1937 and as a result Cole and Ohanian estimated that there were 14 million strike days in 1936 and 28 million in 1937.

But the negative influence of FDR’s policies on the economic crisis of his day has been virtually ignored by the news media – despite hundreds of comparisons to the Great Depression in 2008.

A recent Business & Media Institute report, “The Great Media Depression,” revealed the media compared current economic conditions to the Great Depression more than 70 times in the first six months of 2008. An additional tally found at least 157 more comparisons since July 1, 2008.

Liberal Myth # 3 - Debunked

2009-09-29T01:02:00.000-07:00

Our tax code is rigged to benefit only the Rich. We need to make sure the rich pay more taxes, because the little guy is getting screwed by our tax system

As you can see from this chart, the reality is COMPLETELY different. The number of people paying NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX has been steadily growing since 1985. Right now we have a system where almost 50% of the public pay no income tax and the other 50% pay all of them. In the long run, the fact that so many people pay no income tax is crippling the system, and is the main reason we have such high deficits.

Liberal Myth # 2 Debunked

2009-09-28T20:06:00.000-07:00

The rich aren't paying enough taxes. The reason that we have huge deficits is that the tax rate on the wealthy is not high enough.

As you can see from the chart to the left, Tax receipts as a % of GDP have not varied more than 4% in almost 70 years. This despite the fact that the top marginal rate on Income has varied from 35% to 90%. For the years 2002 - 2007 (under those evil George Bush Tax Cuts) you can see that the % of GDP collected in income taxes actually ROSE.

Artithmatic is a tricky bitch isn't she?

Liberal Myth # 1 - DEBUNKED!

2009-09-28T19:59:00.000-07:00

Government Spending is not high enough. We need to implement progressive policies like we used to have to bring back balance into the economy.

As a % of GDP, total government spending as a % of GDP has been increasing steadily since WWII. The problem isn't that we aren't spending ENOUGH money, but that we have set into place committments, especially under Johnson (see upward incline since late 60s) that are eating larger and larger portions of our economy. Government Spending only slowed it's increase slightly during the 80s, but never actually declined significantly.

Czar of the Day - "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings

2009-09-28T11:02:00.000-07:00

Holy Crap! This guy should go to Prison, but instead he is in charge of "Safe Schools!!!!". This administration is getting downright Orwellian.

Read the following

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-audio-obamas-safe-schools-czar-encouraged-child-sex-with-older-man/

Former long-time Acorn Leader now Obama's Political Director

2009-09-28T10:12:00.000-07:00

ACORN's Man in the White House
By Matthew Vadum on 9.28.09 @ 6:09AM

Newly discovered evidence shows the radical advocacy group ACORN has a man in the Obama White House.

This power behind the throne is longtime ACORN operative Patrick Gaspard. He holds the title of White House political affairs director, the same title Karl Rove held in President Bush's White House.

Evidence shows that years before he joined the Obama administration, Gaspard was ACORN boss Bertha Lewis's political director in New York.

Lewis, the current "chief organizer" or CEO of ACORN, was head of New York ACORN from at least 1994 through 2008, when she took over as national leader of ACORN. With Gaspard at work in the White House, Lewis might as well be speaking to President Obama through an earpiece as he goes about his daily business ruining the country.

Erick Erickson of the website RedState recently did an excellent job explaining the relationship of Gaspard to Lewis and President Obama so I won't take up space here recalling all his valuable insights. Suffice it to say Erickson reported that Gaspard figures prominently in Lewis's rolodex, which Erickson has in his possession.

Skeptics among you may ask, How do we actually know the low-profile Gaspard, who prefers to work outside the public spotlight and who can hardly be found in Nexis searches at all, was Lewis's right hand man?

Because Gaspard's employment with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is acknowledged by no less an authority than ACORN founder Wade Rathke himself. Rathke writes at his blog:

Tell me that 1199's former political director, Patrick Gaspard (who was ACORN New York's political director before that) didn't reach out from the White House and help make that happen, and I'll tell you to take some remedial classes in "politics 101."

The "before that" time period Rathke is referring to is 2003 when Gaspard was executive vice president for political and legislative affairs for 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. According to publicly available disclosure documents, Gaspard registered as a federal lobbyist for SEIU on Oct. 22, 2007. The registration and subsequent disclosures indicate he lobbied Congress on SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Incidentally, the lines between ACORN and radical left-wing SEIU, whose acronym stands for Service Employees International Union, become fuzzy in places.

SEIU Locals 100 and 880 are part of the ACORN network of organizations. Local 100 in New Orleans is headed by Rathke. SEIU Local 880 in Chicago is headed by longtime ACORN insider Keith Kelleher.

You'd never know about the SEIU connection from visiting ACORN's website, www.acorn.org. That's because the website has been receiving a thorough scrubbing in recent months. On ACORN's affiliated organizations page, references to the two SEIU locals mysteriously disappeared.

It's worth noting that Gaspard's ties to ACORN, SEIU, and Lewis go way back.

According to the Complete Marquis Who's Who, Gaspard has a long history of political involvement stretching back to at least 1989 when he volunteered for the David Dinkins mayoral campaign in New York City. In 2003 he became acting field director for Howard Dean's presidential bid. He was national field director in 2004 for America Coming Together, a now-defunct get-out-the-vote operation that received a $775,000 fine for campaign finance abuses. In 2006 Gaspard was acting political director for SEIU International.

Gaspard also worked for New York's Working Families Party, which is an appendage of ACORN. Lewis is a co-founder of that party -- which endorsed Obama last year -- and has close ties to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) who has been most reluctant to have the House Judiciary subcommittee he chairs investigate ACORN.

