Earth In High-Def

Last month NASA released high resolution images of Earth, which have been heralded as the most detailed images yet. From the UK Telegraph, March 2, 2010:

"Perfectly capturing the fragility of the Earth in one remarkable shot, the composition shows the entire North American continent, Central America, the northern half of South America, Greenland and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

[Beautiful, yes! Fragile, well, see my earlier post...]

"The space agency produced the stunning series of images using thousands of satellite-based observations hundreds of miles above the planet.

"The images of the earth’s land surface, oceans, coastlines and clouds were then stitched together by scientists to create the seamless mosaic of Earth.

"Astronomers at the Goddard Space Flight Centre produced the series, called 'Blue Marble', using the Terra satellite more than 435 miles (700km) above the Earth's surface.

"They also produced an accurate example of the Earth's topography, ocean depths and Arctic and Antarctic ice.

"After capturing images every eight days – to compensate for clouds that might block the sensor’s view – the composition has even left NASA experts astonished.

"'This image is the most detailed image of Earth to date and which shows the beauty of our small planet," a NASA spokesman said.

"The imagery, which is used by Apple as the iPhone’s default icon, was compiled by NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imagining Spectroradiometer (MODIS), which is on-board the satellite Terra.

The high resolution image can be seen here.

Happy Earth Day! Ain't she a beaut?!

The Earth Is Not Fragile

Today is Earth Day - hurrah! Honestly, though, spare me all the psycho-babble about 'saving the Earth' because quite realistically, we humans are but a gnat on the arse of this great planet of ours. Probably the best perspective on this can be found in the prologue of the late Michael Crichton's best selling novel, Jurassic Park, which follows:

"You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions and millions of years. Great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away - all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change; colliding and buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us.

"If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, and ultraviolet radiation sears Earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation and change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine.

"When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on Earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on Earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us."

Beware Of W.A.T.E.R.

Environmental activists have long sought to thwart technological advances and breakthroughs intended to improve human life on earth. The folly of their tireless campaigns is exemplified through the parody that follows. Attributed to Norman Mischler, Chairman of the British branch of Hoescht AG (now Sanofi-Aventis), the parody makes light of the extent to which 'good intentions' trump society's best interests.

"ICI has announced the discovery of a new firefighting agent to add to their existing range. Known as WATER (Wonderful And Total Extinguishing Resource), it augments existing agents such as dry powder and BCF (bromine-chlorine-fluorine) which have been in use from time immemorial. It is particularly suitable for dealing with fires in buildings, timber yards and warehouses. Though required in large quantities, it is fairly cheap to produce.

"It is intended that quantities of about a million gallons should be stored in urban areas and near other installations of high risk ready for immediate use. BCF and dry powder are usually stored under pressure, but WATER will be stored in open ponds or reservoirs and conveyed to the scene of the fire by hoses and portable pumps.

"ICI's new proposals are already encountering strong opposition from safety and environmental groups. Professor Connie Barrinner has pointed out that, if anyone immersed his or her head in a bucket of WATER, it would prove fatal in as little as three minutes. Each of ICI's proposed reservoirs will contain enough WATER to fill 500,000 two-gallon buckets. Each bucket-full could be used 100 times so there is enough WATER in one reservoir to kill the entire population of the UK. Risks of this size, said Professor Barrinner, should not be allowed, whatever the gain. What use was a fire-fighting agent that could kill men as well as fires?

"A local authority spokesman said that he would strongly oppose planning permission for construction of a WATER reservoir in this area unless the most stringent precautions were followed. Open ponds were certainly not acceptable. What would prevent people falling in them? What would prevent the contents from leaking out? At the very least the WATER would need to be contained in a steel pressure vessel surrounded by a leak-proof concrete wall.

"A spokesman from the fire brigades said he did not see the need for the new agent. Dry powder and BCF could cope with most fires. The new agent would bring with it risks, particularly to firemen, greater than any possible gain. Did we know what would happen to this new medium when it was exposed to intense heat? It had been reported that WATER was a constituent of beer. Did this mean that firemen would be intoxicated by the fumes?

"The Friends of the World said that they had obtained a sample of WATER and found it caused clothes to shrink. If it did this to cotton, what would it do to men?

"In the House of Commons yesterday, the Home Secretary was asked if he would prohibit the manufacture and storage of this lethal new material. The Home Secretary replied that, as it was clearly a major hazard, local authorities would have to take advice from the Health & Safety Executive before giving planning permission. A full investigation was needed and the Major Hazards Group would be asked to report."

- from Hazardous Cargo Bulletin

7s Seize The Day

Seven days ago the number 7 came up big time in Pennsylvania's Big 4 Drawing. Appropriately enough, the winning combination was 7-7-7-7, and it resulted in the state paying out $7.77 million to some 3,000 winners.

But the real kicker to the story is that on the same day, the state's Super 7 jackpot was $7.3 million, while the Cash 5 kitty stood at $770,000.

Divine intervention? Perhaps. Since the state paid out about $7.2 million more than it took in, this was certainly a case of "Caesar rendering unto us..." The complete story can be read here.

Oschter Haws & Other Easter Traditions

"Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!"

So goes the Christian proclamation on Easter - a holiday that is more powerful, more important to Christians than Christmas. Yet, while I know some of the history behind Christmas traditions, I've wondered about the traditions of Easter (e.g - the Easter Bunny?) Ted Olsen of Christianity Today has some historical insights to these traditions in his piece "Why Easter?" An excerpt follows:

Why 'Easter'?

"The fact of the matter is no one knows for sure, but our best bet comes from Bede ('The Venerable'), a late-seventh-century historian and scholar from Anglo-Saxon England. He says Easter's name comes from the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre, associated with spring and fertility, and celebrated around the vernal equinox. So there you go. As Christmas was moved to coincide with (and supplant) the pagan celebration of winter, Easter was likely moved to coincide and replace the pagan celebration of spring.

"And while we're at it, the Easter Bunny comes from these pagan rites of spring as well, but more from pagan Germany than pagan Britain. Eighteenth-century German settlers brought 'Oschter Haws' (never knew he had a name, did you?) to America, where Pennsylvania Dutch settlers prepared nests for him in the garden or barn. On Easter Eve, the rabbit laid his colored eggs in the nests in payment. In Germany, old Oschter lays red eggs on Maundy Thursday. If anyone knows why children in an agrarian society would believe a rabbit lays eggs, please tell us or a historian near you. We're all dying to know.

"But enough of the pagan side of Easter. You want to know about Christian history:

"Thursday commemorates the Last Supper of Jesus, getting its name from the Latin translation of Jesus' saying that evening, 'A new commandment I give to you.' It is marked by foot washing and the blessing of the oils. But in various parts of the world, it has other traditions as well. The German word 'to mourn' (grun) is very similar to the word for green (grÜn). So in Austria, Hungary, and much of Germany, today is GrÜndonnerstag: a day to eat spinach and green salad. This is not the only reason for eating greens: Passover is celebrated with karpas (a green vegetable, usually parsley) and bitter herbs. In old England, men used to shave their beards on Maundy Thursday, as this was a time to cleanse the body as well as the soul to prepare for Easter.

