Friday, May 29, 2009

ABC: Obama Administration just makes stuff up

It is increasingly clear that the Barack Obama Administration just makes stuff up and expects no one to catch them.

Jake Tapper, however, caught one whopper today.

TAPPER: All right. Just to follow up, I looked at your "100 Days, 100 Projects" booklet yesterday, and the very first one says, quote, "Using $27 million of Recovery Act funding a public housing development in D.C., the Regency House, has undergone a green retrofit. As part of this upgrade, the building installed solar panels, green roof, rainwater collection system, energy-efficient lighting, as well as water-conserving toilets, showerheads and faucets." But when I called the D.C. Housing Authority, they said only $59,000 was spent of stimulus money, not $27 million, and of these seven things mentioned, only two of the seven were actually done

GIBBS: I think the mistake — mistake in that one, as you blogged about earlier, took a series of different projects in a cut- and-paste into one.

TAPPER: OK. So it wasn't as clear and — it wasn't as accurate as it could have been?

GIBBS: I — I think that's accurate to say, yes.

But how many mistakes will be allowed before the media recognizing the administration has decided to serially lie?

Just yesterday Barack Obama claimed his stimulus package "saved or created nearly 100 — 150,000 jobs" when in reality 16,000 jobs have been lost every single day since the stimulus was passed.

Was the "saved or created" statement cut and pasted onto the Teleprompter? was it a mistake or a lie? Because it certainly is not true.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Healthcare for none

Good luck with health care if the MA model becomes national.

the Massachusetts healthcare model is no miracle--even its original author sees need for change. Further confirmation came in the May 15th Boston Globe:
Despite Boston's abundance of top-notch medical specialists, the waits to see dermatologists, obstetrician-gynecologists, and orthopedic surgeons for routine care have grown longer - to as much as a year for the busiest doctors.

A study of five specialties shows that the wait for a nonurgent appointment in the Boston area has increased in the past five years, and now averages 50 days - more than three weeks longer than in any other city studied.

Patients in Boston and other areas of Massachusetts for years have faced notoriously long delays, according to earlier surveys of physicians' offices. A number of factors contribute, doctors said, but the 2006 health insurance law, which has required hundreds of thousands of state residents to obtain coverage, probably has worsened the waits.

Income tax revenue has dropped 44% since last year.

Exactly as predicted by the Laffer Curve (anticipated tax increases cause revenue to drop), but Socialist Democrats don't care:

Income tax revenue has dropped 44% since last year.

Dude, where's my tax cut?

If you're one of the gullible Obama supporters who's been asking that question, well, you're not only not getting a tax cut, but plans are in the works to tax everything you buy.

With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.
How about not spending us into a fiscal calamity? Has that thought occurred to any of the geniuses in Washington? We're facing trillion dollar deficits and we're going to pile on a trillion-dollar-plus health care scam.

Good luck with that.

And keep in mind that anytime the Socialist Democrats create a new tax, with the promise to lower another tax, that they always break that promise somewhere down the line, so look for a huge VAT tax on top of the existing tax structure, plus, businesses will be taxed higher, along with rich people. It's the Washington way: they never met a tax they didn't like. Spend less, heaven forbid

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Article: The Geography of Carbon Emissions

Great article!

The Geography of Carbon Emissions

By Jack Dini
No American city is among the top 50 cities in the world for air pollution according to the World Bank. (1) Another list, 'The Top Ten of the Dirty Thirty,' compiled by the Blacksmith Institute of New York compared the toxicity of contamination, the likelihood of it getting into humans and the number of people affected. Places were bumped up in rank if children were impacted. No US or European sites made the list. Sites in China, India and Russia occupied six of the top ten spots. Some examples: at Linfen in Shanxi province-the heart of China's coal industry-industrial and automobile emissions put the health of 3 million people at risk. At Sukinda in the state of Orissa in India, 2.6 million people face the hazards of one of the world's opencast chromite mines. And in Dzerzhinsk, Russia, 300,000 people are exposed to toxic by-products from chemical weapons. (2)

Have you heard about this? Probably not. But there's more. Another report states that seven of the world's ten most polluted cities are in China. Of the ten cities in the world with the highest levels of air pollution, three are in India. (3). There are more reports but by now you probably get the point. Note that no US city has been mentioned. Steven Hayward in discussing the Blacksmith report makes an observation that could well apply to all of these documents: "Not surprisingly the media and green campaigners in the United States completely overlooked this report." (4)

China has some of the worst pollution problems in the world. Nearly two-thirds of China's 343 major cities currently fail to meet the nation's air quality standards. Pollution levels in China's major cities are 10 to 50 times higher than the worst smoggy day in Los Angeles (5). The twenty fastest growing cities in the world are all in China.

