Monday, January 31, 2011

Score one for liberty
In ruling against President Obama's health care law federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama's own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care than through requiring every American to purchase insurance.

More Egyptian protesters demand that White House condemn Mu Barak

More Egyptian protesters demand that White House condemn Mu Barak

In the streets of Cairo, many protesters are now openly denouncing the United States for supporting President Hosni Mu Barak, saying the price has been their freedom. They say the Obama administration has offered only tepid criticism of a regime that has received billions of dollars in U.S. aid.

2010 not a record year for temperature

We've all heard the left spew their nonsense that 2010 was the hottest year on record.
First, if it were true, don't you think we would have seen evidence of this in our daily lives? Don't you think we would have seen several days or months that would have broken records? Instead we witnessed days and months of record breaking cold!

Millions of funky dead sea creatures washed up on the shore in Florida in December 2010 during a record cold wave. (NBC 2)

Now, there is an explanation to this latest horrible leftist lie.
Power Line reported:

It is widely being reported that, based on surface-temperature data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record. What is not so widely reported is that those surface temperature data have been so shamelessly manipulated by climate alarmists that they are entirely unreliable… NOAA and NASA used to acknowledge the urban heat island effect and try to correct for it, but that didn't produce the sort of alarming temperature increases that warmists are looking for… James Hansen, the head of NASA's climate unit and one of the worst of the alarmists, said truthfully in 1999:

The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.

That didn't get the warmists where they were trying to go, so they have now changed the data by eliminating or drastically reducing the urban heat island effect. NASA now shows very different data for the period 1880-1999 from what it published in 1999.

This comparison shows how the alarmists changed their own data to create the false impression of a climate crisis. The 1999 data is on top – The altered data below:

You probably assume that NOAA and NASA have made their raw data available to independent researchers, along with explanations of the adjustments they have made. But no–those agencies have resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for the original, raw data.

'Bamas Spudnik moment


whatabeanr January 29, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0

The president walks into a bar with Mr. Potato head on his shoulder.

Bartender says "Hey cool, where did you get that?"

Mr. Potato head says "Kenya, they're all over the place"

Reply to this specific comment

  Brian Schmidt January 29, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

This is awesome. I have to steal this.

Kathleen the terrible is coming for you, if you don't buy healthcare, or a TV

Did you get your big-screen tv yet? You better hurry, Kathleen the terrible is coming for you!

I certainly didn't buy one, and do not intend to do so.  Hey Kathleen, it's ON!

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius: The Government Can Force You To Buy A TV!

The video via CNS News:
It's bizarre for the chief bureaucrat that will push ObamaCare on every American to relate healthcare insurance to purchasing a tv. Thus the exit question: if the government can make you purchase health insurance, shouldn't they also have the authority to force you to purchase a tv? Or a car from Government Motors? If not, why not? What's the difference?

And I actually agree with Sebelius - purchasing healthcare coverage is just like purchasing a tv. You can buy a caddilac-level tv with all the bells and whistles or a small CRT, or... none at all!

Friday, January 28, 2011

Nicholas was going to make a video and use it as a college admission submission

Musician rescues Miami mystery piano from sandbar

Julian Kolevris-Roots AP – In this Jan. 2, 2011 photo provided by Nicholas Harrington, Julian Kolevris-Roots, 18, is shown sitting …

MIAMI – A baby grand piano is gone again from a Miami sandbar after a musician rescued the battered instrument for his son.

A towing crew took the piano Thursday. Its appearance on the sandbar in early January was a mystery until 16-year-old Nicholas Harrington stepped forward this week to say he put it there as an art project.

State wildlife officials had served the Harringtons with orders to remove it within 24 hours. But musician Carl Bentulan got there first.

Bentulan told The Miami Herald he plans to eventually put the piano in his living room. He said his 10-year-old son insisted the piano needed a home.

It was unclear if the Harringtons will seek custody. But towing company owner Lynn Mitchell says maritime law gives possession to whoever pays to salvage something abandoned at sea.


Information from: The Miami Herald,

Biden opens his mouth - again

Vice President Biden has to be one of he biggest idiots I've ever seen in high office...

Ahead of a day that could prove decisive, NewsHour host Jim Lehrer asked Biden if the time has "come for President Mubarak of Egypt to go?" Biden answered: "No. I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that – to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there."

Asked if he would characterize Mubarak as a dictator Biden responded: "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator."

Now let's interpret his words, breaking them down bit by bit, according to Biden...

"No. I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that – to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there."

So, only some of the people, or is it some of the needs? No matter, this is a way out for a liberal.

"No. I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that – to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there."

So government should be 'more responsive'  .. so then how much more? Maybe not that much, as is the ways of liberals.