Nadler invented the incredibly creative argument that recent legislative language aimed at depriving ACORN of federal funding constitutes an unconstitutional "bill of attainder." Perhaps singling out the mafia for a federal funds cutoff would be unconstitutional too in his eyes.

Meanwhile, the American public is beginning to realize that ACORN is a vast criminal conspiracy whose reach extends to the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Obama's statement that he's barely aware of ACORN's problems is nothing short of ridiculous, especially so because Patrick Gaspard was a political director for ACORN New York.

Last year he worked as national political director for the Obama campaign followed by a stint as associate personnel director for the Obama-Biden transition team.

As the old Washington saying goes, politics is personnel. Who knows how many administration officials were put in place by Gaspard with direct input from ACORN's Bertha Lewis. It boggles the mind.

We also now know the Obama administration was lying about ACORN's high level involvement in the 2010 Census. The coordination between ACORN and the Census was revealed as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the relentless investigator Tegan Millspaw of Judicial Watch. The Census and other government agencies have cut ties with ACORN as the ACORN scandal widens.

We have to wonder: when it comes to ACORN, what else is the Obama administration lying about?

William Safire - Great American - 1929-2009

2009-09-28T03:28:00.000-07:00

He will be missed.

Newport Smokers

2009-09-28T01:53:00.001-07:00

The Butterfly Effect

2009-09-27T07:57:00.001-07:00

The Butterfly effect is a theory stating, that very very small changes to a system can create huge unforseen and unpleasant consequences. It comes from the allegory of a Butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil causing a hurricane in China.

Consider this Butterfly Effect.

In the late 1780's a scandal erupting in France called the "Affair of the Necklace"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affair_of_the_Diamond_Necklace where a con artist attempted to swindle a cardinal over Jewels that had been originally been attempted to sell to the Queen of France.

This indirectly led to an intense hatred of the monarchy, which led to the French Revolution

Which in turn led to the extremes of the French Revolution, culimating in the rise of Napolean and the Napoleanoic Wars

Which in turn led to the Revolutions of 1848, the collapse of the Medieval states of Europe, the rise of the Nation State and eventually the Franco-Prussian War in the 1870s

Which led to the creation of the modern German State under Bismark and the rise of German Militarism under the Kaiser. This led directly to World War I.

World War I led to Communism, Nazism, World War II, The Holocaust and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire

These horrific events led to cold war, the Korean and Vietnam wars and the rise of Arab-Nationalism leading to both Sadaam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden

Osama Bin Laden led to 9-11 which led to the war in Afghanistan and indirectly to the Iraq War

Failures in Iraq led to the country turning against the Iraq War and the election of President Barack Obama

Now, just imagine.... If one jewelry deal gone bad can cause all of this, How many Butterflys have been flapping over the last year? (Bailout of the Banks, Takeover of GM and Chrysler, Trillion Dollar Stimulus, Pending Cap & Trade and Socialized Medicine)

I wonder what unforseen hurricanes we are creating as we speak.

Charles Manson Vs Babies

2009-09-26T07:27:00.000-07:00

When considering Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice and Pro/Anti Death Penalty viewpoints, there are 4 possible positions. Three of these positions make logical (if not always morally defensible) sense, one makes no sense.

Position 1 - Pro-Choice AND Pro-Death Penalty. This position at least on a logical basis is morally consistent, although not completely morally defensible. It assumes that some lives are not worthy of continuing (mass murderers, un-born babies) and draws up at least consistent rules to distinguish between who we can kill and who we cannot.

Position 2 - Pro-Life and Anti-Death Penalty. This position is completely logical and very morally defensible. It assumes that all life is sacred (mass murders AND innocent babies) and should be protected. You can argue over whether Mass Murders should be killed, but, if they apply the same rules to babies, it is impossible to win this argument on a moral basis.

Position 3 - Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty. This position is logical as well, although can be argued against on making value judgements on what life is sacred (babies) and what life is not (mass murderers). The argument for this position is the guilt or innocence of the person determines whether they have forfeited their right to life. A person who kills another, for example, should lose his life versus an innocent baby should be protected.

Position 4 - Pro-Choice and Anti-Death Penalty. This position is completely illogical and completely morally indefensible. In this position, you admit that some life has value (murderers) but the state has the right to allow some life to be extinguished (babies). In this position the convenience of the the mother is a reason TO kill an innocent baby but a person who has killed others should NOT lose their life. I don't know how you can argue that point.

Guess which position is the default position for the Democratic Party.

Art Break! Monet

2009-09-26T07:24:00.000-07:00

What is the deal with George Soros?

2009-09-26T05:16:00.000-07:00

What is the deal with George Soros (shown here on left)?

He is a major puzzlement to me, as he more than most have profited the most from the Capitalist system, and up until the 2003-2004 was actively involved in promoting democracy and capitalism in Eastern Europe. During 2003-2004 something happened. Something turned him to the dark side.

Is it just that he was virulently anti-war, and thus anti-Bush, and he funded everything in sight to defeat him? That theory makes some sense, and given his harsh childhood under the Nazis, I could accept that, but.....being against the Iraq War and funding groups trying to overturn our Capitalist system seem very very far apart.

He supports and has funded literally thousands of organizations (such as the Tides Foundation (which has ties to ACORN) and the Apollo Alliance (that had Van Jones on the board).

Is it that he has been blinded by his Bush hatred over the war that he has been duped into supporting communists?

Is it that he is a man like Ross Perot, who although very successful as a businessman, falls victim to the "strong man, strong state" view of history, especially when they see that people such as themselves should be running the state.