China is adding 100 gigawatts of coal-fired electrical capacity a year. That's another whole United States' worth of coal consumption added every three years, with no stopping point in sight. Much of the rest of the developing world is on a similar path. (6)

As Fareed Zakaria notes,

"The combined carbon dioxide emissions from the 850 new coal-fired power plants that China and India are building between now and 2012 are five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords. So you can put in all those curly light bulbs and drive all the Priuses you want: India just ate that for breakfast and China will eat the next round of conservation for lunch." (7)

Jane Orient adds this on the futility of reducing emissions; "In a symbolic gesture, the Forces of Darkness, which are trying to end an age of enlightenment and reason, urged people to turn off their lights for an hour between 8:30 and 9:30 PM local time. Bjorn Lomborg calculated that if 1 billion turned off their lights for 1 hour, it would have been the equivalent of shutting of China's emissions for a full 6 seconds. (8)

Although China receives the most attention, it is not the only Asian nation where this concern is present. India is also growing rapidly, and its major cities experience particulate levels often eight to ten times higher than the worst American cities.  India is the fourth-most coal dependent country in the world and has enough reserves to last for the next 100 years. Carbon emissions in India are rising faster than nearly every other country on the planet. Between 1980 and 2006, India's carbon output increased by 341%, compared to 321% for China, 103% for Brazil 238% for Indonesia and 272% for Pakistan. (9)

Peter Huber sums this up quite well:

"Cut to the chase. We rich people can't stop the world's 5 billion poor people from burning the couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We can't even make any durable dent in global emissions-because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same global economy. What we can do, if we're foolish enough, is let carbon worries send our jobs and industries to their shores, making them grow even faster, and their carbon emissions faster still." (6)


  1. Steven F. Hayward, Index of Leading Environmental Indicators 2009, (San Francisco, Pacific Research Institute, 2009), 3
  2. "The Top Ten of the Dirty Thirty," New York, Blacksmith Institute, September 2007
  3. Norman Myers and Jennifer Kent, The New Consumers, (Washington, DC, Island Press, 2004), 77 & 90
  4. Steven F. Hayward, Index of Leading Environmental Indicators 2009, (San Francisco, Pacific Research Institute, 2009), 10
  5. Steven F. Hayward, "China Comes Clean,",pubID24262/pub_detail.asp
  6. Peter W. Huber, "We Cannot Make a Dent in Global Carbon Emissions,"
  7. Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World, (New York, W. W. Norton & Co., 2008), 90
  8. Jane Orient, "Earth Hour Celebrates Darkness," Civil Defense Perspectives, 25, 2, March 2009
  9. Priyanka Bhardwaj and Robert Bryce, "India Chooses Coal, Not Kyoto,"

Government gone mad

I'll be eating lamb, beef and tomatoes much more!
Especially tomatoes, my favorite!

May 24, 2009

Burping of the lambs blows roast off menu

GIVE up lamb roasts and save the planet. Government advisers are developing menus to combat climate change by cutting out "high carbon" food such as meat from sheep, whose burping poses a serious threat to the environment.

Out will go kebabs, greenhouse tomatoes and alcohol. Instead, diners will be encouraged to consume more potatoes and seasonal vegetables, as well as pork and chicken, which generate fewer carbon emissions.

"Changing our lifestyles, including our diets, is going to be one of the crucial elements in cutting carbon emissions," said David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change.

Kennedy has stopped eating his favourite doner kebabs because they contain lamb.

A government-sponsored study into greenhouse gases found that producing 2.2lb of lamb released the equivalent of 37lb of carbon dioxide.

The problem is because sheep burp so much methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Cows are only slightly better behaved. The production of 2.2lb of beef releases methane equivalent to 35lb of CO2 Tomatoes, most of which are grown in heated glasshouses, are the most "carbon-intensive" vegetable, each 2.2lb generating more than 20lb of CO2 Potatoes, in contrast, release only about 1lb of CO2 for each 2.2lb of food. The figures are similar for most other native fruit and vegetables.

"We are not saying that everyone should become vegetarian or give up drinking but moving towards less carbon intensive foods will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve health," said Kennedy.

The climate committee is analysing emissions from farming and will suggest measures to reduce them. However, it has concluded that people will have to change their habits.

Alcoholic drinks are another significant contributory factor, with the growing and processing of crops such as hops and malt into beer and whisky helping to generate 1.5% of the nation's greenhouse gases.

The Carbon Trust, a government-funded firm, is working with food and drink companies to calculate the "carbon footprints" of products - sometimes with surprising results.

Coca-Cola, for example, generates only about half the greenhouse gas emissions of Innocent's "smoothies". Cadbury's chocolate generates about 4½lb for every 2.2lb eaten - less than half that from theof CO2 same weight of chicken.

Here we have a government who is gallivanting all over the globe in their big jets (i.e. Pelosi) creating huge amounts of the very things they expect us to cut back on.