"No. I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that – to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there."

move in the direction... Well that's a perfect response from a liberal .. truthful, because it means that they don't have to do much, just move in the direction.

"No. I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that – to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there."

to begin to... well then if government doesn't move in the direction fast enough, then the ruler can fall back on the position that they only promised 'to begin to move in the direction' so that they really don't have to move at all.

"No. I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that – to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there."

Yet we also see that Biden is actually 'thinking', but I don't think his thinking has anything to do with the people of Egypt, nor Mubarak, but rather his thinking is 100% dedicated, using his supercomputer brain, toward parsing words so that they sound good, but yet mean nothing.

Good luck to the people of Egypt, who are finally rising up to a 30+ year dictator, rightfully so! I hope he meets the same justice that the people of Romania used in 1989 toward their dictator.

The Budget Should Be Balanced

"The Budget Should Be Balanced, the Treasury Should Be Refilled, Public Debt Should Be Reduced, the Arrogance of Official Government Should Be Tempered and Controlled, and the Assistance to Foreign Lands Should Be Curtailed Lest America Become Bankrupt. People Must Again Learn to Work, Instead of Living on Public Assistance." (Neal Boortz, 2011)

Weekly Standard: 100 Programs the Republican Study Committee Wants to Abolish or Cut

Great idea, let the cuts begin!

Roughly $2.3 trillion of the $2.5 trillion in savings from the Republican Study Committee's Spending Reduction Act would come from cutting non-defense discretionary spending to 2006 and freezing that spending through 2021.

Where does the rest of the money come from? The RSC wants to cut remaining stimulus funds, eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and eliminate automatic pay increases for federal employees for five years and reduce the federal workforce by 15 percent through attrition. The RSC has also proposed eliminating or cutting back more than 100 programs. Here's the list:

  • Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
  • Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
  • International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
  • Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
  • National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
  • National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
  • Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
  • Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
  • Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
  • U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
  • Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
  • Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
  • John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
  • Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
  • Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
  • <a href=";pos=3;section=article;tile=3;sz=300x250;ord=123456789?" target="_blank"><img src=";pos=3;section=article;tile=3;sz=300x250;ord=123456789?" width="300" height="250" border="0" alt=""></a>
  • Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
  • Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
  • Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
  • Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
  • Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
  • Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
  • Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
  • New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
  • Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.
  • Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
  • Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
  • Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
  • Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
  • Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
  • Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
  • FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
  • Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
  • Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
  • U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
  • General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
  • Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
  • Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
  • No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
  • End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
  • Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
  • IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
  • Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
  • Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
  • Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
  • Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
  • Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
  • Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
  • Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
  • USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
  • Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

Reality check: Obama disliked Reagan

PURE PROPAGANDA: Reagan And Obama On The Cover Of TIME

Thursday, January 27, 2011


The President's state of the union address boiled down to this message: "The era of big government is here as long as I am, so help me pay for it." He dubbed it a "Winning The Future" speech, but the title's acronym seemed more accurate than much of the content.

Americans are growing impatient with a White House that still just doesn't get it. The President proves he doesn't understand that the biggest challenge facing our economy is today's runaway debt when he states we want to make sure "we don't get buried under a mountain a debt." That's the problem! We are buried under Mt. McKinley-sized debt. It's at the heart of what is crippling our economy and taking our jobs. This is the concern that should be on every leader's mind. Our country's future is at stake, and we're rapidly reaching a crisis point. Our government is spending too much, borrowing too much, and growing too much. Debt is stifling our private sector growth, and millions of Americans are desperately looking for work.

So, what was the President's response? At a time when we need quick, decisive, and meaningful action to stop our looming debt crisis, President Obama gave us what politicians have for years: promises that more federal government "investment" (read: more government spending) is the solution.

He couched his proposals to grow government and increase spending in the language of "national greatness." This seems to be the Obama administration's version of American exceptionalism – an "exceptionally big government," in which a centralized government declares that we shall be great and innovative and competitive, not by individual initiative, but by government decree. Where once he used words like "hope" and "change," the President may now talk about "innovation" and "competition"; but the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.

Real leadership is more than just words; it's deeds. The President's deeds don't lend confidence that we can trust his words spoken last night.

In the past, he promised us he'd make job creation his number one priority, while also cutting the deficit, eliminating waste, easing foreclosures in the housing markets, and making "tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development." What did we get? A record $1.5 trillion deficit, an 84% increase in federal spending, a trillion dollar stimulus that stimulated nothing but more Tea Party activism, 9+% unemployment (or 17% percent if you include those who have stopped looking for work or settled for part time jobs), 2.9 million home foreclosures last year, and a moratorium on offshore drilling that has led to more unemployment and $100 dollar a barrel oil.