Is he just another crony-capitalist who is shorting the US Dollar (like he shorted the British Pound 10 years ago).

He is the perfect example that there is a clear delineation between Capitalists and Capital.

PBS Still promoting ACORN

2009-09-26T04:57:00.000-07:00

Below is a blip from the current PBS.ORG website.

Resources - What You Can Do
As members of WACO, the Western Addition Community Organization, individual Fillmore residents, like Mary Rogers and Hannibal Williams, joined together to form an organization with a common purpose in mind: stopping the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, headed by Justin Herman, from taking away their homes and destroying their neighborhood.

When WACO formed in 1966, neighborhood activism was still a new idea. Up to that point, community residents did not have the legal right to oppose redevelopment. After WACO filed a law suit against the agency, and won, the Fillmore residents had the right to participate in the renewal of their community. It was the first time in U.S. history that such a decision had been made.

Continuing in the tradition of the WACO activists, there are tremendous opportunities for people all over the United States to participate in the improvement of their communities and the quality of life for the residents who live, work, and play here.

ACORN: Association of Community Organizations - www.acorn.org/
A national organization of low and middle income people challenging the unjust distribution of wealth and power in the United States, from city councils to the halls of Congress.

Action Without Borders - www.idealist.org/
Includes a directory of thousands of nonprofit websites, an online library for nonprofits and a database of volunteer opportunities both nationwide and internationally.

The Alliance for National Renewal - www.ncl.org/anr/index.htm
A coalition of over 200 national and local organizations dedicated to the principles of community renewal.

AmeriCorps - www.americorps.org/
A national initiative that involves people of all ages and backgrounds in strengthening America's communities through service. In exchange for service, members receive education awards.

Coalition for Healthier Cities/Communities - www.healthycommunities.org/
A site where people interested in addressing urban and community issues along with concerns with health and quality of life issues in their communities can join and share information.

Community Building Resource Exchange - www.commbuild.org/
This website provides a broad array of resources and information about innovative community building efforts to revitalize poor neighborhoods and improve the life circumstances of residents and their families.

Grass-roots.org - www.grass-roots.org/
Read stories of the most innovative grassroots programs in the United States and the local heroes who've found effective ways to build their communities, fix what's broken and make them better. The site's goal is to inspire people to roll up their sleeves and get involved in their own communities.

National Association of Community Action Agencies - www.nacaa.org/
It is the mission of the National Association of Community Action Agencies to be a national forum for policy on poverty and to strengthen, promote, represent and serve its network of member agencies to assure that the issues of the poor are effectively heard and addressed.

National Civic League - www.ncl.org/
Established to help communities develop a civic culture that nurtures and supports community problem solving, NCL offers training, special presentations, facilitation and coaching services and a range of publications.

National Community Building Network - www.ncbn.org/
The National Community Building Network is an alliance of locally driven urban initiatives working to reduce poverty and create social and economic opportunity through comprehensive community-building strategies.

National Neighborhood Coalition - www.neighborhoodcoalition.org/
The National Neighborhood Coalition (NNC) serves as the national voice for neighborhoods by providing a crucial link to Washington for neighborhood and community based organizations.

Neighborhoods Online - www.neighborhoodsonline.net/
An online resource center for people working to build strong communities throughout the United States. The site includes issue guides, community development resources, and more.

Points of Light Foundation - www.pointsoflight.org/
The Points of Light Foundation's mission is to engage more people more effectively in volunteer community service to help solve serious social problems.

U.S. Census Bureau - factfinder.census.gov/
Just enter your street address to get the 2000 Census results for your community.

Volunteer Match - www.volunteermatch.org/
Check out their national volunteer database that allows a user to enter their area code and narrow their search to volunteer opportunities within the user's immediate area.

Why is ANY of our tax dollars going to support either ACORN or PBS? Both are highly partisan action groups for the left.

I.F. Stone - Still Dead, Still Red

2009-09-26T03:00:00.001-07:00

I.F. Stone, Soviet Agent—Case Closed
Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes and Alexander Vassiliev
May 2009

"I.F. Stone, Soviet Agent—Case Closed"

When new information about Americans who had cooperated with the Soviet KGB began to emerge in the 1990s, no individual case generated as much controversy as that of the journalist I.F. Stone, who had long been installed in the pantheon of left-wing heroes as a symbol of rectitude and a teller of truth to power before his death in 1989. Charges about Stone’s connections with the KGB have been swirling about for more than a decade, prompting cries of outrage among his passionate followers. Until now, the evidence was equivocal and subject to different interpretations. No longer.

In the early 1990s, one of us—Alexander Vassiliev, a former KGB officer turned Russian journalist—was given authorized access to the files of the SVR (the successor spy agency to the KGB in Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union) to pursue research for a book that was eventually published in 1998 under the title The Haunted Wood.1 By the time of publication, Vassiliev, fearing retribution from hard-line Communists and nationalists angered by revelations of secrets, had moved permanently to Great Britain. He left his original notebooks, containing more than 1,100 pages of detailed notes and lengthy quotations, with friends in Moscow. They were filled with details about people and issues that did not fit the parameters of The Haunted Wood or whose significance Vassiliev did not then realize.

_____________

Retrieved by Vassiliev in 2002, the notebooks offer the most complete look at Soviet espionage in America we have yet had or will obtain until the likely far-off day when Russian authorities open the KGB’s archives for independent research, eclipsing even the several thousand KGB cables partially decoded by the U.S. National Security Agency in the Venona project and released in 1995. They are the basis for our new book, Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America.2 And they provide startling new evidence about Stone’s ties to Soviet intelligence.