Here we have a governement who told the people to tighten belts but simply bought themselves a bigger belt.

Sane American, D.C., USA

I'm still waiting for the day when the WORLD will bill Italy, Hawaii, Alaska, Chile, Montserrat and other areas with active volcanoes each time they belch carbonous ash miles into the sky.. Sheesh!!

Hairy Herry, Tilly, AR, USA

is this real?

sara woods, ny, usa

Friday, May 22, 2009

Two Trillion Tons

new ABC sci/fi series - V

"They are arming themselves with the most powerful weapon out there--- devotion."


Reminds me of current events

Via Big Hollywood:
Aliens arrive offering "hope" and telling us not to be afraid of "change."
To grab power they set out to manipulate the media and create a culture of devotion around themselves.
But they are not who they appear to be.
In fact, they're out to destroy our way of life.
Either someone's activated our right-wing sleeper agents at ABC or the network has no idea what they've created and will soon realize they are now stuck with a second multi-million dollar miniseries that can't be released on DVD.

Let's not forget the tea parties - let's have more July 4th

Climate Crisis Vote

A reply to the NRDC:

This Waxman bill is heinous, and will inflict much economic hardship on all Americans. The Heritage Foundation estimates it will add thousands of dollars to the cost of an average Americans energy. And this cost is added for no reason, as CO2 is not pollution. I thought this organization was created for the defense of natural resources, of which CO2 contributes nothing to the destruction of those. I would rather you concentrate on real pollution, like SO2. And furthermore, please concentrate on real calamadies, like the cutting down of the rainforests.

Please, stop sending me this nonsense based on the HOAX of Global Warming.
Dear Mr. Punky,

Last month on Earth Day, President Obama called for "comprehensive legislation to move toward energy independence and prevent the worst consequences of climate change." Last night the House Energy and Commerce Committee took a large step toward fulfilling his call by passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act, HR 2454.

This bill, written by Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), lays the foundation for a vital 21st century economy fueled by cleaner energy. It places an economy-wide cap on carbon pollution that would reduce emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050; requires utilities to generate about a fifth of all energy from renewable sources by 2020; invests in energy efficiency, cleaner vehicles and carbon capture technology; and much, much more.

The vote was the culmination not just of a week of marathon debate on the bill, but months of negotiation and years of planning, strategizing and mobilizing. Even before Rep. Waxman and Rep. Markey released their first draft in late March, an incredible team of NRDC experts from our Climate Center, Energy Program and Center for Market Innovation were working with congressional staff and our allies on the Hill on policy details that shaped this nearly thousand-page bill.

Along with our partners in the environmental community we spent a good portion of the past year preparing for the new administration and Congress and building a major campaign operation in more than 20 states to advance our top priorities on climate and energy. Today's victory is a validation of that work.

This victory is significant, but it is just the beginning of the huge effort that lies ahead to get a strong bill to the President's desk. Over the next couple months the bill is expected to be referred to eight other House committees before going to the floor for a vote. While some committees do not plan on scrutinizing the bill, others will consider it carefully, so our team will be tracking these deliberations closely. If everything goes as planned and the bill passes the floor vote, then the Senate will take up the bill in the fall and we start all over again.

I look forward to working with you and other NRDC online activists toward a signing ceremony at the White House in the near future.

Frances Beinecke
Natural Resources Defense Council

Guitar Boat Plays Sea Sharp

Guitar Boat Plays Sea Sharp

odd_boats_10(images via: Walyou and Zimbio)

Say you're an Australian singer who's looking for a new angle for a music video, and you'd probably be Josh Pyke. The strummer created a larger than life replica of his favorite guitar and starred - aboard the seaworthy axe - in the video for his song "Make You Happy." Since you're probably wondering what the guitar boat looks like in action, here's the video:

Josh Pyke's "Make You Happy", c/o Ivy League Records

Wood Too Float

odd_boats_11(images via:

If boats can fly, cars can certainly float… Ted Kennedy may have been wrong about that but Jeff Bridges has hit the nail on the head with a series of custom carpentered car-boats. WHY he does this is unknown, though as an attention-grabber it's hard to beat a floating Ferrari.


15 Creatively Offbeat Canoes, Kayaks & Boats

Information Technology

What can you do with this information?

From Outside the Beltway's James Joyner:
There's not much doubt that the Web has shortened my attention span; I want to get to the point now and be able to bypass things that don't interest me. I read far fewer books than I did just a few years ago even though I read much more content. And, yes, I almost certainly store less trivia in my head than I once did.