The President glossed over the most important issue he needed to address last night: spending. He touched on deficit reduction, but his proposals amount to merely a quarter of the cuts in discretionary spending proposed by his own Deficit Reduction Commission, not to mention the $2.5 trillion in cuts over ten years suggested by the Republican Study Committee. And while we appreciate hearing the same President who gave us the trillion dollar Stimulus Package boondoggle finally concede that we need to cut earmarks, keep in mind that earmarks are a$16 billion drop in the $1.5 trillion ocean that is the federal deficit. Budget cuts won't be popular, but they are vitally necessary or we will soon be a bankrupt country. It's the responsibility of a leader to make sure the American people fully understand this.

As it is, the American people should fully understand that when the President talks about increased "investments" he's talking about increased government spending. Cut away the rhetoric and you'll also see that the White House's real message on economic reform wasn't one of substantial spending cuts, but of tax increases. When the President talks about simplifying the tax code, he's made it clear that he's not looking to cut your taxes; he's looking for additional tax revenue from you. The tax "simplification" suggested by the President's Deficit Reduction Commission would end up raising taxes by $1 trillion over the next decade. So, instead of bringing spending down in line with revenue, the President wants to raise our taxes to pay for his massive spending increases. It's tax and spend in reverse: spend first, tax later.

And the Obama administration has a lot of half-baked ideas on where to spend our hard-earned money in pursuit of "national greatness." These "investments," as the President calls them, include everything from solar shingles to high speed trains. As we struggle to service our unsustainable debt, the only thing these "investments" will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy.

With credit ratings agency Moody's warning us that the federal government mustreverse the rapid growth of national debt or face losing our triple-A rating, keep in mind that a nation doesn't look so "great" when its credit rating is in tatters.

Of course, it's nice to give a speech calling for "investment" and "competition" in order to reach greatness. It's quite another thing to advocate and implement policies that truly encourage such things. Growing the federal government is not the answer.

Take education for example. It's easy to declare the need for better education, but will throwing even more money at the issue really help? As the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner notes, "the federal government has increased education spending by 188 percent in real terms since 1970 without seeing any substantial improvement in test scores." If you want "innovation" and "competition," then support school choice initiatives and less federal control over our state and local districts.

When it comes to energy issues, we heard more vague promises last night as the President's rhetoric suggested an all-of-the-above solution to meeting our country's energy needs. But again, his actions point in a different direction. He offers a vision of a future powered by what he refers to as "clean energy," but how we will get there from here remains a mystery. In the meantime, he continues to stymie the responsible development of our own abundant conventional energy resources – the stuff we actually use right now to fuel our economy. His continued hostility towards domestic drilling means hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs will not be created and millions of Americans will end up paying more at the pump. It also means we'll continue to transfer hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars to foreign regimes that don't have America's interests at heart.

On the crucial issue of entitlement reform, the President offered nothing. This is shocking, because as he himself explained back in April 2009, "if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline…we will have to get serious about entitlement reform." Even though the Medicare Trust Fund will run out of funds a mere six years from now, and the Social Security Trust Fund is filled mainly with IOUs, the President opted to kick the can down the road yet again. And once again, he was disingenuous when he suggested that meaningful reform would automatically expose people's Social Security savings to a possible stock market crash. As Rep. Paul Ryan showed in his proposed Roadmap, and others have explained, it's possible to come up with meaningful reform proposals that tackle projected shortfalls and offer workers more options to invest our own savings while still guaranteeing invested funds so they won't fall victim to sudden swings in the stock market.

And what about that crucial issue confronting so many Americans who are struggling today – the lack of jobs? The President came to office promising that his massive, multi-trillion dollar spending programs would keep unemployment below 8%; but the lack of meaningful, pro-free market reforms in yesterday's speech means his legacy will almost certainly be four years of above 8% unemployment, regardless of how much he increases federal spending (or perhaps I should say because of how much he's increased it).

Perhaps the most nonsensical bit of double-speak we heard last night was when the President said that hitting job-creators with a tax increase isn't "punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success." But government taking more money from the small business entrepreneurs who create up to 70% of all jobs in this country is not "promoting America's success." It's a disincentive that will result in less job creation. It is, in fact, punishing the success of the very people who created the innovation that the President has supposedly been praising.

Despite the flowery rhetoric, the President doesn't seem to understand that individuals make America great, not the federal government. American greatness lies in the courage and hard work of individual innovators and entrepreneurs. America is an exceptional nation in part because we have historically been a country that rewards and affirms individual initiative and offers people the freedom to invest and create as they see fit – not as a government bureaucrat does. Yes, government can play an appropriate role in our free market by ensuring a level playing field to encourage honest competition without picking winners and losers. But by and large, government should get out of the way. Unfortunately, under President Obama's leadership, government growth is in our way, and his "big government greatness" will not help matters.