_____________

Born Isidor Feinstein in Philadelphia in 1907 to Jewish immigrants from Russia, Stone dropped out of the University of Pennsylvania to become a journalist. After several years as the youngest editorial writer for a major metropolitan newspaper, the Philadelphia Record, he moved to the New York Post with instructions from its owner, J. David Stern, to transform the paper into a champion of New Deal liberalism. Stone was, however, more than just a New Deal liberal. His sympathy for Soviet communism was obvious. In June 1933, he declared that a “Soviet America” was “the one way out that could make a real difference to the working classes” and insisted that FDR’s New Deal was not reforming America but leading it to fascism, a view that then reflected the position of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA).

In New York, Stone also became a contributor to the Soviet-aligned Nation and New Republic. He was a presence in the Popular Front, an effort by the CPUSA to make common cause with other left-wing groups. Although Stone had briefly been a member of the Socialist Party in the early 1930s, he soon had a reputation as a fervent pro-Communist, although he never joined the CPUSA. His biographer, Myra MacPherson, later conceded that Stone had possessed a romantic view of Communism and viewed “party members as lined up on the correct side of historical developments, unlike fascists or even members of the smaller left-wing sects.” While occasionally critical of aspects of Stalin’s purges, Stone felt that because of the battle against fascism, it was too important to risk fracturing the Popular Front by openly denouncing Stalin or the Soviet Union. He was a signer of the statement, published just days before the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939, defending the USSR and its progress toward democracy and denying it shared any commonalities with Nazi Germany.

After Stern finally fired him from the Post for his excessively pro-Soviet views, Stone moved to the Nation. Briefly shaken by the Nazi-Soviet Pact, he momentarily pulled back from his Communist alliances, writing an angry denunciation of the agreement and taking part in a short-lived effort by several other disillusioned members of the Popular Front and former Communists to build a new radical group critical of the American Communist Party’s role as a tool of Soviet foreign policy.

In 1940 he moved to PM, the left-wing New York daily. There, he reverted to his earlier attitudes and became a stalwart of the paper’s pro-Communist faction. His uncritical support of Soviet and Communist policies continued until the Stalin era came to an end with the dictator’s death in 1953. A year earlier, Stone wrote The Hidden History of the Korean War, in which he promoted the falsehood that South Korea had sparked the war by invading the Communist North. A few years after PM folded in 1948, Stone created his own muckraking newsletter, I. F. Stone’s Weekly, which gained a wide audience on the Left. Although he was occasionally critical of aspects of Soviet policy, it was not until the mid-1950s that he lost his illusions about the Soviet regime, writing a denunciation that cost his newsletter a substantial portion of its readership.

In the 1960s, Stone’s angry condemnation of American foreign policy found a receptive audience among both the old pro-Soviet left and the younger New Left. Stone learned classical Greek in his retirement and wrote a book on Socrates and Athens, part of his lifelong obsession with issues of dissent. When he died in 1989, his reputation as a fiercely independent curmudgeon seemed secure.

_____________

The first report of Stone’s possible ties to the KGB came in 1992, when Oleg Kalugin, a retired KGB general, told a British journalist, “We had an agent—a well-known American journalist—with a good reputation, who severed his ties with us after 1956. I myself convinced him to resume them. But in 1968, after the invasion of Czechoslovakia . . . he said he would never again take any money from us.”

Herbert Romerstein, a former staff member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, quoted an unidentified KGB source as saying that the journalist in question was Stone. The British journalist then interviewed Kalugin again, and he admitted that he had been referring to Stone but denied that Stone was a controlled agent. In a 1994 autobiography, Kalugin characterized Stone as a fellow traveler (someone with Communist Party beliefs but not membership) “who had made no secret of his admiration for the Soviet system” before the mid-1950s. When he was asked to reestablish contact with Stone, Kalugin wrote, KGB headquarters in Moscow “never said that [Stone] had been an agent of our intelligence service, but rather that he was a man with whom we had regular contact.”

Kalugin’s careful parsing of Stone’s precise relationship to the KGB and the hints he offered of an earlier relationship with Soviet intelligence made the discovery of Stone-related materials in the KGB cables deciphered by the Venona project in the mid-1990s the occasion for an uproar. Four cables mentioned Stone. Two were entirely benign. A 1943 message from the GRU, or Soviet military intelligence, merely reported that someone with GRU connections had been in Washington and talked with several correspondents, including Stone. A KGB message dated December 1944 mentioned Stone along with several other journalists who had contacts with military leaders.

The other two, both from 1944, were more suggestive. On September 13, the KGB New York station sent a message to Moscow that Vladimir Pravdin, a KGB officer working under cover as a correspondent for TASS, the Soviet news agency, had been trying to contact “Pancake” in Washington, but that Pancake had been refusing to meet, citing a busy schedule. Samuel Krafsur, an American KGB agent code-named “Ide” who worked for TASS in the building that housed Stone’s office, had tried to “sound him out but Pancake did not react.” An October 23 message then reported that Pravdin had succeeded in meeting with Stone:

P. [Pancake/Stone] said that he had noticed our attempts to contact him, particularly the attempts of Ide [Krafsur] and of people of the Trust [USSR Embassy], but he had reacted negatively fearing the consequences. At the same time he implied that the attempts at rapprochement had been made with insufficient caution and by people who were insufficiently responsible. To Sergey’s [Pravdin’s] reply that naturally we did not want to subject him to unpleasant complications, Pancake gave him to understand that he was not refusing his aid but one should consider that he had three children and did not want to attract the attention of the Hut [FBI]. To Sergey’s question how he considered it advisable to maintain liaison P. replied that he would be glad to meet but he rarely visited Tyre [New York].