It also occurs to me that this is the Americanization of intelligence. As both a student and a teacher, I noticed that European, Asian, and African undergraduates seemed to have a much better storehouse of knowledge about a given topic, having memorized much more information about it, but that American students were better at processing given information and providing novel responses. Whereas their system encouraged rote learning, ours emphasized understanding and deduction. With Google largely obviating memorization, it stands to reason that what will be prized in the future is the ability to access information and do something with it. A Bill Of Federalism

A Bill Of Federalism

Randy E. Barnett, 05.20.09, 04:11 PM EDT

A detailed proposal to redress the imbalance between state and federal power.

Resolution for Congress to Convene a Convention to Propose Amendments Constituting a Bill of Federalism

Whereas Article I of the Constitution of the United States begins "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"; and Whereas the Congress of the United States has exceeded the legislative powers granted in the Constitution thereby usurping the powers that are "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" as the 10th Amendment affirms and the rights "retained by the people" to which the Ninth Amendment refers; and

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has ignored or misinterpreted the meaning of the Constitution by upholding this usurpation;

To restore a proper balance between the powers of Congress and those of the several States, and to prevent the denial or disparagement of the rights retained by the people, the legislature of the State of ________ hereby resolves:

First, that Congress shall call a convention, consisting of delegates from the several States selected by procedures established by their respective legislatures, for the purpose of proposing the following articles be added as separate amendments to the Constitution of the United States, each of which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when separately ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States; and

Second, that any previous memorial for a convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States by this legislature is hereby repealed and without effect; and

Third, that copies of this memorial shall be sent to the secretary of state and presiding officers of both houses of the legislatures of each of the several states in the union, the clerk of the United States house of representatives, the secretary of the United States senate, and to each member of the ________ congressional delegation; and

Fourth, that this memorial for a convention is conditioned on the memorials of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states proposing the exact same language contained in some or all of the following articles, and is to remain in effect unless repealed by resolution of this legislature prior to the memorials of two-thirds of the states being reported to Congress:

Article [of Amendment 1] -- [Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress]

Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services.

Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the president of the United States.

Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the 16th Article of amendment is repealed.

Article [of Amendment 2] -- [Limits of Commerce Power]

The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

Article [of Amendment 3] -- [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending]

Congress shall not impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, any obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall Congress place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds requiring a State, or political subdivision thereof, to enact a law or regulation restricting the liberties of its citizens.

Article [of Amendment 4] -- [No Abuse of the Treaty Power]

No treaty or other international agreement may enlarge the legislative power of Congress granted by this Constitution, nor govern except by legislation any activity that is confined within the United States.

Article [of Amendment 5] -- [Freedom of Political Speech and Press]

The freedom of speech and press includes any contribution to political campaigns or to candidates for public office; and shall be construed to extend equally to any medium of communication however scarce.

Article [of Amendment 6] -- [Power of States to Check Federal Power]

Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded.

Article [of Amendment 7] -- [Term Limits for Congress]

No person who has served as a Senator for more than nine years, or as a Representative for more than eleven years, shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate or the House of Representatives respectively, excluding any time served prior to the enactment of this Article.

Article [of Amendment 8] -- [Balanced Budget Line Item Veto]

Section 1. The budget of the United States shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the public debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal year is greater than the total amount of such debt at the close of the preceding fiscal year.

Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States.

Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to the second section of this Article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed in the seventh section of the first Article of this Constitution, separately reconsider each reduced or disapproved monetary amount.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to implement this Article by appropriate legislation; and this Article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.

Article [of Amendment 9] -- [The Rights Retained by the People]

Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety.

Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution.

Article [of Amendment 10] -- [Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter the Meaning of Constitution]

The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations.

Click here for an explanation of each Amendment

rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

Every year at Texas A&M they do a contest to come up with the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. 

Cheney IS RIGHT!

This is a fantastic speech. This man should be our current president, if the world were sane. Maybe his is in some alternative universe, and if so, I'd like to somehow warp on over to that utopia!

Cheney's Speech: Excerpts

It's worth reading in full.

Video: In four parts, starting here.


Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I'm an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.


Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn't know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.

To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program. It's required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we're left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.


Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn't serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.


Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission." Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It's hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.


It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.


Maybe you've heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.


Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about "values." Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term "war" where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we're advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, "Overseas contingency operations." In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, "man-made disaster" – never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, "enemy combatants," as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn't change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.


The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, it turns out that many were treated too leniently, because they cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we've captured as, quote, "abducted." Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.


Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a "recruitment tool" for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, "We brought it on ourselves."


Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field.


This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It's almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.


Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won't let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I've formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It's worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country." End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn't change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us." End of quote.


For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.
Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

'skptics' motivated by love of nature

I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm a skeptic because I love nature and the Earth. I believe environmentalists will accomplish the exact opposite of their stated intent, because they will ruin the economy, that eventually will lead to the destruction of nature. Socialism is a centralized governmental form of evil.