"Friday, of course, is Good Friday. (The Orthodox call it Great Friday, but they're not celebrating Holy week until next week.) A strange day, Good Friday. Christians commemorate Jesus' death and call it 'Good.' It used to be that Good Friday was observed even more than Easter, but for a while Protestants ignored it. Oh and by the way, hot cross buns are a Christianized pagan custom, too—from the Eostre celebrations. On one Good Friday, a nineteenth-century missionary to Bermuda had difficulty explaining the ascension of Jesus, so he launched a kite with an image of Jesus on it and cut the string. Kite-flying is now a Bermuda Good Friday tradition.

"Another Bermuda fact: it's where Easter lilies came from. They were brought to America from the island in the 1880s (and, for once, not a Christianized pagan symbol). They're now associated with Easter because it grows from a bulb that is 'buried' and 'reborn.' So this Easter, consider the lilies. And what they represent.

Palestine: The Historical Jewish Homeland

"I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." [Genesis 12:2-3, NIV]


As this map shows, the Arab world is more than 500 times the size of Israel, which is some 40 miles at its widest point, and roughly half the size of San Bernardino County, California. Yet, this sliver of land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River has been the source of conflict for decades, despite the Jews' 3,000-year history in the land. Why?

Conventional wisdom holds that Israel has long been the obstacle for peace in the middle east, strong-arming the much weaker, hapless Palestinian minority. Unfortunately for the proponents of this charge (i.e. - the mainstream media, academia, and Muslim apologists), history does not support their oft-cited (and false) claims.

First, at no time in history has there ever been a nation of 'Palestine,' nor has there ever existed a Palestinian people. The original name of this disputed land is Judea (go figure, Jews from Judea - a possible connection?), and it was renamed 'Palestine' by the Roman Empire in its efforts to wipe out all Jewish association to the region. As Professor Bernard Lewis points out, cartographers continued to use the regional name 'Palestine' up until the birth of modern day Israel shortly after WWII.

However, counter to the League of Nations mandate, which reserved all of 'Palestine' as the "national home for the Jewish people," Great Britain subdivided the region into sections east and west of the Jordan River. Arabs were granted about 75% of the region to the east, which was named Transjordan, and is now modern day Jordan. The Jews were allotted the area to the west of the Jordan River, and they declared their independence in 1948 as the nation of Israel.

Since its founding, Israel has defended its very existence in five wars initiated by its Arab neighbors, the first of which commenced the day after declaring its independence. Nonetheless, more than 1 million Arabs currently reside in Israel (about 20% of the population), and all are granted voting rights and the ability to serve in parliament (the Knesset). Furthermore, Arabs have complete religious freedom and full access to Israel's legal, health, and educational systems. And yet, Israel has never cited its Arab population as a hindrance to lasting peace in the region.

By contrast, (ill-conceived) conventional wisdom deems the construction of Jewish 'settlements' (or 'homes' in common parlance) in East Jerusalem or the West Bank as an act of aggression and an obstacle to peace. By the numbers, this adds up to about 300,000 Jews living among some 3 million Arabs - quite the outrage, huh?

News of the latest home construction projects in East Jerusalem came to a head during Prime Minister Benjamin 'Bibi' Netanyahu's recent White House visit with President Obama. British media (go figure?) reported that the icy meeting between the two allied heads of state consisted of Obama ordering Netanyahu to concede to 13 demands (which Obama could then take to his upcoming meeting with the Arab League), and when Bibi refused, Obama left him waiting to go have dinner alone, chiding him with, "Let me know if there's anything new."

Diplomacy at its best, I suppose (or as Investor's Business Daily calls it, "Oafish Diplomacy")...and with our closest ally in the middle east, no less!

Contrast this with Obama's willingness to negotiate with Iran - a sworn enemy of the United States, and whose fanatical leader has openly called for the destruction of Israel, and declared that the Holocaust is a myth! Do we live in upside-down times, or what?

Unfortunately for the beleaguered 'Palestinian refugees,' their Arab home countries refuse to repatriate them, and they have continued to remain political pawns for 70 years in the Arab effort to destroy the only democratic country in the region. Only 10 years ago, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to meet virtually every one of PLO leader Yasser Arafat's demands, making Israel only 9 miles wide at its narrowest point. Arafat refused, and initiated his infamous intifada against Israel, demonstrating that it is Arab hate towards the Jews that fuels this decades-old conflict. It is the Arabs, after all, who refer to Israel as a 'cancer on the Arab body.' I guess so-called 'land-for-peace' doesn't work either...

Drawing upon biblical teachings surrounding God's chosen people, and considering the current administration's enmity towards Israel (and its anti-American agenda as a whole), is it any wonder that a recent Harris poll found that 14% of Americans believe that Obama is the Anti-Christ?

Outrageous? Provocative? Well, yes. God's admonition, however, that "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse" provides fair warning to those hell-bent on destroying this Jewish state.

Swim For Your Lives - Guam May Capsize!

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) expressed his concerns last Thursday over the U.S. Navy's planned influx of 8,000 Marines and their families to the island of Guam. His exchange with Admiral Robert Willard can be seen below:



No comment.

Rep. Johnson has now issued the following statement:

"The subtle humor of this obviously metaphorical reference to a ship capsizing illustrated my concern about the impact of the planned military buildup on this small tropical island."

And this from the U.K. Telegraph:

"Sailors on the island reportedly took the comments in good humour [sic]. One is said to have shown up for his duty posting wearing a life vest 'just in case.'"

Dems Speak The Truth

"The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." [Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), WJR's Paul W. Smith Radio Show, Mar. 23, 2010]

"To control the people," huh?

"I think this [health care legislation] began the transforming of the country the way the president had promised. This is what he ran on...Then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama." [Rev. Al Sharpton, Fox News, Mar. 21, 2010]

"The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism," huh?

"There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something...When the deal goes down...All this talk about rules...We make 'em up as we go along." [Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), impeached Florida judge, commenting on House voting rules regarding health care bill, Mar. 21, 2010]

Say what?!

"The only way to keep [congress] out of the cookie jar is to give them no choice. Which is why, whether its balanced budget acts or pay as you go legislation or any of that - it's the only thing. If you don't tie our hands, we'll keep stealing." [Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), speaking to Jefferson-area citizens, Mar. 16, 2010]

"If you don't tie our hands, we'll keep stealing," huh?

"You now have a proposal from me that will be in legislation, that...makes sure that people are able to get insurance even if they've got preexisting conditions...This notion that this [health care reform process] has been not transparent, that people don't know what's in the bill, everybody knows what's in the bill..." [President Barack Obama, Fox News, Mar. 17, 2010]

But wait! Try this headline:

"Whoops! ObamaCare Doesn't Cover Pre-existing Conditions After All, Until 2014" [Washington Examiner, Mar. 24, 2010]

Bizarro world continues with this latest blurb:

"Cuban Leader Applauds US Healthcare Reform Bill" [Associated Press, Mar. 25, 2010]

So Comrade Dictator Castro endorses ObamaCare - yippee! This is the same 'strongman' who had to fly a Spanish doctor into Cuba to perform his surgery...Hmmm...makes you wonder about our own prospects.

Hit or miss, Democrats can't deny their progressive, statist stripes. As former Rep. James Traficant used to exclaim, "Beam me up!"