While Stone earned a good living, the message added, “he would not be averse to having a supplementary income.”

Taken together, these messages were suggestive but not conclusive. Unquestionably, the KGB had wanted to establish a covert relationship with Stone and had been willing to pay him, but what exactly it had in mind was left unstated. Another implication was that Stone feared a connection with the KGB could attract FBI attention and jeopardize his career—but that otherwise, he was not averse to a relationship. There was no firm evidence that Stone had agreed to cooperate with the KGB, although Kalugin’s revelation that he had been ordered to reestablish contact with Stone in the 1960s made it clear that Stone must have had some understanding of who was cultivating him.

_____________

The controversy about Stone continued to simmer in the ensuing decade, fueled in part by charges by the conservative columnist Robert Novak and the controversialist Ann Coulter that he was a paid agent and a Soviet spy. In 2006, MacPherson’s biography of Stone charged that “neocons” had launched these slanderous attacks on him since they “have a vested interest in portraying Stone as a paid Kremlin stooge because he remains an icon to those who despise all that the far right espoused.” MacPherson also attempted to demonstrate that there was no reason to assume Pancake was Stone; that even if he had been Pancake, he had done nothing more than meet with a Soviet correspondent; and that his only reason for doing so with reluctance was the nefarious behavior of the FBI, which was terrorizing anyone who dared meet with a Russian.

MacPherson’s book set off a round of accusations. Paul Berman, a left-wing anti-Communist writer, dismissed her whitewashing of Stone, noting that Stone’s own writing displayed a long history of glorifying the Soviet Union until the 1950s and that the mere fact of Stone’s having had no access to official secrets and not having stolen anything for the USSR did not mean the KGB would not have valued his cooperation.

Eric Alterman, a onetime Stone protégé, called the Stone-KGB stories “smears,” “phony,” and “pathetic,” dismissing the whole contretemps as “an almost entirely bogus controversy over whether Stone ever willingly spied for the Russians or cooperated with the KGB in any way. He did not.”

KGB archival documents tell a different story.

_____________

The first mention of Stone comes in a KGB New York station report of April 13, 1936. It mentions “Pancake (Liberal’s lead)—Isidor Feinstein [as Stone was then known], a commentator for the New York Post.” “Liberal” was Frank Palmer, who was part of the same New York community of pro-Communist radical journalists. He had also been an agent of the KGB New York station for several years. This note indicated that Palmer had suggested his bosses look at Isidor Feinstein. The New York station further reported in May 1936: “Relations with Pancake have entered the channel of normal operational work. He went to Washington on assignment for his newspaper. Connections in the State Dep. and Congress.” By stating that its relationship with Stone had entered “the channel of normal operational work,” the KGB New York station was reporting that Stone had become a fully active agent. Over the next several years, documents recorded in Vassiliev’s notebooks make clear, Stone worked closely with the KGB.

_____________

One might ask why the KGB would recruit a journalist like Stone, then an editorial writer for the New York Post, with no access to government or industrial secrets. In fact, the KGB recruited a great many journalists. A 1941 internal KGB summary report broke down the occupations of Americans working for the spy agency in the prior decade. Twenty-two were journalists, a profession outnumbered only by engineers (forty-nine) and dwarfing economists (four) and professors (eight). While journalists rarely had direct access to technical secrets or classified documents in the way engineers, scientists, or government officials did, the espionage enterprise encompasses more than the classic spy who physically steals a document.

The KGB recruited journalists in part for their access to inside information and sources on politics and policy, insights into personalities, and confidential and non-public information that never made it into published stories. Certain journalistic working habits also lent themselves to intelligence tasks. By profession, journalists ask questions and probe; what might seem intrusive or suspect if done by anyone else is their normal modus operandi. Consequently, the KGB often used journalists as talent spotters for persons who did have access to sensitive information, and made use of them to gather background information that would help in evaluating candidates for recruitment.

The flexibility of their work also made journalists desirable as couriers and agent handlers (the liaisons between KGB officers and their American sources). There was also much less risk that a journalist having contact with a government official or engineer would attract the attention of security officials than would a KGB officer under Soviet diplomatic cover. And even if security officials did notice such a meeting, it would be much easier to provide a benign explanation for contact with a pesky American journalist than with a Soviet diplomat. Additionally, the KGB could use journalists for “active measures”—the planting of a story in the press or giving a slant to a story that served KGB goals.

Stone assisted Soviet intelligence on a number of such tasks: talent spotting, acting as a courier by relaying information to other agents, and providing private journalistic tidbits and data the KGB found interesting. In May 1936, for example, the KGB New York station told Moscow:

Pancake reported that Karl Von Wiegand works in Berlin as a correspondent for the Hearst agency “Universal Service.” He had been ordered to maintain friendly relations with Hitler, which was supposedly dictated by the fact that the German press was buying the agency’s information. Hearst is in a deal with German industry to supply the latter with a large consignment of copper. Wiegand does not agree with Hearst’s policy. He turned to Pancake’s boss for advice.

Commenting on Stone’s work as a KGB talent spotter and recruiter, the KGB New York station reported, “Pancake established contact with Dodd. We wanted to recruit him [Dodd] and put him to work on the State Dep. line. Pancake should tell Dodd that he has the means to connect him with an anti-Fascist organization in Berlin.” William A. Dodd, Jr., was the son of the U.S. ambassador to Germany and an aspiring Popular Front activist with political ambitions. The KGB did recruit him, and Stone briefly functioned as Dodd’s intermediary with the KGB, providing him with a contact in Berlin when he went to join his father at the embassy. Stone also passed on to the KGB some information Dodd picked up from the American military attaché in Berlin about possible German military moves against the USSR and the name of a suspected pro-Nazi embassy employee.