James Delingpole in the May 13th Spectator (U.K.):
As Americans love Coca-Cola and Islamists love death, so I love baiting greens and liberals and most especially liberal greens. But I don't do it just for fun, you know. In fact I don't even do it mainly for fun. The reason I rail so often against so many tenets of the green faith -- from biofuels to carbon trading to the ludicrous attempts to get polar bears designated as an endangered species -- is because I sincerely believe they are among the greatest current threats to the advancement of humankind. Yes, that's right: greens aren't the solution. They're public enemy number one. . .

Check out all the soft features in any newspaper. They were all commissioned by editors on the same middle-class eco-guilt-trip: consumption is naughty, GM is dangerous, organic is close to godliness, non-local produce is sinful produce, wind farms are actually rather striking and if they ruin every last square acre of unspoilt British upland, well, maybe that's just the price we'll have to pay -- a bit like all those lovely old railings we had to melt down to win the last war.

But what if they're wrong? What if climate change is normal? What if the new hair-shirt chic is holding back economic recovery? What about the Kenyan green-bean growers -- don't they deserve to make a living too? What if the billions and billions of pounds being stolen from our wallets by our governments to 'combat climate change' are being squandered to no useful purpose? What if instead of alleviating the problem, misguided eco-zealots are actually making things worse?

That's what I believe, anyway, and if there were space I'd be more than happy to explain why in lavish detail using all sorts of highly convincing evidence provided by top-notch scientists. Unfortunately, there isn't, so you'll have to go somewhere like, or the hilarious Planet Gore at National Review Online or the Watts Up With That? blog for your ammo.

My purpose here is not to convince any green waverers of the justice of my cause, merely to point up the quite nauseating arrogance and bullying self-righteousness with which the modern green movement cleaves to its ideological position. Indeed, it doesn't even think of its ideological position as an ideological position any more, but as a scientific truth so comprehensively proven that there is no longer need for any debate.

Hence the snotty dismissiveness with which they wave away our arguments. In their Manichean weltanschauung the world now divides into two categories: on the one hand, caring, nurturing, sensitive, intelligent eco-types who understand the threat of global warming and want to make the planet a lovelier place; on the other, morally purblind, selfish, ugly, greedy deniers who can't even pass sea otters at play without thinking how much more entertaining they'd look drenched in tanker spillage.

I venture to suggest that the issues are rather more complex than that; that the vast majority of so-called 'deniers' are motivated by a love of the planet every bit as intense as that of the 'warmists'. It's just that our love is maybe tempered with a touch more rationalism, that's all.

Socialist Democrats: CAP AND TAX not allowed to be disclosed on utility bill

Your energy bill will be going up, and thanks to the Socialist Democrats, you won't know why: It's because of them, their CAP AND TAX bill, all in the name of a hoax, CO2 causes global warming.

1. No disclosure on utility bills, but new labels for potato chips?

Common sense, Democrat style
For the past two days, the Energy and Commerce Committee has been marking up the Waxman-Markey "Cap-and-Trade" bill. It will impose a huge, new cost on all energy (estimated at $4,300 per family each year) and destroy millions of American jobs.

While the price of everything will go up, the effect on electricity prices will be particularly dramatic. Last night, Republicans put forward a straightforward amendment to require that utility bills indicate the increased cost of electricity that will result from this legislation. The Democrat majority on the Committee rejected this commonsense measure. That's right: they actually voted against disclosing these costs to consumers on their utility bills!

Today, in another partisan vote, the Democrats have added an amendment to essentially require every new and existing home sold in America to be inspected and labeled as to its energy efficiency. If you thought the emissions tests required by the DMV were a pain, just wait to have your home inspected and "labeled." In addition, on a party-line vote, the Majority has included a mandated study on requiring all products sold in the United States, down to potato chips, to be labeled as to their CO2 "content," showing how much CO2 is emitted in the manufacturing of each product. If you think government is big now, get ready for it to be stunningly bigger and more invasive!

Click Here for More.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Dems good intentions lead us where...?

The Republicans need a good slogan, and a good person to say it, as Reagan once was.

We all know that good intentions often lead to H-E-double hockey sticks, and its the Socialist Democrats, with their lack of understanding of liberty, and opportunity, that are leading us there. The Democrats rarely consider unintended consequences in their over eager malaise into centralized government

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Waxman and Socialist Democrats pushing another tax increase - Cap and Trade and Tax

Yet another tax from Obama and the Socialist Democrats:

Here are the findings from the Heritage Foundation -- Waxman's "environmental" bill would:
  • Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion
  • Destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs
  • Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation
  • Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent
  • Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent
  • Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500
  • Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $29,150 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

Obama's sacrifice isn't meant for government workers or Socialist Democrats, just us in the private sector

CBS News scoffed at the president's claim that we all must sacrifice when it looked into the flush times that government workers are discovering. CBS found that the average federal worker will see his benefits and pay "leap from $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 next year."

