Interesting Point About President Obama's Legitimacy

This is a little dry, but it raises some issues that I hadn't heard about. I need to do some more research into her claims, but if what she is saying is true we have a real problem.

Part 1



Part 2

Lords and Ladies

If you would like a clear demonstration of where the policies of the Obama Administration and the Congress are taking our nation, you should read an article from the Associated Press about California. Here are some highlights interspersed with my running commentary (emphases mine):

The crisis is a sort of political comeuppance for Schwarzenegger, who took over a state with a projected $16 billion gap in 2003 and promised to end California's "crazy deficit spending." (I guess he didn't succeed.)

The gap has two primary causes: The state has been living beyond its means for years by spending generously on all sorts of programs that the voters, the politicians and the special interests wanted. (Hmmmm... where have I heard of this being done before? Oh yes, our Federal lawmakers have been doing this for the past 9 years, and from the looks of things they have finally figured out how to do it right!) And the recession has hammered California's economy....

...The governor's cutbacks could include ending the state's main welfare program for the poor, eliminating health coverage for about 1.5 million poor children, halting cash grants for about 77,000 college students, shortening the school year by seven days, (At least this one is likely to make someone happy and isn't likely to hurt the kids' education.) laying off thousands of state workers and teachers, slashing money for state parks and releasing thousands of prisoners before their sentences are finished. (Looks like the gravy train done left the station.) ...

...The drastic cuts that appear to lie ahead will, by accident, accomplish the stark reduction in state government that many Republicans have long advocated.

"We should have been limiting the growth of government for years," Villines said. (He's a Republican. Too bad they didn't do it. I wonder if anyone in Washington is taking notes? Not likely. Hey, isn't Nancy Pelosi from California?) ...

...A separate commission is expected to release a proposal to rework the state's tax structure, which is vulnerable to booms and busts in California's economy because it relies heavily on high-income earners. (But wait! I thought wealth redistribution was supposed to be a good thing. This must be a mistake! You mean the President was wrong about that too?) The state also has few limits on what state government can spend and a small rainy day fund that can easily be raided by the politicians. (You mean like Social Security?) ...

Let the hand wringing begin. And that is exactly where our nation is headed if the Federal Government doesn't reign its spending in HARD. You can't pass the largest stimulus bill the world has ever seen, add tons of pork to every bill, finance a war, and fly every senator, representative, staff member, and cabinet member everywhere they go and not see this happen on a national level. You want a warning? LOOK AT CALIFORNIA!!!! This is where we will be before the Obama administration has finished this term if something isn't done quickly to establish some restraint in our government.

Ask Zimbabwe, Argentina, and Brazil how much fun it is to face hyperinflation. Our nation could very well lose its influence in the world and its ability to project power if this is allowed to happen here. It scares me to think of what we may resort to as a nation to defend ourselves in that hour should it come.

The article also said that the state is approaching the Federal Government about a bailout. Great. Just what we need. (Crap, Nancy Pelosi IS from California. What are the chances she'll turn down the chance to throw some do re mi at her peeps?) And if one gets it, you can rest assured that every other state will have to line up for it. It won't matter anyway. All the states that try to exercise some fiscal restraint will likely be sucked down in the vortex created by the states that rush to grab the money first.

North Carolina is apparently in no better condition than California. We are about to close prisons, cut all state employees' salaries (except for our dear legislators and elected officials, bless their hearts), lay off teachers and a whole bunch of other stuff, and yet we have one of the higher tax rates in the nation. Ah, the utopia of the liberal agenda!

Am I the only one who is wondering where all the money is going? I mean we have a lottery that is apparently selling lots of tickets. (The powerball is up to 192 million dollars as of Wednesday night.) The roads aren't getting fixed. They've been bleeding the universities since Easley was governor. Where the crap is all the money going?! I think we need to get some IRS auditors in to audit the government. There's a hole in the boat somewhere.

