Wednesday, December 30, 2009


Check out the rest, make your contributions, and cast your votes.

Car tipping made easy

let there be light

Monday, December 28, 2009

1953 address by Admiral Ben Moreell

Engineers, Scientific and Social

By Jim Gammon & Admiral Ben Moreell

Our great error is a lack of confidence in the voluntary acts of free people."

On January 14, 1953, the chairman of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. spoke at the annual meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers in Detroit. He was Admiral Ben Moreell, and in 1953, most people in the audience would have known him as a founder and leader of the Seabees -- the U.S. Navy component that built the docks, the airports, and just about everything else our military forces needed to fight and win World War II, often working under fire.

The speech Moreell gave that day is quite simply stunning. It is among the most remarkable talks about human nature, and the nature of government, ever delivered by anyone, anywhere. It rises above politics, as all serious discussions on human life ought to (but lately do not).

Although written more than fifty years ago, it is relevant today -- maybe even more so. You be the judge. While he never mentions politics, this is a must-read for every Conservative and a challenge to the foundations of every Liberal.

I came across the speech while rummaging through some of my father's old boxes. My dad is 87 now, and he was in that audience when Admiral Moreell spoke. He was so impressed that he contacted the Admiral afterward and asked for a copy of the text, which is what I found.

Please read the speech and pass it along as widely as you can.

-Jim Gammon



To the



JANUARY 14, 1953


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


Tonight I would like to talk with you about engineers and their significance to our economic and social structures.

My dictionary defines engineering as "the art and science by which the properties of matter and the sources of power in nature are made useful to man in structures, and manufactured products."

We engineers have learned that our unceasing efforts to perfect this art and science are essential for the improvement of our material standards of living.  And I believe that we may, with due modesty, point with pride to our professional achievements.

However, my purpose tonight is not to give an accounting of the good works of scientific engineers.  For I believe that we should now be more concerned with a "pseudo-engineering"  that is developing to an alarming extent among us - a kind of engineering which is quite different from that "science by which the properties of matter are made useful to man."  I refer to the profession of "social engineering", whose practitioners are known as "social engineers".


These social engineers - who appear to be more numerous and, at the moment, far more powerful, than we scientific engineers - are dedicated to the thesis that, by using the force of government, mankind in the mass can be changed and molded to conform to a master plan, in much the same way that engineering materials can be processed in accordance with preconceived designs.

We scientific engineers have the unchanging laws of chemistry, physics, and the other natural sciences to guide our efforts.  By means of those laws, when we come to understand them, we can predict the behavior of the materials and forces of nature.  But the social engineers either know nothing of nature's immutable laws, or choose to ignore them.  Instead, they have their man-made and variable laws of compulsions, prohibitions, and other restrictions on the free actions of individuals.  By means of these, they claim, they can compel the behavior of men in a manner that will redound to the good of mankind.

We scientific engineers recognize that the materials we use and the laws we follow come from the Creator - a Power of which man himself is but an infinitesimal manifestation - and that these materials may be used and these laws observed to the advantage of mankind.  The "raw material" used by the social engineers is all of mankind itself - and the laws and rules which they follow some from no source other than their desire to remold humanity in their chosen images.  Scientific engineers process their raw materials to create products for the service of mankind.  Social engineers use their raw material - human beings - to create  products designed to serve and please their own fancy - and frequently to satisfy their craving for personal power.  And often they do this by appealing to the baser traits of man - laziness, greed, selfishness and irresponsibility.


We scientific engineers do extensive planning and experimenting.  We construct models in order to obtain date with which to predict the behavior of the full-scale prototype.

Social engineers also are given to extensive planning and experimenting.  They, too, construct models in order to secure a better idea of how they may control the full-scale project.  For example, in 1933 practically an entire State, with all of its people - Tennessee - was selected for what was called "a pilot plant" and "a yardstick".  I refer to the Tennessee Valley Authority, a project to which its "social engineer in charge" proudly referred as "a seamless web - the unity of land and water and men",  all under his direct authority.

The Chief of the Woman's Auxiliary of the Social Engineers is famed for her experiments with model villages and other "social reforms".  From these she moved into the Planning Division of the United Nations where - is collaboration with the master social engineers of other nations - she has been busily planning to apply her experiments on a world-wide basis.