Some of the Feds' hiring increases have been stunning. If you look at the four-year period from 2006 to 2010, the number of Homeland Security employees has grown by 22 percent, the Justice Department has increased by 15 percent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can claim 25 percent more employees. (These figures assume that Congress adopts Mr. Obama's 2010 budget without significant changes.)

Monday, May 18, 2009

Fwd: [SUSPECTED SPAM]Join President Obama for Dinner

Spam and liberalism is like a virus! I just hope our immune systems can fight this one off.


On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:26 AM, A man at work wrote:

 I have marked at least twenty-five of these as spam at work. They keep getting through. So much for a good spam filter.

From: libertarian patriot

Subject: [SUSPECTED SPAM]Fwd: Join President Obama for Dinner

 Ugh, now I'm getting these spam emails.

2010 Toyota Prius v. 2010 Honda Insight

Interesting, but none of the comments talk about the pollution created to mine the battery components.

I think I know why some cars got better gas mileage decades ago: because people weighed less, and the roads were better maintained, with fewer stop lights to ruin your mileage.

2010 Toyota Prius v. 2010 Honda Insight

With their new Insight hybrid, Honda is going after the Toyota Prius in a big way. The 2010 third-generation Prius has several updates and remains the king of MPG. The new Insight, however, is significantly less expensive.

Here are comparisons by Popular Mechanics and Motor Trend.

My impression is that the Prius is a little more advanced technologically, a little more powerful, and somewhat larger and roomier. And as mentioned it gets better mileage. (And drivers are reporting much higher MPGs for both cars than the EPA estimates.)   continued...

Even California has no stomach for tax hikes

Proof of a conservative populace on fiscal matters: even California has no stomach for tax hikes: message to the legislature and Arnold: STOP WASTEFUL SPENDING

Poll: Voters say 'no' on five of six propositions

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is hitting the road, warning of dire fiscal consequences if the special election ballot measures don't pass. But a majority of Californians say they prefer to take their chances and vote "no," according to a new poll.
In a Survey USA poll of measures 1A-1F, five of the six initiatives appeared headed to defeat with just a week to go before the election.
A plurality of voters favored one measure -- Proposition 1F -- which would ban pay raises for state elected officials when there is a budget shortfall. Prop 1F was favored by 45 to 35 percent.
The cornerstone of the special election, Proposition 1A, trailed 51 percent to 38 percent, according to the poll. Prop 1A would impose state spending restrictions and a "rainy day" budget fund while triggering $16 billion in extended tax hikes.
The Proposition 1B educational funding measure -- which is pegged to passage of Prop 1A -- trailed 50 percent to 41 percent, according to the poll.
Proposition 1C, would allow $5 billion in borrowing from a revamped state lottery, was by far the least popular measure. It trailed 52 percent to 29 percent and was losing in every geographic region in California.
Majorities also opposed Propositions 1D and 1E. The measures would allow voter-approved funds for child development and mental health programs to be used for other purposes.
The poll of 1,300 California adults -- including 1,096 registered voters -- was conducted May 8-10 on behalf of KABC-TV Los Angeles, KPIX-TV San Francisco, KGTV-TV San Diego and KFSN-TV Fresno.

Fwd: Europe recession worse than U.S.

Free markets have faired better in the U.S., because of George Bush's policies, than in Europe, with their various forms of socialism.  We could be doing even better with a Libertarian congress/president. If our Business tax were dropped from 35% to 25%, we would be out of this recession in no time. At the very least, Obama should heed his own words (paraphrasing): Debt will ruin us, let's balance the budget.

Europe is in its deepest recession since World War II, so reports the UK's Telegraph .

"German economic policy is 'bankrupt,' economists have said.  The declaration was made as it emerged that Europe's biggest economy has now suffered a worse 'lost decade' than Japan and is deeper in recession than any other major economy.  On a day of dismal news for the European economy, official figures also showed that Italy, Austria, Spain and the Netherlands are facing their biggest combined slump in post-war history."

Eurostat provides the raw data.  Here are real GDP growth numbers for some selected countries and averages for the latest quarter (1st quarter of 2009, or January through March).

                                                From Previous Quarter From Previous Year

Austria                                                 -2.8%                                      -2.9%

Belgium                                                -1.6                                          -3.0

France                                                  -1.2                                          -3.2

Germany                                              -3.8                                          -6.9

Italy                                                     -2.4                                          -5.9

Netherlands                                         -2.8                                          -4.5

Portugal                                               -1.5                                          -3.7

Spain                                                   -1.8                                          -2.9

UK                                                      -1.9                                          -4.1

Europe (EU27)                                    -2.5                                          -4.4

US                                                       -1.6                                          -2.6

Do you notice anything funny about these numbers?  Here is what I notice: the recession in the US is milder than that of Europe.  Every country on this list had more economic shrinkage from 2008 to 2009 (Q1 to Q1) than did the US.