I'm glad to hear that they have started investigating former governor, Mike Easley, for misappropriation of public money while in office and examining the audacious contract between his wife and my alma mater, NC State. Apparently they are paying her nearly $1,000,000 over the course of five years to arrange a few speakers to come and speak at the university. Bless her heart! I'd gladly do it for half that. Maybe even ¼ of that if I could telecommute. I'd be willing to bet she doesn't do $50,000 worth of work the entire five years. Well, the university need not send me any pleas for money while crap like this is going on.

I am so sick of people being payed far more than they or the job they are doing is worth because they are "connected." I am tired of the Mike Easleys and Nancy Pelosis of this world thinking that they deserve preferential treatment and perks on the public dollar when all they know how to do is serve themselves and run a nation or a state into the ground. I'm tired of CEOs making millions every year whose only skills are to take a viable, healthy company and bleed all of its assets off and know when to jump ship before the effects hit the balance sheet. This junk has to stop.

Our nation was never supposed to have an aristocracy. Where did we get all of these people who think that they are lords and ladies? I can assure you that not one of them works as hard as any of my grandparents did, and my grandparents probably never made as much in their lifetimes as these people make in a year - maybe even a month. I'm pretty sure that they aren't any smarter than my folks either. So why would these "aristos" be entitled to any more than my hard-working grandparents got?

And that is another thing. Why is it that when President Bush was in office his intelligence was constantly slandered, and yet when President Obama finds himself reversing what he promised in his campaign and doing and saying some of the exact same things that President Bush was doing that he is refreshingly intelligent? I am utterly sick of people who are not as smart as President Bush or Sarah Palin belittling their intelligence. Most of the people who are doing so are totally on board with all of the President's left wing policies and believe all of his, er, nuanced answers. How intelligent is that?

When this Administration and this Congress manage to put our nation in the situation in which California finds itself (for I have no hope that they will do otherwise) I am sure that there will be lots of blame casting between the Republicans and Democrats. I'm sure that this will all somehow become President George W. Bush's fault. But the bottom line is that it is "we the people's" fault because we failed to hold our elected officials, educators, and corporate leaders accountable for their malfeasance, self-serving attitudes, and incompetence. (I am not suggesting that all elected officials, educators and corporate leaders are guilty of these things. Certainly there are some who are doing a good job, but sadly the tide seems to be flowing hard against them.)

Regardless of what anyone thinks, all governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. It would seem that as a people we have decided that it is OK to sell the freedoms and liberties and true prosperity that had been won and defended for generations, for a figurative bowl of stew - a little short term gain. Looks like there were lumps in the gravy.

I leave you with a selection from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Look to your foundations, America. They are crumbling. Think on that this Memorial Day weekend, and remember the many people whose blood helped to establish and protect them. Don't let their sacrifices be squandered. They deserve more honor than that.

HUZZAH!!!!!!! I Wish Every Republican Senator Had This Guy's Moxie

Mr. President, these words apply as aptly to you as they did to the British Prime Minister. It is equally applicable to every congressman and senator who has used his or her position to increase discretionary spending and line his own pockets. I am frankly sick of each and every one of you who uses political doublespeak to to pretend that you are actually doing something for this country when you are only busy serving yourselves. You will stand before a holy God one day and answer for your malfeasance and for your utter disregard of God's law. It would be better for you to be taken out to the deepest part of the ocean, chained to an anchor, and launched overboard than to be standing in that Courtroom on that day in your present condition.

Amen.

Pretty much sums it up...

Um, Can They Do That?

In an article titled Livid Democrats Demand AIG Return Bailout Bonuses I read today,

Whatever the process, lawmakers of all stripes said, the money — generally "retention payments" to keep prized employees — belongs back in the government's hands.

"Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in an unusually strong threat delivered on the Senate floor.

"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer of New York.

Not all Democratic leaders were racing in that direction. Penalizing people with the tax code could be inappropriate, declared Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the taxwriting Ways and Means Committee. He said, "It's difficult for me to think of the code as a political weapon."

I don't think that they can do that. How can the government legally target specific individuals for taxation penalties? If they can, then things are worse than I thought, and we might as well change the flag to a solid red field with a gold sickle and hammer crossed in the upper left hand corner.