Lost Freedoms Under ObamaCare

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." [Benjamin Franklin]

So cites David Hogberg in his Investor's Business Daily column yesterday, in which he lists 20 freedoms that Americans have lost under ObamaCare. On this monstrous piece of legislation, Hogberg comments:

"...it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care."

So true. Excerpts from his column follow:

1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forgo health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the 'privilege.' (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drinks a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can't do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can't (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a [county] where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry...Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers...Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies...Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Hogberg's column can be viewed in its entirety here.

In the meantime, as we reflect on these new rules, let us recall Madame Pelosi's comment from two days ago wherein she referred to this bill as "an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country."

On the contrary, the contents of this legislation, and the manner in which it was passed, smacks of statism. In the forthcoming legal challenges and attempts to repeal this law (beginning with the defeat of every Democrat in the mid-term elections), we should bear in mind Benjamin Franklin's aforementioned quote.

A Middle Finger Salute To Americans

Amid chants of "Yes We Can," House Democrats approved the health care bill late last night. With Democrat pro-lifers selling out their core beliefs to grander party ideology, their Judas-votes enabled this travesty to occur. Republicans stood unanimous in their opposition to the bill. Although Obama has promised concessions to pro-life Dems, it's unclear that he has the ability to do so. Then again, with Democrats riding roughshod over the rule of law, who knows?

Commenting on the historic nature of the event, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared,

"We will honor the vows of our founders, who in the Declaration of Independence said that we are ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people. This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country."

Our Founders must be turning over in their graves! The Constitution specifically addresses what our government CAN'T do - it limits government powers over its citizens, so as to prevent tyranny (which is what Europeans were escaping when they immigrated to the New World). The Founders never intended the Constitution to be a laundry list of services that the government must provide for its citizens. If anything, Madame Pelosi's comments reveal her obtuseness and idiocy. She's a national embarrassment. And through this entire health care debacle the Democrat party has revealed its true colors: those of Statist Progressives.

The obligation of another $2.4 trillion in spending that this health care bill represents, now makes the U.S. the world's largest debtor nation. What with all of the spending that the Obama administration has already done, we can never - NEVER - fully repay our debts! We are now, undoubtedly, on the road to serfdom. And the world is watching. The markets are watching.

Just this morning Bloomberg is reporting that "The bond market is saying that it’s safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama." The story includes this quote from Mitchell Stapley of Fifth Third Asset Management:

"It’s a slap upside the head of the government...It could be the moment where hopefully you realize that risk is beginning to creep into your credit profile and the costs associated with that can be pretty scary."

The story continues:

"Moody’s Investors Service predicts the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K...moving [it] 'substantially' closer to losing its AAA rating."

Real nice, huh?

What this health care vote showed was that one party - the Republicans - voted on behalf of Americans, on behalf of the country, and while they'll surely reap the rewards in the November elections, it will be challenging to undo what the Constitution-shredding Democrats have now done. After all, when has the government ever successfully rolled back an entitlement?

In the meantime, enjoy paying substantially higher taxes from here on out. But don't expect any benefits for another 4 years, which is when the supposed reforms are to go into effect. No longer will you and your doctor decide which course of treatment is best for you; rather, a government bureaucrat will decide your fate based upon your age, your current health, and what's in the best interest of society (in other words, your cost-benefit).

What the hell kind of reform is this anyway? Democrats have just "fundamentally transformed" (in the words of Obama) the best health care system in the world to an antiquated Soviet-style health care abomination. Thank you, Obama. Thank you, Democrats. Thank you, Hopium-addicted voters.

As I said, real nice, huh?

There Ain't No Rules Here

Impeached judge and current Florida Representative Alcee Hastings[D] let the cat out of the bag by revealing the Democrat strategy in passing health care reform:



Transcript: "There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something...When the deal goes down...All this talk about rules...We make 'em up as we go along."

Oops! What a revelation for this former judge, who now serves on the House Rules Committee! Did I mention that he was impeached for corruption and perjury while serving on the bench?

We can only hope that there are enough elected representatives with a moral center and a genuine commitment to follow the rule of law (as explicited stated in the Constitution) to vote down this Democrat-contrived monstrosity of a bill.

A Man Of Ideas

• Six-term Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan[R] is putting the lie to Democrat charges that the Republican party is devoid of ideas. In his 'Roadmap for America's Future,' Ryan outlines his solutions to our nation's most vexing challenges. An issue-by-issue summary of his cogent ideas include:

Health Care

• A refundable tax credit for individuals and families ($2,300 and $5,700, respectively) to purchase portable insurance policies from across state lines (which promotes competition among the country's 1,700 health insurance companies). Any remaining funds are then pocketed by the consumer.
• Enable effective comparison shopping for the consumer via transparency in health care pricing and service quality.
• Allowing small businesses to pool their resources nationally so as to better afford coverage for their employees.
• Create state-based exchanges wherein individuals and families can purchase affordable coverage without being discriminated against for pre-existing conditions.
• Offer states high risk pools so that everyone can access coverage.

None of these measures are included in Democrat reforms, which are scheduled for a vote this weekend. If you think reconsideration is in order (instead of the oft-cited reconciliation, which is a complete ruse), go to Free Our Healthcare Now and voice your opposition. But I digress...

The Roadmap continues:

Medicare/Medicaid

• Preserves the program for those currently enrolled, and for those enrolling in the next 10 years.
• Reforms the program to make it permanently solvent.
• Fully funds Medical Savings Accounts.

Social Security

• Preserves the program for those who are 55 years of age or older.
• Offers to those under the age of 55 the option of investing up to 1/3 of their social security taxes into personal retirement accounts that are fully inheritable by their beneficiaries, and are guaranteed against the loss of every dollar contributed.
• Reforms the program to make it permanently solvent.

Taxes

• Offers tax payers the option of filing their returns via the current tax code or doing so via a simplified version that is the size of a postcard.
• Adopts 2 tax rates: 10% (on income up to $100K joint; $50K single), and 25% on income above these thresholds. A generous standard deduction also applies, whereby a family of four would be exempt from the first $39K in income.
• Eliminates the AMT.
• Eliminates taxes on interest, dividends, capital gains, and death (inheritance).
• Replaces the current corporate tax (second highest in the world) with a consumption tax of 8.5%, which is half that of other industrialized nations (thereby making the U.S. all the more competitive and attractive to foreign investment).

Contrast these ideas with those peddled by the Democrats. One is based on individual freedoms and choice, while the other (bandied about by liberals and progressives) has centralized government serving as the arbiter of one's entire existence.

A cursory overview of the aforementioned Roadmap begs the question, then, "Which party is lacking in ideas?"

U.S. Health Care Second-To-None

As we approach the eleventh hour of the pending health care vote, it's crucial to understand what passage of the current health reform bill means to us all. While the oligarchs in Washington, D.C. (Obama, Pelosi, et al.), continue to push their monstrous reforms, we (the serfs) are left ignorant of their contents. But according to Madame Pelosi, we are not to worry. As she recently commented, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it..."

What we do know, however, is that every single American would be required to carry government-approved health insurance, or face fines amounting to thousands of dollars. And, yes, the bill authorizes the IRS to act as the enforcer, which would make monthly sweeps of every American's insurance status. Company payrolls would also be monitored for compliance. Those individuals and companies deemed to be in violation (read: law-breakers) would face fines that could be collected via the withholding of tax returns or wage garnishment.