There is only one other reference to I.F. Stone’s cooperation with the KGB in the 1930s, a note listing him as one of the New York station’s agents in late 1938.

Stone next pops up in a 1944 KGB report on Victor Perlo (cover name “Raid”), head of a network of Soviet sources in Washington during World War II. “In 1942–43,” the report said, “R. [Raid/Perlo] secretly helped Pancake compile materials for various exposés by the latter.” (Perlo was at that time a mid-level economist at the advisory Council of National Defense.) Similarly, a 1945 report about Stanley Graze, a secret Communist and a valued KGB source, noted that in 1943 Graze’s wife had been “Pancake’s personal secretary, maintaining ties with the latter’s informants in government agencies.”

These 1944 and 1945 notes do not indicate that Stone was an active KGB agent or even in direct contact with it after 1938, and given Stone’s initial anger over the Nazi-Soviet Pact, it is likely that he broke relations with the KGB in late 1939.

Still, Stone had quickly reverted to a pro-Soviet position and, as his links to Victor Perlo and Mrs. Stanley Graze demonstrate, he remained in intimate touch with the Communist underground in Washington in World War II and continued to be viewed by the KGB in a benign light.

In this context, it is evident that Vladimir Pravdin’s October 1944 approach to Stone—which came to light in the Venona documents—was not an initial recruitment attempt but an effort to reestablish the agent relationship that the KGB had had with Stone in 1936-38.

Only one other document in Vassiliev’s notebooks bears on this question, and it has to do with Harry Truman. The Soviets knew little about Truman when he succeeded to the presidency, and in June 1945 Moscow Center told Pravdin, then chief of the New York KGB station:

Right now the cultivation of Truman’s inner circle becomes exceptionally important. This is one of the Station’s main tasks. To fulfill this task, the following agent capabilities need to be put to the most effective use: 1. In journalistic circles—Ide, Grin, Pancake . . . Bumblebee. Through these people focus on covering the principal newspaper syndicates and the financial-political groups that are behind them; their relationships with Truman, the pressure exerted on him, etc.

Of the four journalists listed, “Ide”/Samuel Krafsur and “Grin”/John Spivak were unambiguously KGB agents. However, “Bumblebee” was not. He was none other than Walter Lippmann, the most prominent opinion columnist of the day. Lippmann knew Pravdin only as a Soviet journalist with whom he traded insights and information.

As for Stone, given Pravdin’s effort to rerecruit him in 1944, he could not have been under the illusion that the Soviet was a mere working journalist. Still, because of Lippmann’s inclusion in the list, this message makes it impossible to determine the nature of Stone’s relationship to the KGB in 1945.

The documentary record shows that I.F. Stone consciously cooperated with Soviet intelligence from 1936 through 1938. An effort was made by Soviet intelligence to reestablish that relationship in 1944-45; we do not know whether that effort succeeded.

To put it plainly, from 1936 to 1939 I.F. Stone was a Soviet spy.

That Stone chose never to reveal this part of his life strongly suggests that he knew just how incompatible it would be with his public image as a courageous and independent journalist. His admirers, who have so strenuously denied even the possibility of such an alliance, have no choice now but to reevaluate his legacy.

Progressives, Your Red Roots are showing!

2009-09-26T02:37:00.000-07:00

The term "Progressive" keeps being tossed around these days as a badge of honor on the left. They hate being labeled as liberal, as that term has now been thoroughly rejected by the American People, and they think that progressive is less threatening and more positive sounding.

I think if the true roots of the Progressive movement are finally exposed, rational Americans will FLEE in droves. Consider the case of Henry Wallace, the highest ranking (until the election of Barack Obama) progressive ever to hold office in the United States. It is truly shocking to consider how close the communists got to having one of their own in the White House. Below is a very interesting article on the history of Henry Wallace from National Review.

December 18, 2002, 9:50 a.m.
Election 1948
Henry Wallace gets off easy.

By Arthur Herman

rent Lott's ill-judged remarks about Strom Thurmond have, among other things, pushed the 1948 presidential campaign into the public spotlight after more than half a century. But the most-important and dramatic issue in that election is being forgotten. Of course, no one should forget that then-Governor Thurmond was a renegade Democrat, not a Republican; or that it was historically Democrats, not Republicans, who supported Jim Crow segregation and exploited southern racist sentiment for political gain; or that Thurmond and his running mate, Governor Fielding Wright of Mississippi, won a grand total of two percent of the vote. I am referring to the other Democratic renegade who ran for president, a liberal renegade whose candidacy should be more of a political millstone around the necks of modern liberals than the old Dixiecrats can ever be for modern conservatives.

If Strom Thurmond and his supporters deserve execration for their ties to Jim Crow, then Henry Wallace and his Progressive party deserve the same for their ties to Joseph Stalin — ties liberals today are unwilling or unable to repudiate. In fact, the Wallace campaign was the closest the Soviet Union ever came to actually choosing a president of the United States.

Henry Wallace had been Franklin Roosevelt's vice president, until Roosevelt decided to replace him with Harry Truman in 1944. Wallace had admired the USSR since the 1920s; a visit to Russia in 1941, including a tour of the notorious gulag camp at Magadan, only confirmed his enthusiasm. At the end of World War II, as historian Allen Weinstein has revealed, Wallace even arranged a secret meeting with the NKVD's Washington station chief, offering him access to American scientists working on the atomic bomb.

In 1946, Wallace publicly broke with President Truman over the issue of opposing Stalin's bid for domination of Europe. Two years later Wallace ran as the liberals' antiwar candidate. He opposed the Berlin airlift and blamed the fall of Czechoslovakia to the Communists on the United States. His campaign attracted many academics and intellectuals who saw him, not Truman, as the true champion of New Deal liberalism.