Consider what his "big government greatness" really amounts to. It's basically a corporatist agenda – it's the collaboration between big government and the big businesses that have powerful friends in D.C. and can afford to hire big lobbyists. This collaboration works in a manner that distorts and corrupts true free market capitalism. This isn't just old-fashioned big government liberalism; this is crony capitalism on steroids. In the interests of big business, we're "investing" in technologies and industries that venture capitalists tell us are non-starters, but which will provide lucrative returns for some corporate interests who have major investments in these areas. In the interests of big government, we're not reducing the size of our bloated government or cutting spending, we're told the President will freeze it – at unsustainable, historic levels! In practice, this means that public sector employees (big government's staunchest defenders) may not lose jobs, but millions of Americans in the private sector face lay offs because the ever-expanding government has squeezed out and crippled our economy under the weight of unsustainable debt.

Ronald Reagan said, "You can't be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy." President Obama's proposals last night stick the little guy with the bill, while big government and its big corporate partners prosper. The plain truth is our country simply cannot afford Barack Obama's dream of an "exceptionally big government" that may help the big guys, but sticks it to the rest of us.

- Sarah Palin

Jackass Democrats are trying to stall reform in Harrisburg.

Jackass Democrats are trying to stall reform in Harrisburg.

Pa. House Meeting Boils Over
Rules Committee Turns Into Shouting Match In Pa. House

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- It was all going so well in the state House of Representatives. Lawmakers were positioned to vote on several bills Wednesday that would change the way state government in Pennsylvania operates, and then the wheels came off.

"You should be ashamed of yourselves," one lawmaker could be heard yelling.

News 8 government reporter Matt Belanger reported that there was shouting, profanity, and accusations. It culminated with one person throwing a stack of papers into the air and Democrats storming out of the room.

Here's how it all started. Republicans fired first, accusing Democrats of "gumming up the gears" of government. Democrats proposed a wave of amendments to previously non-controversial reform bills, which in the words of Republican Majority Leader Rep. Mike Turzai "was designed to create a circus atmosphere on the House floor."

News 8's Matt Belanger At Capitol Complex When Arguments Erupted

In response, Republicans forced through changes to make it easier for them to push aside amendments they don't agree with.

"This is an unprecedented attack on the people's, our ability, to represent our constituents," said Democratic Minority Leader Frank Dermody.

Furious Democrats claimed they were being cut off from having a voice. One lawmaker used her scarf as a symbolic gag.

"They get to decide what gets voted on and it only gets voted on if they have the votes to pass it. Why even have session?" said Democratic Rep. Mike Sturla.

"We're off to a very bad start, if this is the way its going to be," said Republican Rep. Glen Grell.

What this means for Pennsylvania state government is, at least for now, reform is stalled. Republicans could choose to force the measures through next week. But there are worries that it may only only worsen Harrisburg's partisan divide.

You can watch two pieces of raw video of what happened at the meeting by clicking the video box at the top of this page and at the bottom.

Obama admits that taxation is slavery, by calling a tax break 'spending'.

Obama admits that taxation is slavery, by calling a tax break 'spending', instead of what it really is: a refund to the person who earned the money. More proof that Obama is an unrepentant socialist with dreams just like the dreams of his father: the redistribution of all wealth just like Karl Marx would prescribe.

The Most Offensive Line in the State of the Union

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 9:47 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Update: See this follow up post showing the Beatles v. the Taxman.

He said it in the prepared text and in the speech itself:

The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

(emphasis added).

You got that?  When you are allowed to keep your money, that is considered "spending" by the Federal Government.  Because in reality all of the fruits of your labor belong to us, the government.

Is it wrong to say it almost the attitude of a master toward his slaves?  Consider this passage from Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's history of the Civil War, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, which I have to cut and paste from a screen cap:

And consider this too, after a discussion about some of the terrible unquantifiable costs of slavery:

In other words, from a purely economic point of view, slavery is exactly like as if every day you worked, and every day you were paid at the end of the day, but also every day a thief set upon you and took your money.  As George Harrison said of the Taxman: "You're working for no one but me."  And Obama thinks that is a good thing.

An income tax is barely tolerable in a free society.  It is arguably a necessary evil, but it is definitely an evil.  A government that fails to recognize that this is your money it is taking, is intolerable.