Social engineers who have worked in the field of agriculture have, at various times, set aside tracts of land and all of their inhabitants for test projects.  Then, satisfied that they had produced a happier, healthier, and more perfect human being, they have returned to Washington and attempted to place into operation a master plan to transform all of mankind by use of the force of government.

They have built model housing developments.  The occupants are carefully selected, house-broken, and taught to conform to certain behavior patterns.  If the operation of the models and the conduct of the people placed in them are pleasing to the planners, they demand from government the power to force many others to conform to the standards they have set - standards which they claim will reduce crime, improve morality, and develop a better society.  But, actually, experience has shown that almost always the ultimate effects are the direct opposite of those which they claim. 

These self-anointed friends of humanity are deeply concerned about your health, your diet, your attitude toward other people, your business, and your job.  Ins short, they believe in government-forced control of man in relation to his wages, hours, working conditions, prices, savings, insurance, drinking habits, entertainment, and a host of other problems that every person must face in his daily living.


Now, I do not deny to any person the right to make any plan be chooses - whether it be a plan to fly to the moon or a plan to create a superior human being.  But I do deny the planner the right to force me, or any other person, to conform to his plan.

We scientific engineers do not need laws to force people to adopt our plans or to buy our products.  I believe that each of us is willing to leave the decision to the competitive market where all persons have complete freedom to buy or not to buy, to join or not to join, to invest or not to invest.

But these would-be managers-at-large of society are not willing to extend freedom of choice to others than themselves.  They must have the power of government -- the police force - behind their plans or they are helpless.  They know that in almost all cases a free people in a free market would reject their wares.  That is why they want to abolish the market economy and force people to conform to their plans or to suffer the penalty of fines and imprisonment.

For example, I am an unwilling "stockholder" in the Tennessee Valley Authority.  I continue to pay money into that project for the simple reason that the police force will use violence upon me should I refuse.  I am willing to sell my share of TVA, and of all similar welfare projects, at a large discount.  In fact, I would give my equity to these humanitarians if they would only stop forcing me to subsidize their schemes.

They claim they can "prove conclusively" that the Tennessee  Valley Authority is a great financial success which regularly returns a profit to the people of America.  If this is so, why do they come to Congress almost every year for additional appropriations?  Why do they not offer stock in the open market where the people can have a choice?

The answer is simple:  A free people would reject the stock.  If this were not so, there would have been no reason to make their participation compulsory in the first instance.  

These promoters with the public purse have been planning a Missouri Valley Authority and various other such authorities for many years.  And they have been using your money to propagandize the gullible into believing that the projects are economically sound; that they will pay back far more than they cost.  If this is so, why do they demand that the police force, government, recruit their stockholders?


Now, these social busy-bodies may have the best intentions in the world.  Their personal lives may be above reproach.  Their primary motive may be only too "do good for the people".  I question neither their intentions nor their sincerity.  But I do question their basic belief that good can be accomplished through the use of violence.  To illustrate my point, let us consider the French Revolution.  The people rebelled against a government that forced them to conform to its decrees on wages, prices, profits, employment, housing, and similar matters.

Now, it would be logical to suppose that the revolters against a government of favoritism would reject favoritism and entrust their social and economic relationships to a market and a society where freedom of choice was controlling. 

It is true that some effort was made in this direction in the early stages of the French Revolution.  But soon there came to power Robespierre - a man of unquestioned personal integrity and habits - a dedicated humanitarian.  He became the foremost "social engineer" of his day.  Here is his master plan for re-creating the people of France:

"In our country,"  he said, "we desire to establish morality, honesty, principles, duties, reason, contempt of vice, pride, greatness of soul, love of glory, good people, merit, genius, truth, happiness, greatness of man, generosity, strength - in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues of a republic for all the vices of a monarchy".

Who can disagree with those noble objectives?  Certainly, I do not, any more than I disagree with those of most of our own social planners.  But Robespierre had no faith in people.  He rejected any thought that the people would develop those desirable virtue by the use of violence; to use the power of government to force all people to conform to his plan for making them better.  He became  known as the "humanitarian with the guillotine".  Those who refused to conform to his concepts of morality and economic behavior were fined or imprisoned or executed.