And let's not forget what else such a takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy represents (which is an order of magnitude equal to the entire economies of Great Britain or France!): government ownership of 48% of private industry. And you thought this could only happen in Cuba or Venezuela? As Rep. Michele Bachmann has adroitly explained, adding government-run health care to the already government-owned GM, Chrysler, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the banks, brings the grand total to almost 50% of private industry. In her words, "That's the true Obama story."

Very Soviet, wouldn't you say?

No? Then perhaps you might be thinking that the ends justify the means. Well, let's examine some of those ends.

While liberals and progressives here in the U.S. laud the Canadian health care system, why do Canadians regularly cross the border to seek medical services in American hospitals? Could it be that their median wait time for surgeries or therapeutic treatments is 16 weeks? (Fraser Institute, Oct. 29, 2009) Why would Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams fly to Florida for his heart surgery? Could it be that the Canadian health system has not adopted the latest procedures that are less intrusive and provide the quickest recovery time? Or maybe it was the 16 week wait time - then again, he's 60 years old, so he's already almost dead anyway (at least in the eyes of the Canuck health care bureaucrats). How about the regular airlifts of expectant British Columbian mothers to U.S. hospitals due to bed and neonatal unit shortages?

If our health care system was so medieval, so archaic, so horrid, why the persistent influx of Canadians across our borders, hmm?

While Michael Moore glorified the Cuban health care system in his mockumentary, "Sicko", Comrade Castro flew a Spanish doctor in to perform his intestinal surgery in 2006. Makes you wonder, huh? Then again, where are all those stories about health care tourists descending en masse to that communist mecca?

Then what about Great Britain? Surely they must have a utopian health care system for its citizens. Not so. After years of government finagling with health care laws, British hospitals have begun denying treatment to patients by letting them wait in the ambulances which brought them in for treatment in the first place! Why? As long as the individual is not admitted, he does not have to be treated. Speaking of which, just last week a 22-year old patient died of thirst after 3 days of neglect - while in the hospital. No joke! You can read the UK DailyMail article for yourself. He eventually phoned the police for help, but ultimately died.

These so-called health care utopias are more akin to health care purgatory. What they all have in common is the rationing and denial of care. In their grand economic equations there can be only one variable when cost is considered. At the end of the day, hospitals, doctors, and nurses must get paid by the government, so the one who always gets the raw deal is the patient. After all, it is his treatment that can be varied or denied in the name of cost containment. But what else would you expect when you vote for the government to become a partner in your health?

Our country has the best health care in the world. If you or a family member required immediate life-saving treatment, where but the United States would you go? Our laws require that every individual who seeks treatment in a hospital gets treated. Our system is not perfect, but that is mostly due to government regulation and intrusion. The evil guy here is not the insurance company, it is government. They are to blame for the imperfections in our health care system, and it is they (Democrats) who stand in the way of true health care reform now.

As our elected leaders prepare to vote this weekend, let your voice be heard. Register your opposition to Obamacare at Free Our Healthcare Now!

My Canadian Healthcare Horror Stories

A Message for Americans

by Cathy LeBoeuf-Schouten

I was born in the same year that my government adopted socialized healthcare in Canada. I am an educated, middle-class woman and I have never known any kind of healthcare but the kind that is provided by our government-run system. It has been a nightmare for my family and me. The following stories, told in second person and based on my personal experiences with socialized healthcare in Canada, constitute my personal warning to Americans.

Imagine that you and your spouse, and three children under the age of six move to a new city and must find a family doctor. You are told at the local clinic that the doctors there are not accepting any new patients. (Canadian price controls have created shortages of everything when it comes to healthcare). The receptionist suggests that you go through the yellow pages and try to find a physician whose practice is not "full." You spend days, and weeks, doing this, and are repeatedly told "Sorry, we are not accepting new patients." You put your name on several waiting lists and persist in calling doctors’ offices.

Finally, a receptionist tells you that, while the doctor is still accepting new patients, he requires a full medical history and an interview with each family member before you can be added to his roster of patients. Based on the questions asked during the interviews, you come to understand that he is screening out sick or potentially sick people. You are all healthy, fortunately, so he takes you on as patients. Others are just out of luck.

There is a chronic shortage of doctors in Canada because price controls on doctors’ salaries have resulted in a "brain drain" where the best and brightest practice medicine in the U.S. and elsewhere, after being educated in Canada. In addition, the Canadian government cut medical school enrollment in half in the 1990s as a "cost-cutting measure," making the problem of doctor shortages much worse.

Next, imagine that all of a sudden your six-year-old begins showing what seems to be signs of an appendicitis attack, shortly after recuperating from chicken pox. You take him to a hospital emergency room and carry him in because he is unable to walk. There is no one to help you as you enter the building, so you must lumber along to the reception area. A nurse interviews you for a couple of minutes, asks you for the reason for your visit, and then takes your son’s government health card and asks you to fill out paperwork while your son writhes in pain in your lap.

You tell the nurse that your son must be seen by a doctor immediately – it’s an emergency! – as his condition is worsening by the minute. The nurse tells you, stone-faced, to go and sit in the waiting room to wait for a triage nurse. Having no choice, you do what you are told and join twenty or so others in line in front of you. You are given nothing to help make your son more comfortable – no damp facecloth, no bedpan for the vomit, nothing.

When a triage nurse finally strolls in a half hour later your son is too weak to respond to her and you begin to panic. Finally, a doctor appears and says it’s just a "bug" and that you should not be playing "armchair doctor" by "diagnosing" appendicitis. He orders some time-consuming tests anyway, because you have shown him that you are very, very angry. Six hours later the test results come back positive for appendicitis.

Your son is whisked away for an emergency appendectomy, after which the surgeon tells you that, had the surgery been delayed by another few minutes, he would probably have died. Your son’s appendix was gangrenous and on the verge of bursting. It reminds you of reading in the local news of three other people who were sent home from the emergency room, only to have their appendices burst and die. You are grateful that you were much more persistent and ornery than they apparently were.

Our Soviet-style emergency rooms have waiting rooms equipped with hard metal chairs, vending machines that sell junk food, and maybe a television in one corner. There is no access to any medical equipment, beds, or even stretchers. In the emergency room everyone passes through triage and is given a code based on a nurse’s cursory evaluation of their affliction. If you are not satisfied with the "care" that is provided there is nowhere else to go, except to an American hospital if you are close enough to the border and can afford to pay cash. Canadians know that if you call an ambulance you can bypass the 10–12 hour wait in the emergency room, but this drives up the costs of healthcare even further.

If there ever was a good fight, Americans, this is it. As we say in Canada, "Youse guys just gotta give ’er, eh!

August 11, 2009

Cathy LeBoeuf-Shouten lives in Hudson, Quebec, Canada.

Reprinted from LewRockwell.com

To put up the good fight, please visit Free Our Health Care Now!

Idaho, Virginia To Sue Over Health Overhaul Measures

"Idaho First to Sign Law Aimed at Health Care Plan" [AP, Mar. 17, 2010]

"[Attorney General] Cuccinelli's Office Confirms Virginia Will Sue Over Health Care" [Washington Post, Mar. 17, 2010]

So the legal challenges to government-imposed health insurance coverage have begun. While Idaho and Virginia are among the first states to vow law suits against the federal government, 36 other states are also considering similar legal action. Taking issue with the violation of individual rights and freedoms that such monstrous legislation would foist upon his constituents, Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter explained:

"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control."