Consider also this, before I sign off. In 1855, a man named George Fitzhugh wrote a book called Sociology for the South or, the Failure of Free Society. It is not hyperbole to say that it was the closest thing to Mein Kampf ever produced on American soil, denying the value of Declaration of Independence, asserting the essential inequality of people of specific races, and advocating for slavery as "the oldest, the best and most common form of Socialism."  He also provided this chilling comparison between free labor and slavery:

In the 1850's, abolitionists and people merely opposed to the spread of slavery (such as Abraham Lincoln) entertained the theory that there was a slave power conspiracy—that is a conspiracy to extend slavery over the whole of the United States and to many classes of whites, as well. Lincoln himself entertained that theory in his famous "House Divided" speech.  In it he discussed the recent decision in Dredd Scott, and how it interacted with Stephen Douglas' "Nebraska Doctrine" that the people of Nebraska and Kansas were free to vote for or against slavery, subject only to the constitution:

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection, with Senator Douglas's "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are:

First, That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that "The citizens of each State, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

Secondly, That "subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

Thirdly, That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator's individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainly enough now: the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such a piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

I do not today believe that there was any such conspiracy.  But when you read the writings of men like George Fitzhugh, you can fully and deeply understand why some people did believe that one existed.  And you might consider that when you judge people like Glenn Beck.  I think he is on the paranoid side, but its not like he has no reason to be.

After all, our president thinks that when you keep the fruits of your labor, that this is federal spending.  And that should bother any person who believes in individual liberty.


P.S.: By the way, this is not the first time people have made that claim.  And would anyone be surprised to learn that this previous assertion that a failure to tax is equivalent to spending was in a Ninth Circuit opinion, joined by Judge Reinhardt?

Update: Ugh, how could I forget that the LA Times and the aptly-named, Congressman Wiener said this?  And that even Charles Krauthammer flirted with the concept?

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

Rand Paul's excellent proposal is just a start

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) -- U.S. Sen. Rand Paul wants to slash numerous federal programs, including food stamps for the poor, to save $500 billion in a single year.

A legislative proposal Paul introduced on Tuesday would slash $42 billion from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's food stamp program -- a 30 percent spending reduction. His proposal would eliminate numerous other programs, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Paul said the proposal would roll back federal spending to 2008 levels and eliminate what he considers the most wasteful programs.

The Kentucky Republican said he hopes his proposal will spark a dialogue within the Senate about how to repair the nation's economy.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

EPA ruling means most foods and drinks are polluted

my favorite comment is the one that states that if the author insists on throwing logic at a problem, and that if a liberal's head explodes because of that, that he might be held accountable :)

EPA ruling means most foods and drinks are polluted

Maybe he should go back to the teleprompter.

Barack Obama yesterday declared yesterday that America should "build stuff and invent stuff."

Shining eloquence. Brilliant elocution. Erudite.

Anyway, Barack Obama recently tried to convince us that executive orders and regulations are your friends and best of all, the costs that these EO's and regulations impose upon you are negligible.

If you're Barack Obama wealthy they might be negligible. The rest of us will notice.

Sensible guy that he is, Obama was going to show us that he would excise some of those pesky regulations that just don't make sense. The example he chose involved saccharin.

The president took aim at a longstanding Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that categorized saccharin, an artificial sweetener, as a hazardous waste. "Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste," he said, noting that the agency overturned the rule last month.

Boy, does that ever beg a question.

I doubt Barack Obama has ever cooked a thing in his life possibly save for some rock candy. Many of us have cooked and for a long time.

Leavening agents.

   /ˈlɛvənɪŋ/ Show Spelled[lev-uh-ning] Show IPA
Also called leavening agent. a substance used to produce fermentation in dough or batter; leaven.


leavening agent

substance causing expansion of doughs and batters by the release of gases within such mixtures, producing baked products with porous structure. Such agents include air, steam, yeast, baking powder, and baking soda.


Leavening Agents:

A leavening agent (also leavening or leaven) is any one of a number of substances used in doughs and batters that cause a foaming action which lightens and softens the finished product. The leavening agent—biological, chemical, or even mechanical—reacts with moisture, heat, acidity, or other triggers to produce gas (usually carbon dioxide and sometimes ethanol) that becomes trapped as bubbles within the dough. When a dough or batter is mixed, the starch in the flour mixes with the water in the dough to form a matrix (often supported further by proteins like gluten or other polysaccharides like pentosans or xanthan gum), then gelatinizes and "sets"; the holes left by the gas bubbles remain.

CO2 is a pollutant.

Food- Slice of Choc Cake Pictures, Images and Photos

A slice of pollution

Baker's yeast, baking powder, baking soda all can cause the release of pollutants.

All leavened baking goods release pollutants. Breads, cakes, cookies- all sources of pollution.

My beloved champagne contains and releases pollutants.

Adult beverages are plagued with pollutants.

All non-alcoholic sparkling drinks contain and release pollutants.

The food industry uses and produces a great amount of CO2 in more ways than you might at first think:

Raising the livestock, the machinery used in agriculture, and more:

CO2 Emitters

The quality and shelf life of food can be improved by using preservatives, CO2 emitters, (which are inserted into vacuum packed food) or by freezing, which is the most popular method. The most efficient method of freezing the food is by spraying liquid CO2 onto the food in a cryogenic unit.