How could this be?
[It is because George Bush has kept us from having a worse decline by maintaining free markets and lower taxes.]

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

"Francisco's Money Speech"

by Ayn Rand (August 30, 2002)

Article address:

Summary: "So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?


You can't stop freedom!


The snow dump's got South Island ski-fields rubbing their gloved hands together as they watch the snow level climb this weekend.

The last 10 days have brought unseasonable and heavy snowfall, boding well for a strong start to the season. 

Mt Hutt on Sunday had a rather frosty reception, with Dave Wilson, Mt Hutt Area Manager, saying that it was the best snow the area had had in decades.

After eight years working on the field, he says it's unheard of to witness a fall like this so early.

"We're only in May and we've had well over a metre climbing to a metre and a half in the last 10 days. This is unbelievable," says Wilson.

... it is still shaping up for the best season they've seen in decades and perhaps also one of the most picturesque.
  • AGW = BS.

Fwd: Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist

Read the whole article here 

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

As Barack Obama speaks, thinking Americans ought to hear the echoes of past fascist demagogues and remember.  Remember.

When Barack Obama promises "collective redemption" through his profligate spending programs and vast overtures to a new world order built on love for our fellow man, we ought to shudder not swoon. 

We ought to remember that healthy global relationships are built upon respect, not all-encompassing love, and that redemption for one's soul is a commodity the state is not empowered to offer.

As Pope Benedict XVI has so presciently warned:

Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much.  Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.

Be not fooled, America.  The movement, which appears most benign is instead the most malignant growth ever seen on our soil.  It's a cancer that will kill, and however slowly it grows or however nice it may look on the surface, doesn't change a thing.

Monday, May 11, 2009


Futility: hoping that government will ever shrink, as opposed to grow

Futility - No matter how determined you may be. No matter how great your patience. True wisdom comes with acceptance that some goals will forever remain beyond your abilities... like teaching a blond to play chess... or that Miki will get a date with the barrista.

Cheney is right

What motivates Dick Cheney? He has no more political motivations. He doesn't need the money.

His motivation is love of country. The same as my motivation.

Listen to Cheney, he is right on target!

What is happening seems wrong. And it is

Another great article by George Will (read the whole thing here ):

From Oct. 18 to Dec. 3, 1961, 116,000 people visited New York's Museum of Modern Art before anyone noticed that Henri Matisse's painting "Le Bateau" had been hung upside down. Modernity is supposed to "transgress" standards of the traditional, which is why Paul Hindemith, while rehearsing one of his dissonant orchestral compositions, said to the musicians, "No, no gentlemen -- even though it sounds wrong, it's still not right."

Proponents of today's world-turned-upside-down economic policies say the policies might seem wrong but really are boldly modern in their rejection of markets in favor of pervasive government intervention in economic life. Hence New York, which until eight months ago was the financial capital of the world, is no longer even the financial capital of the United States. Washington is. .....

In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated people being governed by "an immense, tutelary power" determined to take "sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate." It would be a power "absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident and gentle," aiming for our happiness but wanting "to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness." It would, Tocqueville said, provide people security, anticipate their needs, direct their industries and divide their inheritances. It would envelop society in "a network of petty regulations -- complicated, minute and uniform." But softly: "It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them" until people resemble "a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

So what today seems as modern as Matisse once seemed was actually foreseen 17 decades ago. Like Hindemith's music, what is happening seems wrong. And it is.

Friday, May 08, 2009

The Obama budget cut LIE, not a cut, but a HUGE INCREASE

Do the numbers yourself, and compare headlines, last year and this year:

Inside the second story, we see the truth, the Obama budget is $3.4 Trillion.

I guess Democrats and the Main Stream Media don't know how to do math:

$3.4Trillion - $3.1Trillion = $300 Billion

that's dollars folks, and that is a net INCREASE over last years budget of 9.7% (almost 10%).

The so-called 'Budget Cuts' reported by NPR and the rest of the liberal media (most of the media) is a reduction in their initial budget proposal, that's hardly a cut. 

So the public will swallow the lie, hook, line and sinker, and think that Obama is trimming the budget when in reality, the budget itself is going to increase by about 10%, which is a huge increase. None of Bush's increases were anywhere near that big.  Add to that the Trillion dollar Stimulus that has already been spent, and we are talking some pretty serious spending, the debt is going to balloon.

One day, maybe, the media will wake up to reality, with a hangover.