When it came his own turn to bow to the guillotine, his defense was that of all humanitarians who rely on the force of government for the accomplishment of their good works.  He said that his every act had been "for the good of the people"; that he was only trying to help them to peace, prosperity, and happiness.


And so it is with all social engineers, including Hitler, Stalin, and our domestic brand.  Hitler looked upon people as clay to be molded to his purposes.  Some of this clay - human beings - did not meet his specifications.  So he destroyed it in much the same manner that a scientific engineer discards defective material.  His program of social reform allowed little freedom of choice.  He used the force of government to regulate wages, prices, profits, working conditions, unions, rents, housing, education, medical services, social security, production, and a host of other vital matters.  And he, too, repeatedly announced that all these things ere being done for "the good of all the people".  That is the familiar chant of these "public benefactors".  The dictator who "liquidates" a group of persons is practicing social engineering - as is the public official who takes money from one group of citizens and gives it to another group - in the form of public housing or some other socially "useful" project.

Both are doing what they say is "best for the people as a whole".  They may differ in their approach, but if you think that our domestic brand is any less determined than the variety, just try deducting from your tax bill your share of the cost of socialized housing in America.  First, you will be fined.  If you refuse to pay the fine, you will be sentenced to prison.  If you resist the officer who is sent to arrest you - well, just what does happen in our country to persons who resist arrest?


Now you may ask:  Did our great religious teachers practice social engineering?  Was Jesus a social engineer?  Recalling that I have defined social engineers as those who would re-make mankind in the mass by using the force of government, my answer is an emphatic no.  For Jesus always appealed only to individuals.  He asked that each one make a voluntary choice to follow God's way.  He said to the individual, "The Kingdom of God is within you.  "That is, it does not lie in the group, or in the mob, or in the vote of the majority, but in the individual himself.  Nor did Jesus ever appeal, or even suggest an appeal, to the force of government for the accomplishment of good works.  Instead, He appealed to each person to reform himself, that he might be born again.  He recognized no such thing as "group morality".  Rather, He taught that each individual must eventually answer personally for his own deeds of commission and omission, form which it follows that no one can divest himself of his responsibility by hiding it behind someone else or even behind our collective agent - government.


All social engineers are devotees of the pagan concept of authority.  Their every action show clearly that they do not believe that freedom as a way of life will work.

They believe inherently that free mane cannot possibly be adequately housed, clothed, or fed.  By their actions they show clearly that they consider themselves superior in intelligence to the rest of us.  For our own good they desire to force the rest of us to live and act and think as they believe we should.

Since they assume for themselves a higher degree of intelligence and morality than the rest of us, I suggest that we examinee their credentials.  Who has commissioned them to use us as raw material, to be molded as they see fit?  Surely no such commission could be valid unless it were signed by the Almighty Himself.  Apparently no social engineer ever stops to consider that this raw material he is remolding is composed of human beings - creatures of God, created in God's image.  Or, if he does think about it, apparently he concludes that God's work should be improved upon.  It is my belief that God intended men to be free to make their own decisions and to be responsible for the consequences of those decisions.  Thus it seems to me that it is an act against God for men to pass laws which destroy individual liberty; which force some persons to conform to the ideas and plans of other persons; which deprive persons of the responsibility for their own acts and for their own welfare.

It seems to me that there is convincing evidence to support my beliefs on this subject.  And the basic evidence is found in the fact that no person is physically or mentally or morally identical to any other person.  For example, we know that the fingerprints of all persons are different.  And these differences - these individualities, these inequalities - carry through all the physical, mental, and moral characteristics of mankind.


This inequality among persons is a law of nature -   law which is just as unchangeable and just as necessary to understand   as is any other natural law, as, for example, the law of gravity.  This particular law is known as the "law of variation", and from the unrestricted operation of this law comes all human progress.  The law of variation permits children to be different from their parents.  It permits brothers to think differently and to act differently.  It permits the existence of both miser and philanthropists, saints and sinners, rich and poor.  It is the foundation for all conceivable human relationships.  These natural variations underlie all commerce and trade and exchanges of any kind - including all the aspects of social and economic life within a society.