In 1994 it was estimated that the food industry in the US emitted about 24,000,000 tons of CO2.

Don't be surprised when the EPA decides to dictate what you eat in order to lower CO2 emissions. The solution seems simple- stop breathing and stop eating. If I am not mistaken, Obama's science guy John Holdren has already thought of something along those lines.

But here's the question that's begging to be asked-

Mr. President- if putting something in your coffee means it cannot be a hazardous waste, then how can something intentionally part of and so vital to the foods we eat a pollutant?

And while we're at it- can I sue the baker for feeding me pollution?

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, ClimateGate, Global Warming, Liberal Idiots, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, POWER GRAB!, Politics, WtF?. Bookmark the permalink. | 872 views

32 Responses to EPA ruling means most foods and drinks are polluted [Reader Post]

  1. minuteman26 says: 1

    Screw the EPA. Its time to run them out of your towns and send them back to DC with their tails between their legs.

  2. JR1984 says: 2

    Dr John;

    There you go, throwing common sense and logic at an issue.

  3. Snakeeyes says: 3

    This is what the great Nobel Laureate George Stigler (not those frauds like Krugman or Obama) called "regulatory capture." It is where regulations are passed or enforced that eliminate competition or capture an industry.

  4. Nan G says: 4

    I noted your quoted links said this:
    Obama preemptively defended his administration's environmental regulations…
    Lest people were FOOLED by Obama's claim that he was going to review all federal regulations and get rid of those which most egregiously destroy business.
    No such intention.
    I will make a bet.
    If and when Obama's list of "bad" regulations ever comes out it's 100% compliance would have very little effect on helping businesses.
    It can't.
    Obama is anti-private enterprise from his core.
    That's why he came out yesterday for a new Federal Research Center to develop new medicines.
    His own regulations have strangled private research.

    Soma, anyone?*

    *The imaginary "ideal pleasure drug" in Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World (1932). Its chemistry and pharmacology are undefined. As described, the drug resembles a hangoverless tranquilliser or an opiate.

  5. John Cooper says: 5

    Why not? Several years back the EPA classified the smell of baking bread as a pollutant and forced bakeries to install equipment to control the "volatile organic compounds" emanating from the baking bread.

    I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the loaf of bread which used to cost 99 cents now costs three bucks.

  6. Skookum says: 6

    How bizarre, the key ingredient to all life, carbon, has now become the enemy of all life and not to be ignored is the curious, but key fact, that it is also a main portion of the Socialist platform for Open Societies and international wealth redistribution, so important to our First Citizen of The World, our President.

    Consequently, we face the penalty of making Al Gore fantastically wealthy and supplying Leftist dictators in Third World Countries with the financial means to maintain authoritarian control over populations so that they can exploit, plunder, and rape their captive people under the guise of saving the earth; all for the sin of adding yeast to dough and creating the essential food for all green plants and food stocks to grow. We should hang our heads in shame at our public insensitivity and selfishness. We live in opulence, while Leftist dictators and thugs world wide are watching us and wondering where they will find the next rogue sponsor to buy their troops more weapons and food, rogue armies must eat too. Let us not forget the most corrupt and piously profane of all, the sanctimonious thugs at the United Nations who want a piece of the action, so that they can maintain their villas in the South of France and the Caribbean, just in case the world goes mad, not to mention their apartments in New York and their bimbo mistresses and their witless family members who need to pretend they are working. All this is expensive and it is our responsibility to support this system of international sloth and corruption, this is the word from the highest of the high, the Soros/Obama team. So think twice before using that yeast, unleavened bread was good enough for the Old Testament, do you really think you should indulge yourself at the risk of destroying the world, Al Gore, The UN, and all those Leftist dictators, just for the sake of having light bread with air pockets, let's be serious.

    We should look at this problem with more perspicuity; especially, sense we are in for a bad spell of whether, the fact that we are always worried about weather it is too cold or too hot has left us vulnerable for the purveyors of lies and fanciful schemes. We have been willing to swallow this foul bilge from the most profane among us, just for the faint and forlorn hope of not enduring 100 plus weather, while they work us like rubes in the tradition of Barnum and Bailey. Yes, ignorance is a self-imposed disease, a disease of consequence, mired in the gullibility of people who want to do good in the world; yet, in their haste to assume the mantle of saint hood or at least some chivalrous notion of nobility from an era that never existed, except in the minds of the deluded and that is the crux of the problem, making a science from the minds of deluded people. Those of whom are so easily manipulated in their delusion, they are willing to destroy our country and themselves, to fulfill the false prophesy of a cult. A cult of the ignorant and deceived being manipulated by the Great Pretenders, who work the crowds for wealth and power.

    I think I will make some bread this morning; actually, I'll make a sour dough starter and keep it going for months so that I have a continuous emission of CO2, I feel dastardly this morning.

