Score one for liberty
Speaking truth to old-stream media bias.
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.
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.
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.
Did you get your big-screen tv yet? You better hurry, Kathleen the terrible is coming for you!
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, http://www.herald.com
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."
RELATED: Live blogging the Egyptian uprising
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."
"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)
Great idea, let the cuts begin!
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.
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.
[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.
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?
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
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.
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 :)
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.
/ˈlɛvənɪŋ/ Show Spelled[lev-uh-ning] Show IPA
Also called leavening agent. a substance used to produce fermentation in dough or batter; leaven.
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.
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.
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:
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?