Exactly right! Talking heads have long debated the rights of individuals, but government-run health care ratchets the issue up several notches. Such reforms would radically (and forever) alter the relationship of the individual and the government. No longer would your own body be yours - your own body! Instead, the federal government and the approximately 150 new bureaucratic offices would have a say as to what treatment you deserve (if any) and when (if ever). This is a truly radical proposition!

And the Democrats are hell-bent on forcing this into law without fulfilling the constitutional requirement of a vote occurring in both houses of Congress. While the Senate passed the reform bill that is currently in the House, House leaders are seeking to simply deem the bill passed without members actually voting on it (i.e. - the Slaughter rule). It is this constitutional violation that is at the center of Virginia's legal challenge.

In a letter to Speaker Pelosi, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, said, in part:

"I am writing to urge you not to proceed with the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under a so-called "deem and pass" [Slaughter] rule because such a course of action would raise grave constitutional questions. Based upon media interviews and statements which I have seen, you are considering this approach because it might somehow shield members of Congress from taking a recorded vote on an overwhelmingly unpopular Senate bill.

"Should you employ the deem and pass tactic, you expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge. A bill of this magnitude should not be passed using this maneuver. As the President noted last week, the American people are entitled to an up or down vote."

So let's see...the majority of Americans are against this legislation, states are preparing to sue the federal government over this legislation, one-third of our physicians will quit their professions over this legislation, and yet this administration and congressional Democrats continue full steam ahead like Captain Smith of the Titanic (and we're the passengers, no less!).

So what to do? Make your opposition to Obamacare known! Go to Free Our Healthcare Now!

Physicians: One-Third To Quit Over Health Care Overhaul

The New England Journal of Medicine is reporting that one-third of physicians surveyed would quit their professions or elect early retirement should current health care reforms be passed into law. Worse, if a public option is adopted, that number rises to 45%. The survey, conducted by The Medicus Firm, also found:

• More than 50% of physicians predict that the quality of health care would deteriorate in the United States.
• Less than 24% of physicians unequivocally support a public option in health care reform.
• 63% of physicians would not recommend the profession if current health reform legislation is passed.

It's also worth noting that while the Obama Administration trumpets the support of the American Medical Association, only 38% of U.S. physicians are members of this professional organization, and of this percentage 15% are medical students. So this puts the lie to all claims that a majority of doctors support current Democrat reforms.

Commenting on the survey's findings, Managing Partner Kevin Perpetua, stated:

"Physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases. The overwhelming prediction from physicians is that health reform, if implemented inappropriately, could create a detrimental combination of circumstances, and result in an environment in which it is not possible for most physicians to continue practicing medicine."

Managing Partner Jim Stone also made the following observation:

"What many people may not realize is that health reform could impact physician supply in such a way that the quality of healthcare could suffer...Based on the physicians' responses to the survey, health reform could significantly intensify the effects of the physician shortage. Depending upon which version of the health reform bill passes, the reality is that there may not be enough doctors to provide quality medical care to all of these newly insured people."

Should you share these physicians' concerns, please take a moment to visit Free Our Healthcare Now and let your opposition be heard.

We are blessed to have the best health care in the world - let's not let it be dismantled in the name of statism!

Badges? We Don't Need No Stinking Badges!

This line from Mel Brooks' 'Blazing Saddles' perfectly characterizes the House Democrats' attitude in trying to ram the Senate's health care bill through their chamber. What, pray tell, do I mean? According to the National Journal's Congress Daily (courtesy of the Washington Examiner):

"House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday."

Key line: "...avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill..." Why? Because they don't have the votes! The story continues:

"Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version."

Key line: "...preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed..." Again, why? Because they don't have the votes! And finally:

"Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. 'Once the CBO gives us the score, we'll spring right on it,' she said."

This not only flies in the face of the majority of Americans (of which more than 80% are perfectly happy with their current health care policies), but it is blatantly unconstitutional - and I'm not throwing around this accusation loosely. As Mark Levin so aptly points out, you don't have to be a constitutional scholar (like him) to understand that what the Democrats are trying to do here is entirely contrary to what our Founding Fathers spelled out in our Constitution. Here is the pertinent verbiage from Article 1, Section 7:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States...But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."

To which the Democrats are saying, "Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!" Hell, why bother casting votes on anything anymore? Why not assume that whatever the Speaker's heart so desires, is considered passed? Utterly ridiculous and reprehensible! Their brazenness is truly shocking.

So this is what it must be like living under an oligarchy! No longer do we have a government that represents us. Instead, our current crop of temporary office holders are frantically trying to pass a witches brew of legislation prior to facing their constituents in the next election cycle. Why? Because they know that we don't want any of it!

These imperious lawmakers must be stopped. So what can you do? Take a minute to voice your opinion to your elected representative at Free Our Healthcare Now.

Why? As Edmund Burke once said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Health Care Reform Explained

With President Obama and his Democrat allies hell-bent on shoving their health insurance reforms down our throats, wouldn't it be nice to know just what lies between the buns of this crap-sandwich-of-a-bill they so dearly want us to swallow? As the saying goes, there's nothing better than hearing it straight from the horse's mouth (or in this case, the donkey's mouth). So without further ado, let's earnestly listen to some of the key points of their health reform bill, shall we?

Question 1: Could you please elaborate on the content of said bill?



Say what? Pass it first, then we find out? Is she really our Speaker of the House, or a stand-in from the carnival that rolled into D.C. in 2007?

Question 2: How much will said reforms cost?



Guess what? TelePrompTer had the day off (in case you couldn't tell).

Question 3: Why the urgency to pass a bill, any bill, post haste?



Pardon me, sir, but didn't Democrats hold a super-majority in your chamber prior to Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts? How about chastising your own party for its internecine squabbles, huh? Were it not for that (thank God), you could have passed any bill you so desired, regardless of how frantically Republicans stomped their feet or screeched to high heaven. And by the way, were it not for Republican votes, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed. So Sen. Reid, just who are you criticizing here? But I digress...

Anyway, brilliant answers all. So why wait? Let's reform now!

Facing The Enemy Within

I have long had the highest respect for Americans who serve our country. Whether they come from any branch of the military or law enforcement, or whether they serve in a local fire department, all of these men and women are owed a debt of gratitude that mere words cannot always fully convey. These individuals willingly put their own lives at risk to protect and defend the United States and its citizens from harm. There is no coercion here - they volunteer to do so. While a bad day at work for us 'plain folk' may consist of a tongue-lashing by a demanding boss, a bad day on the job for these other brave men and women may see them dead, never to return home again. Specifically referring to those in the military, Sir Winston Churchill summed it up best in this way:

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Against this backdrop is the continuing saga of three Navy SEALs who are facing court-martial for their handling of a captured terrorist. Last September, Spc.Ops. Huertas, McCabe, and Keefe, were part of a mission to capture Ahmed Hashim Abed, who was responsible for the 2004 killing and mutilation of four American Blackwater contractors in Fallujah, Iraq. Their mangled and charred corpses were prominently hanged on a bridge for all to see.

So what kind of hell was rained upon this captured terrorist? A punch in the gut, or so he says. Hence, three of our elite fighters, our best of the best, are facing court-martial proceedings.