    When we are born, we cry that we are come
    To this great stage of fools.

    King Lear IV:6

  7. eaglewingz08 says: 7

    I would bet that all those 'bad regulations' are regulations that give businesses a fighting chance to defend against frivolous environmental suits and actions by the federal and state governments.

  8. Randy says: 8

    I recently had a discussion here at FA concerning CO2. (I continued this discussion until I was exhausted!) I was told by a gentleman from Long Beach that the rapid rise in CO2 would cause harm to humans when it contacted the membranes involved in breathing. The levels we were discussing were .12%. I finally realized that to this person, combating CO2 in the atmosphere or more likely eliminating CO2 emitting sources was part of his religious beliefs. After all, why else would he be concerned about a level of CO2 in the atmosphere at .12% when he exhales CO2 at 4.5% concentrations. Being green has become a religion where nothing can change their mind except the word of their gods and their gods are making too much money to relent!

  9. Skookum says: 9

    Randy, they are worried about heavy breathing, not from sexual exercise or vigorous work, but from self righteous indignation over our refusal to worship at the altars of their cults.

    Ego non baptizte in nomite patris, sed in nomine diaboli. What say ye pagans!

  10. another vet says: 10

    One way to call them out on this is to ask what the evacuation plan is for NYC since according to Al Gore & company it's supposed to be under 10 feet of water or something like that in a couple of deades. At some point in time in the very near future it should become uninhabitable. It will take awhile to permanently relocate all those millions of people. Why are they waiting if this is all true?

  11. Helene says: 11

    If I remember correctly, Al Gore was looking forward to gas at $5 per gallon as a way to get people to stop driving. Well, when Mr. O took office, gas was $1.89 a gallon and now it's over $3. People still drive to work and drive to do errands, we just have less in our pockets.

    I need to replace some more of those confounded CFL lamps. They just keep burning out. Those lamps are made in China and they cost a lot more than the incandescent lamps. I just have less money in my pocket and more mercury to dispose of. Oh yes, and I have to drive to the landfill so that these lamps can be properly disposed of.

    Now Maryland wants to tax plastic bags from the grocery store. Never mind that the store gives me a rebate for each of my own bags I take to the store. I'll just have less money in my pocket.

    Did you check your electric bill lately? Did you notice how the electric producers are supposed to use more "renewal" resources, like wind power? Well, wind mills don't produce a lot of energy, are partly subsidized through the feds, and are surrounded by dead birds. I have less money in my pocket, but the EPA wonks are happy and the birds are dead.

    Has the EPA figured out how to get a plane off the ground with wind power? The EPA is blocking drilling, coal mining and any other form of energy production (except the PC ones). I have less money in my pocket to fly to visit my grand daughter.

    Electric cars are really cool. But go only a short distance, need constant recharging, and purchasers get federal funds to buy the dumb things. Thanks EPA for using my money to help someone else by a car. I just have less money in my pocket.

    Oh, and cars… the tiny ones. What a luxury. You can't take those on the highway, or they could get smooshed in an accident. The only people I know driving those, use them to poke around town, and are all liberal elites (able to afford to have a car as a statement). But they must have some money in their pockets to afford a toy car.

    Our government was never meant to be run by one philosophy, be it conservative or liberal. Our government was designed to have a lot of give and take. So, to Mr. O and minions, thanks for the change.
    Personally, I prefer bills that fold.

  12. oil guy from Alberta says: 12

    Anhydrous ammonia is poisonous, but can be a tremendous fertilizer especially with heavy rain or irrigation. It couples with the nitrates in the soil and thus ammonium nitrate becomes the active fertilizer.

    Greenies and the EPA bureaucrats should not eat any food that is raised on chemical fertilizers. In fact, any food that is enriched from the excrement of flatulating animals.

    Isn't over regulating grand? Isn't a dumbed down society awesome?

  13. Skookum says: 13

    When Oil skyrockets, like Obama promised it would with his grand central planning and wealth redistribution nonsense, everything goes up as a reciprocal action, all commodities move by oil in one form, now we can expect to be shopping for groceries very carefully. I gauge my cost by layers of food, one layer $100, 2 layers $200, and so on until you are out of money. Isn't Socialism grand: forget the days of milk and honey, these are the days of Obama and staggering debt and no drilling and no jobs. The Third World is who we are really concerned with, welcome to Obama's Dystopia and National Poverty.

    Science…commits suicide when it adopts a creed. Huxley

  14. John ryan says: 14

    it used to be "Obama's going to take away our guns" but now it has changed to"Obama is going to take away our fizzy drinks"

  15. Greg says: 15

    Maybe we should be looking into the possibility of sequestering fossil fuel CO2 in fizzy drinks.