The law of variation permits inventors to invent, managers to manage, and scientific engineers to improve the material well-being of mankind.  It permits each person to seek a job or profession which is most suited to his natural talents and his desires.  It encourages a voluntary division of labor, with resulting maximum efficiency and greater prosperity for all.  Without this variation - this unequalness - our social structure would be similar to that of an anthill or a beehive, where each member is born to do a certain predetermined job, which he does with blind allegiance to his society and with no consideration of personal interests or preferences.


The slogan of the social engineer is "equality" and the tools he proposes to use to bring this about are the compulsions and prohibitions of government.  But what does he mean by equality?  Certainly I am not equal to anyone else.  I frequently meet persons who are my superior in intelligence, in morality, in health, and in material possessions.  By equality does he mean that we should all have equal intelligence?  If so, his arguments should be directed to God.  If not equality of intelligence, does he mean that one of the most important by-products of intelligence - material possessions - should be equalized?  Or, if he merely intends that some degree of equality of possessions should be achieved, just what degree does he have in mind?  If his concept of equality is what he chooses to call "adequate" housing for all, then does not the same principle apply to adequate clothing, food, medical care, entertainment, education, and work for all?  And should we not have adequate religious training for all?  Surely he does not intend to leave that vital subject to chance!  In due time I am quite sure that he will get around to controlling that, too.

When the social engineer uses his compulsions to establish equality or "adequateness" in one area, he may deny vehemently that he intends to establish it elsewhere.  In fact, he usually does issue such a denial.  But it never works that way.  Once it is conceded that people should be forced to conform to the ideas of others, there is no principle on which we can rely to deny the same authority in any area.


It seems to me that the only equality we can logically expect is equality before the law.  In that event, no person would be subsidized at the expense of another.  There could be no subsidies - for if every person were equal before the law, then the law could not take from some in order to give to others.  If we were all equal before the law, there would automatically be a free market wherein no person could use the law to force upon ant other person his concepts of wages, prices, or anything else.

Equality before the law means that no person may steal from another person, defame him, defraud him, injure him, or coerce him in any way.  Equality before the law cannot exist until the law recognizes the right of every person to the possessions he has honestly acquired in a free society.  There is no equality as long as the law takes from one person against his will to give to another person who has not earned it.


In my opinion, the greatest evil of our times is that so many of us are trying to impose on others our ideas as to how they should live their lives.  And when they fail to behave as we think they should, we are tempted to resort to coercion - acting through or agent - government.  We apparently see no incongruity in the question, "How can you do good for the people if you just let them alone?" 

We need not go beyond our own recent history to find examples of the demoralizing effect of depriving people of the personal responsibility of being free.  In response to the urging of our social engineers, many Americans are trying to avoid this responsibility by voting for men who promise to install a system of "government-guaranteed security", a partial return to the old slave laws of some of our Southern States that guaranteed to all slaves "the right to food and raiment, to kind attention when sick, to maintenance in old age."  And the arguments used in defense of this present-day trend toward the bondage of a welfare state are essentially the same as those used formerly to defend the bondage of outright slavery.

For example, many of the slaveholders claimed to know what was "best for the slaves".  After all, hadn't they "rescued" the slaves from a life of savagery?  Our social reformers who advocate "government-guaranteed security"  also claim that they know what is best for the people and they say, "After all, haven't the American people shown conclusively that they are incapable of handling the responsibility for their own welfare?"

Many of the slaveholders believed sincerely that the "dumb, ignorant slaves" would starve to death unless their welfare were guaranteed by the masters.  And the social engineers say, "Are you in favor of letting people starve?"

But let us consider the emancipated slaves.  Many of them were old or crippled or sick.  They had no homes, no jobs, and very little education, but - most precious of all - they were free.  They were responsible for their own welfare.  They had the privilege of finding their own security.

Now, compare the remarkable progress of those former slaves to the lack of progress of the American Indians who have been made wards of the government; who were given state-guaranteed "security" instead of freedom with responsibility.  In 1862 most American negroes were slaves.  Today they are about as self-supporting and responsible as other American citizens.  And in the meantime the Indians, as group, have become less self-supporting and more dependent on government.  It has even been claimed that many thousands of Indians will die of starvation unless the government feeds them.  If this is true, why is it so?