Bid adieu to the days when our soldiers simply killed and broke things, and embrace the glory days of the modern era when our soldiers must coddle sworn enemies and avowed killers, and extend to them all the legal rights formerly reserved for the lowly American citizen!

Under our current administration, however, and the dominance of politically correct congressional dogma (hat tip, Democrats), does this story really come as a surprise? Still have doubts? Then consider the following paragraph from an Investor's Business Daily story - a story that our mainstream media largely ignored:

"Thanks to the vigilance of a couple of bloggers and House Republicans...the $50 billion intelligence authorization bill was stripped of a last-minute amendment that would have made criminals of many U.S. intelligence agents." [IBD, Mar. 1, 2010]

Specifically, this Democrat amendment would have imposed huge fines and a minimum 15-year prison term on any officer who handled their captives in a "cruel, inhuman, and degrading way." Huh? What kind of claptrap is this anyway? Maybe a little clarity, please? The aforementioned article continues:

"Among the transgressions the bill would have outlawed were 'exploiting the phobias of the individual,' 'depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care,' or even 'cramped confinement' or 'prolonged isolation.'" [Ibid]

So let's see - if I had to choose between electric shock, corporal mutilation, and certain death due to beheading (courtesy of these terrorist 'folks') OR having loud music played while trying to sleep, and being frightened at the prospect of insects crawling all over me (not the actual occurrence, just the thought of it), well geez...I guess I'd take the second option.

The sheer outrageousness of this Democrat amendment can be witnessed by the hushed silence in which it was withdrawn. Deserving of meritorious mention in this failed congressional hoodwink is Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra (hero), while the ignominious citation goes to Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott (villain).

It's challenging enough for our military and intelligence personnel to fight our sworn enemies abroad, but to have to deal with them in our homeland, in our nation's capital, among our elected representatives, is simply reprehensible!

Semper Fi.

The Iceman Melts In Mexico

Formula 1 World Driver's Champion (2007), Kimi "The Iceman" Raikkonen, made an early exit from Rally Mexico this weekend - and he did so in spectacular fashion. Check out the video below:



Quite a wild ride, huh? And to think that he was virtually in sight of the finish line, too! Nevertheless, I'd say that The Iceman lived up to his reputation in the interview - he didn't appear to be fazed at all. Like Michael Schumacher, perhaps he'll consider a return to F1 sometime in the future. I know he is missed.

The False Prophets Among Us

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. [Matthew 24:11, KJV]

Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain. [Ezekiel 22:27, NIV]

The hoax of anthropogenic global warming has claimed its first victims, although not by way of any actual ecological destruction. Rather, an Argentinian family recently fulfilled a suicide-homicide pact over their fears of man made global warming, and their government's apparent lack of interest in addressing the issue. Found dead in their Goya, Argentina, home were Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 22, both of whom bore gun shot wounds in their chests. Also found dead was their 2-year-old son, who had been shot in the back. However, the couple's 7-month-old daughter was found alive by officials, who were summoned to the home by neighbors complaining of foul odors. While suffering from a bullet wound to her chest, she survived for 3 days before being discovered. A note found in the home detailed the parents terror over global warming, which culminated in the grisly crime scene.

So one must wonder what the preeminent expert on the subject, former Vice President Al Gore (and every other global warming alarmist, for that matter), has to say about this story, especially since every so-called truth that he revealed in his Oscar-winning movie, An Inconvenient Truth, has been proven false by actual scientists. In fact, in Great Britain the UK Independence Party is seeking to ban the film in schools altogether. The only inconvenient truth for Al Gore at the moment is that he has profited immensely from peddling his environmental rotgut. Current estimates peg his personal wealth in excess of $100 million, and as the UK Telegraph reported last November, "Al Gore could become the world's first carbon billionaire."

Now, I have no problem whatsoever with individuals earning vast sums of money, but to do so on false premises is immoral, and in the case of the Argentinian family, downright criminal, wouldn't you say? Do not the above-mentioned bible verses perfectly apply to this case? Just where is the outrage? Where are the congressional hearings?

Despite this news story, however, and the email dump from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (which detailed a global effort among leading scientists to falsify climate data), and the concession from the facility's leading scientist, Phil Jones, that there has been NO 'statistically significant' global warming in the last 15 years, the University of Tennessee will be awarding preeminent scientist, Al Gore, an honorary doctoral degree. Commenting on the university trustees decision to do so, Chancellor Jimmy Cheek stated, "Vice President Gore's career has been marked by visionary leadership, and his work has quite literally changed our planet for the better."

How? By padding his wallet and killing more people? Let us not forget the admonishment in Ezekiel, "...they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain."

Draw your own conclusions.

Earth From 435 Miles Above

NASA has just released two of the sharpest images of Earth yet. Commenting on the photos, a NASA spokesman has stated, "These are spectacular 'blue marble' images, which show the beauty of our small planet." You can see them for yourself here.

When The State Infiltrates Religion

Earlier this month two senior English bishops advocated an environmentally-correct 'carbon fast' during this season of Lent. Said James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool:

"Traditionally people have given up things for Lent. This year we are inviting people to join us in a carbon fast. It is the poor who are already suffering the effects of climate change. To carry on regardless of their plight is to fly in the face of Christian teaching.

He continued:

"The tragedy is that those with the power to do something about it are least affected, whilst those who are most affected are powerless to bring about change...There's a moral imperative on those of us who emit more than our fair share of carbon to rein in our consumption."

So how are we to make these sacrifices? By following a 40-day plan that calls upon Christians to take actions such as: removing one light bulb and living without it for 40 days (Day 1); checking your house for drafts (Day 2); unplugging your phone charger (Day 3); giving your dishwasher a day off (Day 10); taking a shower instead of a bath (Day 14); composting (Day 20); checking your car's tire pressures (Day 27); insulating your hot water heater (Day 35); and drawing your curtains to retain heat (Day 38).

Now, I have no argument as to the efficacy of taking these steps to be more energy efficient and saving money, or for making these sacrifices in recognition of Lent, for that matter. But to do so in the name of assuaging 'manmade global warming' is preposterous, especially given the recent disclosures from the movement's most prominent scientists that their figures were falsified (at worst) and massaged (at best). If anything, the recent news proves that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, and in a broader sense, that the science used to peddle it as fact has been utterly politicized.

So when church leaders continue to peddle the same myth, can we not conclude that the church itself has become politicized; that the state has infiltrated religion? Where are all those sanctimonious 'Separation-of-Church-and-State' advocates nowadays, hmm?

The Prevaricator-In-Chief

Yesterday was the one-year anniversary of Obama's $787 billion Recovery Act, and to mark the occasion, our prevaricator-in-chief made the following remarks (my comments are interspersed):

"I want to begin by recalling where we were one year ago. Millions of jobs had already been lost to the recession before I was sworn into office. Another 800,000 would be lost in the month of January. We'd later learn that our economy had shrunk by an astounding 6.4 percent in the first quarter of 2009. And economists from across the political spectrum warned that if dramatic action was not taken to break the back of the recession, the United States could spiral into another depression."