If the people in Congress and the White House had intended for these funds to not be used that way then they should have had the foresight to stipulate that. Or even better they should have let capitalism do it's thing, letting the companies that have been competently managed thrive and the ones run by boobs sink. The share holders in these companies ought to be out for scalps.

According to the article it would seem that these bonuses were contractual.

Administration officials said Geithner did all that he legally could to avert the payments.

Geithner urged AIG's Liddy last week to renegotiate the contracts that called for the bonuses.

"He recognized that you can't just abrogate contracts willy-nilly, but he moved to do what could be done," Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, told the AP in an interview Tuesday.

How do I get in on a contract that will pay me million dollar plus bonuses if I run the company into the ground on top of a multi-million dollar salary? I need to get me some of that. How is it that the share holders allow this sort of thing to go on? Something stinks like five-day-old road-kill. The "little people" don't get deals like that. No wonder American business is floundering. Toddlers are sailing the ship. Wait, toddlers would probably do a better job.

Quote Of The Day

You can't help but wonder if Democrats ever pay taxes. It seems from the headlines that the way it works is that Democrats levy taxes but only Republicans have to pay them. (Republicans and proles.... Yes, it would seem that the Democrats are applying Matthew 17:24-27 to themselves. Too bad this question wasn't above their pay grade.)

For a president who said he was going to preside over the most ethical administration in history, Barack Obama has shown an astounding talent of being able to find appointees who mistakenly manage to forget to pay their taxes. (Our good President couldn't even carry his predecessor's shoes in this department, let alone fill them or exceed them.) ...

When a Democrat stands before a judge after straying from the straight and narrow you can expect that he will admit to having made a mistake and, what the heck, everybody makes mistakes. That's why they put erasers on pencils. (The real travesty is that the poor, misunderstood, Democrat was actually called on the carpet for doing so.)

- Michael Reagan from his article When Crimes Become Mistakes
(Parenthetical comments all mine.)

Bravo, Michael Reagan! These crooks think that they are getting away with this stuff, but a reckoning is coming... a reckoning is coming.

HUZZAH! Tom Daschle Backs Out!

Oh this is some of the best political news I have heard in a long time. Tom Daschle didn't get a free pass on his failure to pay his taxes. It is one thing to not pay when you don't have the money to pay, but an entirely different matter when you are making millions of dollars a year. And it seems terribly suspicious for someone who helped to write the tax laws to not understand them. If he really didn't understand them, then how are the rest of us proles supposed to?

I hope that the President will begin to do a better job of selecting people with the character to fill the offices that he is appointing them to instead of selecting his old Washington insider buddies for these jobs. I thought we were supposed to be getting change? I guess it is like Cal Thomas said in his article Leona Helmsley Lives,

"Recall President Obama's vow to "change the culture of Washington." With Geithner and Daschle (and prior to them, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who withdrew his nomination for commerce secretary under pressure of a federal investigation into how his political donors landed a lucrative transportation contract), we are still waiting for "change we can believe in."

The article I read points out that not one, but FOUR of the President's nominees have been tarred with character weakness. Thank God that three of them won't be "serving" (most likely themselves) in these roles anymore. I'm glad that America still gets ticked off about some moral issues. Too bad that the list doesn't seem to include outrage over the wholesale slaughter of the unborn in our nation.

The White House announced that Daschle had asked to be removed from consideration as health and human services secretary and that that Nancy Killefer had made the same request concerning what was to be her groundbreaking appointment as a chief performance officer to make the entire government run better.

"They both recognized that you can't set an example of responsibility but accept a different standard of who serves," said spokesman Gibbs.

Sounds like the same old Washington to me.

Need more? Here it is:

Bill Richardson had been Obama's first choice for commerce secretary, but the New Mexico governor bowed out amid a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors. And last week, the Senate confirmed Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary, but only after days of controversy over the fact that he had only belatedly paid $34,000 in income taxes....

Democratic lawmakers were surprised, too - and disappointed. Axelrod rushed to Capitol Hill to soothe frayed nerves.