  16. Wm T Sherman says: 16

    Hey, John Ryan — somebody is posting moronic comments using your name.

  17. drjohn says: 17

    @John ryan: Nah. It was always about being able to tax it. Then again, if they outlaw fizzy drinks, only outlaws will have fizzy drinks.

  18. ono says: 18

    Obwoma is dumber than a bag of rocks. He projects alot so he thinks it is us who are dumb.
    Let him go invent something. Oh wait he already tried to invent a birth certificate and he failed.

    Watch China crash. They can't invent a thing so obowma wants us to invent "stuff" for the Chinese. No way!

    If it's made in China I put it back on the shelf. Do Not buy it!

  19. I think I will make some bread this morning; actually, I'll make a sour dough starter and keep it going for months so that I have a continuous emission of CO2, I feel dastardly this morning.

    Hah! Reason #327 that I adore you, Skookum.

  20. anticsrocks says: 20

    Greg and John knew their roles
    Liberalism was embedded in their souls
    Talking points they spouted
    In Socialism they shrouded
    To try and hide their identities as trolls.

  21. Liberty says: 21

    The question is why all this emphasis on CO2 while the administration continues to ignore the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide in our environment. Here's a few facts:
    "Dihydrogen Monoxide is found in detectable and biologically significant levels in virtually all tumors and other cancerous and pre-cancerous growths."
    "DHMO contributes to global warming and the "Greenhouse Effect", and is one of the so-called "greenhouse gasses."
    "Measurable levels of DHMO have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps."

    Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. It's time we all get together to eliminate our exposure to DHMO. Lets unmask this government cover up now!!!
    For more facts on the many dangers of DHMO visit their research site at:
    (I'm sure many of you are already aware of DHMO but this is for those who aren't)

  22. Randy says: 22

    As much of a hazard as Dihydrogen monoxide is, congress has decided that the higher levels of noise emitted by television commercials are much more of a public health issue. That is why the lame duck congress worked hard to pass a bill reducing the sound levels of TV comercials. Obama quickly signed it into law!
    Liberty, you forgot to mention the dangers of dehydrated DHMO. I think Michael Mann is studying the effects on dead tree rings right now!

  23. Liberty says: 23

    @Randy: I am thrilled with the new regulations for volume control. i have a very old cheap TV that had automatic volume leveling built in and I loved it. I often thought "why don't they pass a law?". I've been shopping for new TV's for a year now and this is one of the features I was looking for. Now I can eliminate that concern. It is such a hard decision–size and features and price verses quality etc. I'm hoping Obama passes a TV equalization law so all these decisions are no longer a burden on me. If he had done that a year ago and subsidized them, I would already have had a new TV.

  24. Liberty says: 24

    @Randy: I must confess I have never heard of dehydrated DHMO.
    I would expected the dehydration process would result in a large release of its chemicals into the air. Perhaps this is how it is ending up in our soil and streams. Are any industries involved with this dehydration process? Perhaps we need regulations to force them to re-hydrate their DHMO before it enters the atmosphere. They would be required to contain it until it can be safely disposed of.
    ( I seem to be having some sort of conflict in my reasoning here. Perhaps some liberal can advise me on how to live with it.)

  25. anticsrocks says: 25

    Well whatever ever DHMO is, it is probably Bush's fault.


  26. cml in Maine says: 26

    Quit gutting our forests and plant/replant areas we have deforested.

  27. anticsrocks says: 27

    Logic would dictate that a company which depends on harvesting the forest would necessarily replant in order to sustain future crops of forestation.

  28. Nan G says: 28

    I think there was a revisionist history cartoon for grade schoolers that falsely claimed paper and lumber companies clear-cut forests and never replanted anything.
    Of course children don't know that's a lie.
    More trees are planted yearly by paper companies and lumber companies than by all the so-called green groups put together…..ever.
    More than 80% of new seedlings are planted by forest product companies and private timberland owners. The rest are planted by federal and state agencies and individuals.

    1.5 BILLION trees are planted every year in the USA (that's 4.1 MILLION a day!)
    700 MILLION trees are planted in Canada every year.

    There are 82% more hardwoods in the U.S. today than in 1952.

    We are in the printing business.
    We buy seedlings every time we buy paper!

  29. anticsrocks says: 29

    Nan, you are an outstanding researcher, but if you insist on throwing logic into these arguments then you have to understand that when a liberal's head explodes, you may be held accountable. :-P

  30. Randy says: 30

    There are many people who die every year from dehydrated dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO). One of the chemicals that Saddam used against us in Iraq was dehydrated DHMO there were soldiers getting sick every day!

  31. drjohn says: 31

    @Nan G: Nan, you are clearly dangerous. ;-)

  32. DrJohn says: 32

    Linked by Doug Ross. Thanks, Doug!