In other words, "Hey, this isn't my fault." With promises that swift passage of the Recovery Act would ensure unemployment would remain below 8% (after which it reached just over 10% this past month), our blameless president is still harping on the prior administration's supposed misfeasance (by comparison, the United States had 52 months of uninterrupted job growth following the Bush tax reforms of 2003 [the longest run on record]; the annual unemployment rate never exceeded 6% under Bush; and the economy experienced 24 consecutive quarters of growth - all this on the heels of the 9/11 attacks, no less).

Let us also remember that it is Congress that controls the purse strings, regardless of what any President desires. Let us recall, too, that by the end of 2007 our budget deficit stood at $160 billion; by the end of 2008 the figure had risen to $458 billion; and by the end of 2009 it had skyrocketed to $1.4 trillion - a staggering 9-fold increase in two years!

So which party controlled the congressional spending during these years? The Democrats. It was they who assumed control of both congressional chambers in January 2007. And which two senators voted 'aye' for every spending measure? Obama and Biden. So where's the outrage over this outright hypocrisy? I guess it's best summed up in the words of Leslie Nielsen's Naked Gun character, Sgt. Frank Drebin, "Please move on, there's nothing to be seen here..."

Obama continued:

"One year later, it is largely thanks to the Recovery Act that a second depression is no longer a possibility...So far, the Recovery Act is responsible for the jobs of about 2 million Americans who would otherwise be unemployed. These aren't just our numbers; these are the estimates of independent, nonpartisan economists across the spectrum."

Balderdash! How can anyone calculate with any accuracy a figure so abstract? I suppose that the very economists to whom Obama refers must have devised a new math - after all, aren't they the experts who are continually surprised when their economic forecasts fall flat upon the release of monthly economic figures? (i.e.- experts had predicted 'X', but the figures unexpectedly came in at 'Y'...)

And he continued:

"...millions of Americans are still without jobs. Millions more are struggling to make ends meet. So it doesn't yet feel like much of a recovery. And I understand that. It's why we're going to continue to do everything in our power to turn this economy around."

It doesn't yet feel like a recovery because there is no recovery! The answer to our economic dilemma is exactly the opposite of what Obama insists on doing; and that is, for government to get out of the way, and let the free market do its time-proven job of creating wealth domestically, and as a result, globally.

Obama again:

"Now, just to review: One-third of the money in this bill - one-third - was made up of tax cuts. I talked about this at the State of the Union. Tax cuts for 95 percent of working Americans."

To quote Rep. Joe Wilson, "You lie!" There's a big difference between a tax cut and a tax credit. The former is something that is lasting and about which you need no longer worry (unless a tax hike is proposed), while the latter is a one-time government payment to a private citizen or business that may or may not have to be repaid. Considering this, then, which one would lend more security? And as far as Obama's promises that a typical family's taxes will not rise by a single dime, just wait until January 2011 when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, which means that everyone's taxes will go up (but not in the eyes of this administration!)...

And on he labored:

"Now, the last third of the Recovery Act is what I want to talk a little bit about more today...That third is about rebuilding our economy on a new and stronger foundation for growth over the long term."

Maybe in Fantasyland, but not in the real world. Appearing on Neil Cavuto's show today, economist Art Laffer (a member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board) summarized the reasons why our country will not experience a return to prosperity under this administration, and they are:

1. Overspending.
2. Hiking tax rates.
3. Printing too much money.
4. Over-regulating.
5. Restricting the flow of goods & services across national boundaries.

However, do not fear - we should prosper again in 2014 (yippee!), but a presidential election must be won by a candidate who has the wherewithal and conviction to roll back the profligacy of the Obama era.

Let us hope, too, that a Republican landslide in November will stymie most of the Obama agenda, and foster the aforementioned roll-back.

The Writing On The Wall

"[Sen.] Roland Burris Won't Run For Senate Seat In 2010" [Chicago Sun-Times, July 10, 2009]

"Governor Bill Ritter Won't Seek Re-Election In 2010" [KRDO ABC-13, Jan. 5, 2010]

"[Sen.] Dorgan Says He Will Not Seek Re-Election" [USA Today, Jan. 6, 2010]

"Sen. Chris Dodd Announces He Won't Seek Re-Election" [CNN, Jan. 6, 2010]

"[A.G.] Beau Biden, VP's Son, Won't Seek Senate Seat" [USA Today, Jan. 26, 2010] The seat is currently held by VP Biden's replacement, Ted Kaufman, who will not run in 2010.

"Rep. Patrick Kennedy Will Not Seek Re-Election" [Fox News, Feb. 12, 2010]

"[Sen.] Evan Bayh Will Not Seek Re-Election" [IndyStar.com, Feb.15, 2010]

What is the common thread here? All are Democrats. Sure, there are Republicans who will not be seeking re-election in November, but many of them are moderates. Case in point: moderate Sen. John McCain is likely to face his stiffest challenge yet in former Republican Rep. (and staunch conservative) J.D. Hayworth. Many would argue (as do I) that it was this maverick's moderate stances that cost him the presidential election in 2008. Had the Republicans run an unabashed conservative candidate instead, an entirely different outcome would have been likely.

So what's the source of the aforementioned hubbub? An over-reaching federal government that is transmogrifying our great country into something radically different. Americans are fed up with all the 'crap sandwiches' being served up in Washington D.C., and as such, these elected leaders are scrambling out of the kitchen now before facing the heat of their constituents in November (including the Colorado governor). After making a mess, these representatives are bailing out. Or to paraphrase Andrew Wilkow, "It's like the guy who throws up at your party and then leaves."

Without a doubt, however, the month of November will mark an actual case of manmade global warming, courtesy of a fired up electorate. Feeling the heat will be liberal and progressive Democrats, radical statists, and spineless moderates (whether they be Democrat or Republican). Feeding the flames will be an alliance of conservatives, libertarians, independents, and disillusioned former Obama supporters (i.e. - the Obama girl).

For whatever shortcomings the current administration sees in our country, and which it is thereby trying to fundamentally change, I contend that a vast majority of Americans want to preserve what our forefathers created some 230 years ago. Most would agree with the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan when he said the following:

"Am I embarrassed to speak for a less than perfect democracy? Not one bit. Find me a better one. Do I suppose there are societies which are free of sin? No, I don't. Do I think ours is, on balance, incomparably the most hopeful set of human relations the world has? Yes, I do." [DPM, 1975]

Amen to that.

Obama Approval Rating Hits New Low

As the president and congressional Democrats double down on their Big Government agenda, a new Marist College Survey shows Obama's approval rating sliding down to 44%, "the lowest he has scored in any non-internet poll since moving into the WH (sic)..." (source: National Journal). As a sign of the times (pun intended), a small group of business owners have paid for the erection of the above billboard in Minnesota. While speculation swirls around the internet as to its authenticity, Minnesota Public Radio has confirmed that it is, indeed, real.

In support of the president's past and current agendas, Michelle Obama appeared on Good Morning America today, and responded to Barack's critics thusly:

"I think my husband has done a phenomenal job staying on course, looking his critics in the eye, coming up with clear solutions against staying the course...That's what leadership is. But people have the right to criticize the president of the United States...

"One of the things that Barack Obama said and continues to say is change isn't easy, and it doesn't happen overnight. And it certainly doesn't happen in a year.

"He's not done yet. He's got more time."

Huh?

Sounds like the Obamas are channelling Reagan's slogan, 'You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet!' This time around, however, we HAVE seen it, and we DON'T want it.