But the real backbone of his Progressive Citizens of America was the American Communist party. Its chairman was a secret Communist; John Abt, its general counsel, was a Soviet spy who was part of the same Communist cell as Alger Hiss (Hiss himself worked for Wallace when he had been secretary of agriculture). The campaign's platform committee was headed by another secret Communist, Lee Pressman. Every aspect of the official platform faithfully reflected the Stalinist party line.

Let us be clear. The segregationist south, into which Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott were both born and raised, wreaked great injustice on its black inhabitants and lynched nearly 5,000 people from 1882 to 1951 — out of which 3,500 were black. The Soviet Union, which Joseph Stalin helped to create and then ruled for three decades, put nearly 20 million to death. In 1948 Strom Thurmond looked at the first and saw no evil; Henry Wallace looked at the second and reached the same conclusion. Wallace himself was not a Communist; nor was he a conscious Soviet agent. But the famous Venona decrypts do reveal that his favorite speechwriter, Charles Kramer, was an active NKVD spy who kept in regular contact with his Russian superiors. And Wallace knew more about what was really going on than his public denials of Reds under the Progressives' bed implied. In fact, when Hubert Humphrey complained about the prominent role Communists were playing in the election, Wallace blithely told him to go talk to the Russian embassy — it had more influence over his campaign officials than he did.

Humphrey remains a hero to liberals for his tough speech on civil rights in the 1948 Democratic-party convention — the same speech, ironically, that caused southern Democrats to walk out and launch Strom Thurmond as their separate presidential candidate. Yet Humphrey was also a fierce anti-Communist, and he recognized that Wallace represented as much a threat to American values as southern segregationists did — given the international stakes involved, perhaps more so. Humphrey and other anti-Communist liberals even formed Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), specifically to purge the Democratic party of Wallace's baneful influence.

Half a century ago, Wallace's Progressive party took only two percent of the vote — the same percentage, as it happens, as Thurmond's Dixiecrats. Later, Wallace repudiated his earlier views — but then so has Strom Thurmond. Yet those same views, that the Cold War was America's fault, that J. Edgar Hoover was an "American Himmler," and that Republicans are stalking horses for the forces of "monopoly, militarism, and reaction" are now part of the American liberal mindset — even as Thurmond is dismissed as an "abomination," by the likes of Dick Morris.

As for Wallace's reputation among Democrats today, let September 29, 1999 stand as a test case. That was the day the USDA dedicated a Henry Wallace Room in its building in Washington. Two speakers, former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, and Bill Clinton's secretary of agriculture, Dan Glickman, paid Wallace fulsome tribute. McGovern said that at "the turn of the millennium we still have a lot to learn from Henry A. Wallace." Glickman called Wallace "an inspiration" and said he was "proud to call myself one of Henry Wallace's successors."

Glickman, of course, could say he was praising Wallace not as a Stalinist appeaser but as an effective secretary of agriculture, or for his progressive views on race — just as Lott says he was praising Thurmond on every issue except race. But McGovern left no room for guessing. Trent Lott was seven years old when Thurmond ran. McGovern, however, spoke with pride of having been a delegate for Wallace in the Progressive-party convention. He said, "I'm glad that I stood with Wallace in 1948" and then added: "Twenty four years later I won the Democratic presidential nomination on a similar platform" in 1972 — namely abandoning Vietnam, "bringing the Cold War and the arms race under control," and diminishing America's role in the world.

Someone once said there is no such thing as a double standard, only a single hidden one. In Trent Lott's case, that hidden standard is this: Given time, the media and liberal opinion can forgive anything — except being on the political Right.

Perhaps we should not forget who Strom Thurmond was, or forgive those who do. But why should we do anything less for Henry Wallace?

Freedom of Religion

2009-09-25T13:24:00.001-07:00

First Ammendment of the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Consider Webster's Definition of Religion:

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Scrupulous Conformity?

A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith?

Service and worship of God or the supernatural?

We have an established State Religion NOW and I believe we should vigorously enforce the First Ammendment to restore proper balance and take this religion out of Government.

Our new state religion has the following traits that indistinguish it from other religions:

1. Service and worship of God or the Supernatural.

In our new state religion, Atheism, the Earth and "tolerance" are the new Gods. It is perfectly OK to subject children to the state belief that all moral thoughts and rules are "arbitrary" and that traditional morality is "relative" but it is not OK to have anyone express faith in an actual God. The new God for this movement is the earth itself. The new saints are man and his ultimate superiority. This view is no more "provable" than any other religion and requires the same amount of faith as would traditional Christianity, Judaism or Islam. That being the case, why is it exempted?

2. Religions define SIN and SINNERS: Our new state religion has just as strong and rigid sense of sin as the most ardent old-school Catholic would. Intolerance for other beliefs will not be tolerated in this new religion. This is ironic is it not? If you hold the belief that your religion is superior to other religions that is NOT to be tolerated. Tolerationism is the most intolerant of all. Instead of traditional sins like adultry our new sins are:

1. Hurting others feelings by not saying all ideas are equal

2. Eating high fat food

3. Smoking

4. Trans-fats

5. driving SUVs

6. Using plastic bags

7. Driving cars generally

8. Not exercising

9. Not being racist, and by this I mean not actively wanting to promote minority races over other races. If you wish to just have everyone subjected to the same rules regardless of race, than that is ironically, racist.

10. Capitalism

This new religion even has adopted some of the aspects of the Medieval Church by installing "indulgences" such as Carbon Credits and Sensitivity Training.