I am aware that many social engineers justify their projects by pointing with horror to some instances of the misuse of human and natural resources in the market economy as it developed in the Western World.  I freely admit and decry those abuses.  My studies indicate that they were possible only because one group of citizens was able to obtain special favor from government at the expense of others - i.e., government failed in its basic duty to protect the rights of all citizens equally.  However, I see no justification in such past errors for setting up other privileged groups and thus prolonging this process which has proved so corrosive to the public morals. 

I am sure few will deny that, over the years, there has been a steady, substantial, and voluntary improvement in our social consciousness and behavior.  I hold that our hope for continued progress in this area lies in the improvement by the individual of his own moral stature so that he will know what is right and want to do it, voluntarily, not be granting, by votes or otherwise, ever-increasing power and dominion to social engineers to regulate and control our lives, our morals, and our property.  That we are justified in expecting even greater developments in morals in evidenced by the current tremendous outpourings of financial and other support for our churches, our charities, our educational institutions, our hospitals, and many other benefactions.  The total of the new contributions each year, i.e., not including income on investments, is now estimated to be well in excess of four billion dollars!  There is no dearth of beneficence here.  Our great error is a lack of confidence in the voluntary acts of free people.

A philosopher friend recently summarized this subject in the following cogent words:  "An incalculable amount of harm has been done by those who have gone fourth to reform society.  As a matter of fact, there is no way of reforming society except by making individuals better.  And no one can make individuals better except the individual himself.  If you want to be a reformer, reform yourself.  That will keep you  busy for a while and lend encouragement to others.  Then, when there are significant numbers of transformed individuals, society will be reformed, but not before."

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Memories from Dopenhagen

Compliments of zappatrust.

Bumper Stickers

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Best wishes for a Recovery!


Hiding the Medieval Warm Period in Wikipedia

If you needed any more reason to avoid Wikipedia as a legitimate source of information, look no farther.

Lawrence Solomon, in the National Post, describes how the Climategate emails reveal a concerted effort by climate cultist William Connolley to obfuscate the truth by hiding the Medieval Warm Period.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

National Review's Edward John Craig described it today as "Wikipedia Thuggery". How appropriate. The climate cultist conspiracy has repeatedly and systematically acted to hide any evidence that disproves their bizarre and unproven theories. The Climategate emails are the gift that keeps on giving to the cause of revealing the truth about these nutjob zealots.

In the process, this episode has shown that Wikipedia has become little more than yet another leftist-infested propaganda machine.

(Read more here).

Whoopee: Free Health Care for all!

I suspect this New Caledonian Crested Gecko might be amongst the 49% of people that think this health care bill will give them free health care...
Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Wall Street Journal notes this morning that according to the National Journal's composite of all health polling, some 51 percent of the public is now opposed to this scheme.

Twas the night before Christmas

Monica Crowley offers up (with her apologies to Clement Clarke Moore) a timely health care twist on the timeless classic:

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the House

Not a Democrat was stirring, not even Nancy Pelosi, the louse.
The health care bill was hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that Senate Democrats soon would be there.
The American people were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of defeating Obamacare danced in their heads.
But Pelosi in her kerchief, and Harry Reid in his cap,
Hoped their caucus wouldn't bolt home for a long winter's nap.

When out on the Hill there arose such a clatter,

Reid sprang from his bed to see what was the matter.
Away to his office he flew like a flash,
And threw himself on the bill, which was done slapdash.
All 2,000 pages looked like the new-fallen snow.
"What's really in the bill? No one will ever know!"
When, his wondering eyes filled with mist
At the eye-rolling sight of eight tiny extortionists,
Reid jumped up, so lively and quick,
He knew in a moment their payoffs must click.
More rapid than eagles his bribers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name!
"Now Landrieu! Now Lincoln! Now Lieberman and Nelson!
On Dodd! On Feingold! On Sanders and Levin!
Here's your payoff! Now go do the deed!
And vote for this sucker in our hour of need!"
He told them that his back was to the wall,
And he told them, "Now go! And dash away all!"
So back to their states the extortionists flew,
With their hundreds of millions, and other goodies, too.
And then, in a twinkling, Reid heard on the roof
Pollsters showing him the extent of his goof.
As he drew in his head, and was turning around,
Down the chimney President Obama came with a bound.
Having done no heavy lifting, he looked rested and ready
To sign this monstrous bill, even without Teddy.
A bundle of political threats he had flung on his back,
And he looked so smug, the thug, as he opened his pack.
His eyes, how they twinkled! His dimples, how merry!
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
He knew his fellow Dems; he knew how it'd go.
He was thin and skinny, not at all a jolly elf,
And Reid laughed when he saw him, in spite of himself!
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head
Soon told Reid he had nothing to dread.
Obama spoke not a word, which was unusual for him,
Ready to sign a bill that will make health care more grim.
"Higher premiums! Fewer doctors! Higher taxes and fees!
And this bill's just the beginning - oh, what a tease!"
He sprang to his feet and bid Reid goodbye,
And went back to the White House in the bat of an eye.
But Reid heard him exclaim, and it sounded like a prayer:

"Happy Christmas to all, and to all ruined health care!"

Jane Hamsher Defects To FOX

Jane Hamsher  DEFECTS TO FOX: "Forget the junior Congressman from Alabama who is defecting to the Republicans. The big defection of the day was the decision by Jane Hamsher, proprietor of the left-wing Firedoglake group blog and organizer of the Hadassah Lieberman boycott, to appear on Fox News to call for the Democratic health care proposals to be defeated. While Hamsher is ultra-liberal, she points out that the Senate bill will lead to increased costs on the middle class."

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Unbelievable! The absolute gall of Obama

Unbelievable!… Barack Obama says: "We can't continue to spend as if hard-earned tax dollars were monopoly money."

Ha. Ha. Ha-ha ha ha

President Obama said this on the same day that democrats spent $1.2 billion to bribe fellow democrats for to vote for Obamacare!

From the Man who tripled the national deficit in less than one year we get a lecture on spending…
On the same day that democrats voted for the largest expansion of government in decades.
Via gwp

Brown for Senate

Another reason why the Dems rushed the health insurance bill through....

There's a senate election for Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts in about a month.

They need all 60 seats to pass this expensive boondoggle.

a picture is worth 2,400,000,000,000.00 words

The image

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Read The Bill!

My comment:
  1. Mr. Punky Kitten
    December 17th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    My message to Democrats: Yes, do read the bill, because we have no idea what is in this bill. 60% of the Americans polled are against this bill, and that's despite the fact that this bill has been crafted in secret.

    My wish list for Christmas: Tort Reform and Cross-State insurance competition. I'll warrant neither are in your bills. Instead, there are rumors of an individual mandate (where is that in the constitution) and a hidden tax increase in the form of forcing insurers to insure people with pre-existing conditions.

    When people get free health care, there is disincentive to work.
    It's really quite simple. People on the margins now have INCENTIVE to work because of the health insurance provided by businesses. Without that incentive, some will opt to forgo work. That can't be good for our economy.

    I think instead of your bill, I'd rather have a lump of coal in my stocking.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim DeMint <>

Subject: Code Red: Read The Bill!

Reuters: Greenspan warns of threat from record deficit

The Democrats keep spending, then they blame Bush.

Let's fix the problem, STOP SPENDING!

Greenspan warns of threat from record deficit

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on Thursday backed a call for creation of a bipartisan commission to make the tough calls needed to cut the record federal deficit.

In testimony prepared for delivery before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Greenspan warned that the United States faces the threat of an unprecedented "fiscal crisis" because of record red ink.

Greenspan called a proposal by Democratic Senator Kent Conrad and Republican Senator Judd Gregg for a bipartisan task force on deficit reduction "an excellent idea."

"I trust any such taskforce will address the very thorny issue of the asymmetrical consequences of too much or too little fiscal restraint," Greenspan said.

The homeland security committee is examining the proposed commission amid mounting public concern about the record deficit.

The 18-member commission would weigh tax increases, spending cuts and other approaches needed to prevent the ballooning national debt -- currently at $12 trillion -- from compromising the United States' long-term strength.

The commission -- a tried-and-true Washington tactic for politicians to offload painful choices -- could make it easier for lawmakers to sign off on unpopular measures like trimming retirement spending or raising taxes to get the budget back in line.