Nevertheless, the Senate is considering another $80 billion jobs bill that could pass this week.

Huh? Spend, spend, spend.

Is it any surprise that Obama's approval ratings have slipped so far; that Republicans have won key elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts? Isn't it just a wee bit curious that the vast majority of voters understand that the country is going down the wrong track, but our elected representatives, most of whom are Democrats, think otherwise?

One cannot help but think that the precipitous road trip we're on is intentional, and the ultimate goal is a far-reaching, intrusive federal government shoved down our throats.

And these guys called Bush a fascist?

In the words of former Rep. James Traficant, "Beam me up!"

Bashing 'Life' As A Choice

Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, appeared in a television commercial sponsored by Focus On The Family. The spot aired during last night's Super Bowl, and alludes to Pam's decision to keep her baby despite her doctor's recommendation to abort due to medical complications brought on by amoebic dysentery. This very controversial video follows, along with reaction from the President of the National Organization for Women:



"I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it...That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself." [Terry O'Neill, NOW President, as quoted in LA Times, November 8, 2010]

I have long taken issue with the labeling of both sides as either 'Pro-Life' or 'Pro-Choice.' If one considers the latter, then it assumes that 'Pro-Life' is not a choice, does it not? On the contrary, if one considers 'Pro-Life,' then what is the only logical opposite stance? Answer: 'Pro-Death.' If this language sounds too strong, good - because death is a serious matter (especially for those who have no voice). And Ms. O'Neill's shrill reaction to this innocuous commercial reveals the true stance of the 'Pro-Choice' crowd: 'Pro-Death.'

This line of reasoning is not too far-fetched. Let us recall that it was State Senator Barack Obama, who opposed an Illinois bill that required life saving treatment be provided to babies surviving botched abortions. Seems like a cut and dried case of 'Pro-Death' to me.

Let us not forget, too, that the unborn life has a choice. Only a change in the hearts of our citizens will bring an end to these procedures. Pam and Tim Tebow should be recognized for the wonderful service they have done for us all.

I Was Right (And Will Be Right Again)

In my January 4th post I made the following prediction:

Favored by 3 points, the Saints of New Orleans will defeat the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLIV.

Not only was my match-up correct, but the outcome exceeded my expectations, too (as we know, Saints won 31-17). Proud as I am about this prognostication, however, I have to give credit to Bud Goode and his statistical analysis at Bud Goode Sports. Lord knows I don't have the insight to make such calls independently!

On another note, my second prediction in the aforementioned post was that Republicans would win back Congressional majorities in the mid-term elections. As I've mentioned throughout this blog, the electorate's recent rebuke of the Democrat (statist) agenda in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts, will translate to a national whipping come November.

Americans are as attentive as ever. They do not want their country "fundamentally transformed" (as Obama declared just days prior to the 2008 presidential election). Whether it's liberalism, progressivism, or statism, the world is already awash with countries rooted in these beliefs, and Americans don't want any part of it here in the Land of the Free.

Our country is unique in this world. Our country's founding was providential. Americans recognize these traits, and they will protect and defend her, even when those in elected office try to "fundamentally transform" her.

Here's looking forward to November...

Pelosi Blasts President On Jobs

California Democrat Nancy Pelosi released a statement on the nation's unemployment troubles. Excerpts follow:

“The fact is that [the President's] misguided economic policies have failed to create jobs. Since [he] took office, the country has lost 3.2 million jobs, the worst record since President Hoover...

“Job losses are taking a real toll on the financial security of American families. While Democrats are fighting for opportunity, jobs, and economic security for working families, [the President and] Republicans continue to focus on helping those who need help the least.

“According to today’s survey, while the national unemployment rate dropped slightly, it still stands at a near record high...

“It is time for [the President] and the Republicans to get to work for all Americans, not just the elite few.”

Well, there you have it - the Democrat tide has turned against the President, led by none other than Ms. Pelosi herself.

Oh yeah, did I mention this statement was issued on August 1, 2003? You know, when George W was president? And with the release of today's crappy jobs report, has Ms. Pelosi suddenly turned dumb? (as in 'cat got her tongue' and not the other meaning [i.e. - stupid], but that's another issue) Let's compare the latest figures against those that Ms. Pelosi railed against back in 2003:

Jul 2003 (Bush) Unemployment Rate: 6.2%
Jan 2010 (Obama) Unemployment Rate: 9.7%

Jul 2003 (Bush) Non-farm Payrolls: +25,000
Jan 2010 (Obama) Non-farm Payrolls: -20,000 (preliminary)

(Figures from Bureau of Labor Statistics)

While Obama and the media spin the drop in unemployment from 10% to 9.7% as good news (and a testament to the administration's brilliant nostrums), the total number of jobs lost since the recession's onset was revised upwards by 1.2 million (to a total of 8.4 million). The fact that January still saw a loss of 20,000 jobs is not good news either. With all of the stimulation and manipulation (or Obamanation) already done to rescue our economy, we should be witnessing economic and employment growth by now.

So Ms. Pelosi, where's your outrage?

On The Road To Serfdom

In his 1944 classic treatise, The Road To Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek discusses how an individual's freedom erodes as greater economic control is assumed by the government. Usurping this control in the name of 'fairness,' the devolution to statism "would control what we consume almost as effectively as if it directly told us how to spend our income." Using the Germany of his time, Hayek outlines how the promises of socialism inevitably led to totalitarianism.



In the fall of 2008, Barack Obama declared, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." Setting aside the obvious racial component to the election, the release of his $3,800,000,000,000 budget this past Monday (as well as his machinations over the past year), represents his true intentions for the country. In a way, Obama's attempts to 'stabilize' our economy could have been taken right out of the book handed to him by Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez, during last April's Summit of the Americas. Just like the South American strongman, Obama has orchestrated the federal takeover and manipulation of private industries (i.e. - automobiles, banks), and his progressive push shows no signs of stagnating.

Of the president's budget, USA Today commented, "Since taking office last year, President Obama has been preaching fiscal restraint while practicing something else...[The budget] forecasts an endless flow of red ink that will push the American economy relentlessly toward a perilous economic precipice." Spend, spend, spend, or as House Majority Whip James Clyburn [D] surmised, "We're not going to save our way out of this recession...We've got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that."

Say what?

It frosts me that these pointy-headed Washington elites continue to foist their ill-conceived notions of economics upon the rest of us, and against the facts history. The fastest and healthiest way out of a recession is by growth - and not by growth of government. Rather, by growth of industry. It simply doesn't make sense for the government to spend more of our money (as well as the money not yet earned by those not yet born!) to return to businesses in the form of measly tax credits towards the hiring of workers. Why not let citizens and corporations (who must do the hiring in the first place) keep more of what little they earn nowadays? What's needed now are across-the-board tax cuts for every citizen, the elimination of capital gains and estate taxes, and the slashing of corporate tax rates. By simply announcing these key measures, Obama could be credited with a surge in stock markets around the world the likes of which have never been seen before.

Unfortunately, he would never make such an announcement. He simply couldn't. Doing so would render 'the state' less needed by those of us governed by it. And so the story goes.

This is a crucial time for freedom-loving Americans. Are we to continue down the road to serfdom, or will we have the wherewithal to resist; to take the proven route to prosperity?