I think the reason that our new state religion is not removed from official sanction is because noone has "named" it yet. I think the first step we need to take is to name this religion, and then we can make sure it goes back to it's proper place in society and not officially imposed on all of us.

Some ideas are:

Gorist

Reformed Tolerationist

Earthism

Greenopian

I think the first ammendment should also apply to our new state religion of Radical Fundamentalist Gorist Reformed Tolerationist Earthism Greenopian

Down with the green Pope Al Gore!

Presidential

2009-09-25T13:18:00.001-07:00

The man who should have been President, gives the speech that the President should have given at the UN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRUtowVb0RE&feature=player_embedded#t=26

Riot or Demonstration

2009-09-25T09:50:00.000-07:00

In the past 2 weeks, we have had two demonstrations that have made news. Below are pictures from the march on Washington on 9/12 and the recent demonstrations in Pittsburgh protesting the G20. Guess which group was called an evil mongering mob by the media.

Guess how many Starbucks were bombed by the Tea Party Protest in Washington?....... ZERO

Czar of the day - Cass Sunstein

2009-09-25T09:43:00.000-07:00

Cass Sunstein Animal Rights
September 9, 2009

Obama Administration is getting some high criticism now a days and the latest news made by Cass Sunstein who is a candidate of Obama Administration seeking for votes to win a seat in Senate. Cass Sunstein is known for his extensive work to protect animal rights in the United States of America. But more recently, Cass Sunstein has been making news for giving some wired comments.According to Opposing Views, Cass Sunstein is making some ‘kooky’ comments about animal rights. Cass Sunstein’s passion for animal rights has gone a little too far, we guess.
Reportedly, Cass Sunstein has been speaking to Harvard Audience about putting a ban on animal hunting. He has also mentioned in his book ‘The rights of Animals: A very Short Primer’, he has said that the government of United States of America needs to protect animal from being hunted by banning any gun-hunting of animals just like European countries. But what is this making Cass Sunstein appear in the headlines?
Apparently, in Cass Sunstein’s world animals should have right like humans and if a human is found guilty of hurting or harming an animal, it can sue that person. In Cass Sunstein’s opinion, animals should have right to file a suit against their human killers in the courts “a little too far don’t you think?”

Cass Sunstein is appearing in elections as a candidate for Regulatory Czar in the Senate. If elected, Cass Sunstein would have the authority to change the regulations related to hunting, farming, and gun control with intention to protect animal rights.

As a postscript to this article, Cass Sunstein was confirmed by the Senate and is now the new Regulatory Czar.

President Rainbow Brite Sparkle Snuggle Pony chairs UN Security Council

2009-09-25T08:35:00.000-07:00

President Obama (aka President Rainbow Brite Sparkle Snuggle Pony) addressed the UN Security Council yesterday on the very very imporant issue of Nuclear Weapons.

To summarize, her main bullet points are listed below:

1. Nuclear weapons are very very scary and bad, and we should not have them. We will get rid of ours first and then you guys won't be so scared and won't make any more.

2. We wuv kittens and ice cream!

3. Iran, don't be hatin

Don't you feel safer now?

You have to get them when they are young

2009-09-24T19:09:00.001-07:00

This is interesting:

Below is a clip from a Time Magazine article from 1973 entitled China: Down on the farm with Marx and Mao

"Students are indoctrinated with the prevailing government positions, for example, on who is or is not imperialist (the Russians are currently regarded as more imperialist than the U.S.). A kind of group therapy is offered in "struggle-criticism" and "transformation sessions," in which specific actions by participants are critically examined and corrected. "

Now compare that description of the Communist Chinese educational system with the following clips, both of which are taking place right now in government schools all over America:

The story of Stuff: Now being shown to classrooms all over America and presented by the Tides organization (a sister organization to ACORN)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqZMTY4V7Ts

And this was filmed in a classroom where children are being trained to hail their new leader

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zrsl8o4ZPo

Getting kind of creepy don't you think?

MIchael Moore excretes out new movie

2009-09-24T18:34:00.000-07:00

Michael Moore, shown here on left, emerged from his deep cave lair and on cue, excreted out another movie this week, the laughably titled "Capitalism - A Love Story".

Keeping in tradition with his juvenile stunts and dubious "theories" over the years, from what I have read his latest excresence can be summarized below:

1. Mean people suck

2. People with more things than other people suck

3. The problem with America is that it is not all unionized

4. If only we had Cuba's system, we would be successful

Mr. Moore, not to ever be encumbered by such mundane items such as "facts" seemingly has ignored 99% of all material progress made in the last 5 centuries by attacking the one system that has actually raised more people out of grinding poverty than any other system ever conceived of.

This time however, his antics appear to have gone too far, and moved from beyond "edgey" straight to tedious. Caan, long noted for embracing all that is wrongheaded and anti-progress failed to award this festering slug for his "work". Perhaps it is time for Mr. Moore to slither back into whatever slime-hole he resides in and go into hibernation until the next batch of College Freshman can go to his tedious movies and comment on their "insightfullness".

Slime on Michael, slime on.

The New NEA (National Endowment for the Arts)

2009-09-24T02:02:00.001-07:00

Buffy Wicks (shown here on left) is caught on tape announcing new policies for the NEA. By the way, all of what is said on tape is a direct violation of the Hatch Act which prohibits Government workers from actively engaging in partisan activities, but heh, what does "law" mean now anyway. We are the change we have been waiting for.

The following link is to the audio clip. Very "non-partisan".

http://www.breitbart.tv/explosive-new-audio-reveals-white-house-using-nea-to-push-partisan-agenda/