Update: What I don't understand, is not even Fox News or talk radio has picked up on this big Lie. As far as I'm able to see, I'm the only one to report this 'Increase as a Cut' lie. When the Republicans tried to reduce the rate of increases in the 90's, the media vilified them as big CUTTERS.  Geeze, it's a conspiracy to destroy this country with debt

Obama's Budget Targets the Poor and Middle Class (via the evil oil companies)

Finally, a hidden tax I can agree with. When oil becomes more expensive because of this tax increase on oil companies, it will be passed along to consumers, just like cigarette tax hikes get passed on to consumers. Guess who will feel the brunt of this tax increase the most: poor and lower middle class people. So in reality this is a tax on them. And since they usually pay no or little income tax because of the progressive (regressive) tax system, then this is completely fair, because they need to share the burden, just as Obama said. WAY TO GO OBAMA!


via Nealz Nuze on 5/8/09

Another detail in Obama's budget is that he plans to end tax breaks for those evil, filthy oil and gas companies. In other words, Obama wants to increase taxes on the oil industry. He wants to end $26 billion in tax breaks, which he classifies as "unjustifiable loopholes ... costly to the American taxpayer and do little to incentivize production or reduce energy prices."

Did he say "costly to the American taxpayers?" Well, he can get away with that because he suspects you don't realize - and many Americans don't - that every penny of additional taxes these evil oil companies have to pay to the federal government will be added to the cost of the products they produce. The tax increases will show up at the gas pumps. I know that this is a difficult concept for the government-educated dumb masses to understand, but corporations - and this includes oil companies - don't pay taxes. They collect taxes from their customers, shareholders and employees and pass them on to the government.

Again ... let me point out that the greatest ally the looters in Washington could possibly have is an uneducated population.


MB:  With the H20 urine recycler on the market, you might want to avoid drinking anything out of a container that looks like a 1960s spaceship — especially at gatherings organized by moonbats:


Obama sounds death knell for nuclear power

This is truly sad news for the environment. The one feasible alternative to coal has been dealt a 4 year hiatus. But at least in 4 years when this bozo is out of office, we can resume a reasonable solutions to energy.

May 08, 2009

Obama sounds death knell for nuclear power

By Richard Henry Lee
Under the guise of cutting wasteful spending, President Obama is terminating support for the Yucca Mountain spent nuclear fuel repository in Nevada. While not unexpected, this development means that there will be no place to store nuclear waste, probably for decades, other than at temporary storage locations at each of the nation's nuclear power plants.

This termination decision was one among several contained in a document titled "Terminations, Reductions, and Savings" which were announced today by the White House to cut $17 Billion from the FY2010 budget.

It seems disingenuous to suggest that canceling the Yucca Mountain project is going to help taxpayers, since the project is funded not by the taxpayer, but by the Nuclear Waste Fund. The Fund has about $30 Billion which is derived from an assessment on nuclear utilities based upon the amount of electricity generated. The cost is passed on to consumers.

President Ford and especially President Carter, effectively killed off the reprocessing option for spent nuclear fuel due to nuclear proliferation concerns, and Obama has now killed off the storage option for the foreseeable future.

This action will likely forestall the construction of new nuclear power plants which incorporate advanced safety and reliability features. These promising designs would add additional electric generating capacity without the huge carbon footprint of coal fired plants, which the Obama administration also opposes.

World-wide, other nations are turning to nuclear power to meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol for greenhouse gas emissions since sustainable technologies cannot bridge the gap between supply and demand.

The accompanying justification statement for the termination reads:

The President has acknowledged that nuclear power is -- and likely will remain -- an important source of electricity for many years to come and that how the Nation deals with the dangerous byproduct of nuclear reactors is a critical question that has yet to be resolved.

The President, however, has made clear that the Nation needs a better solution than the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Such a solution must be based on sound science and capable of securing broad support, including support from those who live in areas that might be affected by the solution. Accordingly, Secretary of Energy Chu has announced that he will stand up an expert, Blue Ribbon Commission to evaluate options and make recommendations to the Administration for developing a new plan for the back end of the fuel cycle.

This reliance on getting the NIMBY crowd to support whatever solution Chu's panel decides means there will be no solution.

The Yucca Mountain project faced years of delay due to efforts of Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and others to block it. When the Democrats took control of the Senate in 2008 and Reid became Majority Leader, the funding from Congress was curtailed and the program was in serious trouble.

Other countries including France, Japan and the United Kingdom, reprocess the spent fuel since it contains useful quantities of fissionable plutonium and uranium which can be made into additional nuclear fuel while removing quantities of plutonium which would otherwise be place in a burial site.

The Yucca Mountain decision is another example by this Administration where energy policy is driven by the liberal left rather than a realistic assessment of our energy options.

And, in denying this nation the benefits of clean, reliable nuclear power, Obama has eliminated the one energy option which has successfully reduced greenhouse gas emissions on a large scale basis. Instead, we embark upon a hopeful, sustainable energy future using green technologies which are uneconomical and in many cases, unproven. 
(link )