(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Theodore d'Afflisio)

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Obama and the Dems are about to push us all over the edge of a precipice

OBAMA, yesterday, on Health Care: "From the discussions we had, it's clear that we are on the precipice of an achievement that has eluded Congresses and presidents for decades..."

Precipice: [pres-uh-pis] -noun 1. a cliff with a vertical, nearly vertical, or overhanging face. 2. a situation of great peril.

Sounds about right. Obama and the Dems are about to push us all over the edge...

We all have to suffer the great peril of big government!

from 'Kuwaiti oil fires' to 'Iraq Auctions Rights to 7 Oil Fields'

NYT: Iraq Auctions Rights to 7 Oil Fields

One more good reason we brought democracy to Iraq.

Plus, remember when Hussain set fire to the oil fields of Kuwait after the first Iraq war? That was reason enough to get rid of him and bring democracy to Iraq and Kuwait. We can't have a dictator doing those kinds of things to the environment.

The Kuwaiti oil fires were a result of the scorched earth policy of Iraqi military forces retreating from Kuwait in 1991 after conquering the country but being driven out by Coalition military forces (see Gulf War).

The resulting fires burned out of control because of the dangers of sending in firefighting crews. Land mines had been placed in areas around the oil wells, and a military cleaning of the areas was necessary before the fires could be put out. Somewhere around 6 million barrels (950,000 m3) of oil were lost each day. Eventually, privately contracted crews extinguished the fires, at a total cost of US$1.5 billion to Kuwait.[1] By that time, however, the fires had burned for months, causing widespread pollution.

The byproducts of the petroleum burn caused pollution to the soil and air, and the oil fires have been linked with what was later called Gulf War Syndrome. Whether this syndrome has been caused by the oil fires, by chemical attack, or other causes has not been determined, and the longterm environmental effects of the fires have yet to be fully understood.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Climategate: Hide the Decline

The "trick" used to "hide the decline," which alarmists have claimed was taken out of context, is actually worse when the context is included.

December 14, 2009 - by Charlie Martin

This figure shows the famous "hockey stick" — a sudden increase in temperatures starting after 1900. What McIntyre had already observed was that this figure had a peculiar feature — the Briffa reconstruction line (green) stopped rather suddenly:


The green line "gets lost" around 1960 and never reappears. McIntyre noticed this in 2005, and raised the issue in a comment on a later IPCC report. His comment was rejected.

With the Climategate data, however, McIntyre was able to reconstruct the complete Briffa series, which turns out to look like this:


The green line is the version we saw above as part of the IPCC report, and the red line is the full series — which goes down rather dramatically, instead of up as the story suggested. If the full Briffa series had been included, the figure would look rather different. The hook upward, the blade of the hockey stick, would have been much less dramatic, the implied global warming much less significant. By truncating the data as they did, the global warming looks much worse.

And as the Climategate emails show, this was the result of a long discussion of how to best deal with "pressure to present a nice tidy story." A story that fit the IPCC's political goals, whether it suited the science or not.

USAToday: Federal Employees Raking Big Bucks During Recession

Now more than ever, it pays to work for the government:

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.
Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months -- and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.

While some 7.3 million jobs have been lost in the private sector during this recession, the massive expansion of government we have seen in the last two years is certainly making some folks cozy for Christmas. One of the largest contributers to Federal Spending is the number of government employees and their bloated salaries. And just what do these people do? Is it worth it? Is that sustainable in the long run: I don't think so. So now tell me how that Obama thing is working out for your?

It's the economy, stupid Obama and Dems

Democrats are focused on 2010 already. They know what they need to work on before the election .. jobs and the budget deficit.

A bipartisan group of former lawmakers and budget officials say that we need to rein in our deficit. Preferably sooner, rather than allowing it to drag down our economy.

The Heritage Foundation explains why the debt and the debt limit matter. When is enough going to be enough for Washington?

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

What do you call it again when you don't tell the truth?

Gov. employees avg. pay $72K dwarfs business/industry

D.C. hands out $15M in bonuses despite recession, budget...

Related stories:

38 states

C. Etzel Pearcy, a geography professor at California State University, Los Angeles, proposed abolishing the fifty states as they existed then... with their geographically-influenced state lines and cultural distinctiveness... and replacing them with 38 states whose boundaries were based on consolidating large urban centers

Monday, December 07, 2009

Handy Dandy Stimulus Flow Chart


Courtesy of keith_whitfield


VIDEO: Climate Change Delegates Begin Arriving...

Related stories:

Friday, December 04, 2009

Black unemployment reaches Great Depression levels

I would say that a certain voting block (a block that voted 90% for a single candidate) should realize that votes matter.
Our lack of Job creation is due entirely to a false stimulus, rather than business tax cuts.

Black unemployment reaches Great Depression levels: BVN

A Gullible Tool

Thursday, December 03, 2009

While Obama spoke

While Obama spoke before the cadets, some slept, others read...

party crasher

Reality: CO2 only 4% of Greenhouse Gases

Dr. Tim Ball, a for-real climatologist and AGW skeptic, makes an important point that is being missed as the whole ClimateGate story unfolds: It's NOT the CO2, Stupid!

Several scientists have known for years the science was wrong and the CRU with a few others were doing things beyond normal scientific techniques to mislead the public. We couldn't compete with the deliberate media misinformation, personal attacks and frightening orchestration disclosed in the hacked emails. Now we have the weapon but it is an atomic bomb ignored by the mainstream media and the politicians.

The key was CO2 and why it received so much attention? It's less than 4 percent of the greenhouse gases and a minuscule part of the total complexity that creates weather. Yet it's the sole focus of all climate and energy policy when it doesn't cause global warming or climate change. In fact, in every record of any duration for any period in the earth's history temperature increase precedes CO2 increase.

Recall Al Gore's oft-shown CO2 and temperature graph? It's been known for years that this cause-and-effect relationship between planet temperature and atmospheric CO2 was not nearly as simple as that. In fact, it's the opposite of what Gore contends:

For those not aware of the issue, ice core data, like that shown by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth, initially showed a very strong and compelling correlation between CO2 and temperature. Not only did CO2 look like a driver of climate, it looked like the driver. But Gore is very careful how he presents this chart in his movie (one of his Really Big Charts). The reason is that by the time of the movie, better instrumentation and lab procedure had shown that temperature increases in the ice core data actually preceded CO2 increases by 800 or more years. CO2 was being increased by heating of the oceans and outgassing of CO2 from them, not the other way around.


Analysis of ice core data from Antarctica by Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years. Source

Dr. Ball continues:

The only place where CO2 causes temperature increase is in the doctored computer models of the CRU and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). People involved in climategate also controlled key chapters of the IPCC Reports including those on atmospheric composition; paleoclimates (reconstruction of past climate); computer models and the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Manipulation of data, falsification of temperature graphs, control of publishing and peer review, selective inclusion of variables and mechanisms in computer models were all designed to make it appear CO2 was the sole driving mechanism of temperature.
They've moved the goalposts again as they did when global warming became climate change and carbon credits became cap and trade. The focus is Climategate when it should be how even excluding rigged data the science is wrong. Scientists involved in the 'climategate' scandal have successfully diverted attention from the real issue with their denials. The mainstream media whose silence is either deafening or defensive have enabled them.
Disclosure of the extent and degree of the scandal leads to the obvious question. "What's the motive?" There are two streams, the political and the scientific, which appear separate but are closely conjoined. [...] The 1974 report of the Club of Rome titled, Mankind at the Turning Point says, "It would seem that humans need a common motivation…either a real one or else one invented for the purpose...In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." (my emphasis).
H. L. Mencken's comment that, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule" is validated.
Predictions of disaster are in the Report of Working Group II of the IPCC are based solely on the false science prepared by Working Group I controlled by the CRU gang. This provides the emotional leverage to support Strong's objective of shutting down industry, establishing equalization of wealth and one world government.

It's all about control. By the elite Euro-Liberal-Socialist Ruling Class over You and Me, the Stupid Folk.

what to believe, if anything, from Obama

Trying to please everyone while having it both ways...

Did Obama Lie To McCain, Or CBS?

From a new item up at CBS:

After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in – there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel.

Back to an item I posted earlier via CongressDaily. McCain was challenging Obama on the very same point.

These sources said the president responded to McCain by promising that the withdrawal would be based on conditions on the ground.

Talk about trying to please everyone while having it both ways.