"I was a little stunned. I thought he was going to get confirmed," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the panel that would have voted on Daschle's nomination. "It's regrettable."

Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Daschle's former Democratic colleagues had leapt to the former Democratic leader's defense. And it seemed that the clubby way that senators treat one of their own was likely to help Daschle survive the controversy.

But particularly after the divisive Geithner debate and vote, it apparently became too bitter a pill. Tax issues are easy for the public to understand, and also particularly easy to resent in wealthy officials at a time of widespread economic crisis.

They also created an opening for a drumbeat of criticism from Republicans and on newspaper editorial pages that Obama was engaging in a double standard: proclaiming his administration to be more ethical, responsible and special interest-free than his predecessors' and yet carving out exceptions almost daily.

All I can say is "THANK YOU JESUS!" I hope that the Lord will continue to expose every single scalawag in Washington and remove them - even though that might mean starting from scratch. I am sure that we wouldn't be worse off than we are now.

Joe The Plumber

I just saw an excellent video that encapsulates very well why I do not support Barack Obama's economic "plan." (Scheme seems a more appropriate term.)



If you want to see most of the conversation between Barack and Joe you can see it HERE.

Neil Cavuto of Fox News interviewed Joe. It was also worth viewing.



Barack Obama is a master of obfuscation. In another video that I saw today Charlie Gibson pointed out that in both cases when the Capital Gains tax was lowered (by Bill Clinton and by George W. Bush) that tax revenue increased. Barack objected that he didn't care about revenue he cared about fairness. Then, of course, he turned around and said that you have to have enough revenue to "pay as you go."

I have a real problem with this Obamanomics. First of all, it is utterly socialist for the government to redistribute wealth. In fact, it really goes beyond socialism - that is more a tenet of communism. The communists "redistributed the wealth" by taking all of the wealth so that everyone (except for those in charge) were dirt poor. Odd thing was - it still wasn't fair. And it deincentivised the workers in the society by removing any reward for their labor.

This is what Barack Obama proposes: The government is all-knowing and all-wise and knows what a "fair wage" is far better than you do. If you (or your business) get above that level of income the government should knock you back down to size and take your "excess" because it can waste money far better than you ever imagined was possible.

As a former small business owner, I can testify that the amount of revenue that a company brings in is in NO WAY a reflection of the income that the owner takes home. My "prosperous" real estate business bled out three times what I took home in expenses. In one good year where I actually managed to make about $10,000 more than the average my taxes knocked me back down to making LESS than I had the year before. Even with revenue over $100,000, my take home pay was not enough to make ends meet, and I do not live an extravagant lifestyle by any means. (I live in a modest home under 900 square feet. I own one vehicle. I don't have any "toys" like boats or 4-wheelers or things like that.)

This will only get worse under Obama's "brilliant" plan.

In fact, Obama's many assurances that he plans to lower taxes for us peasants appear to be prevarication. According to a recent email that I received:

Obama plans to charge 28% Capital Gains Tax on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.) How well do you think that will help the housing crisis? Funny how he didn't mention that part in his discussion with Joe.

Obama plans to raise the dividend tax from 15% to 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.') Remember what Charlie Gibson said in the debate? Lowering taxes INCREASED tax revenue.

This increased dividend tax will also hurt small business owners who have incorporated under an "S" corporation. They are able to reduce their tax liability by paying themselves dividends instead of income. Yet one more way Obama is planning to pillage the little guy.

Obama also wants to reverse the Bush Administration tax cuts in the income tax. Currently these liabilities are as follows:

Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Under Obama's plan?

Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

And Obama wants to bring back the inheritance tax too. This tax was never fair. All of the items in an inheritance have already been taxed throughout an individual's lifetime. Yet the government decided that they could rape the heirs by stealing the estate that a person worked so hard for all their life through taxes. Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes. This is basically the government playing God. By this tax they are saying, "I have given you all of these things and so I deserve to take them back."

In addition to these tax increases, Obama plans to penalize people for buying houses that are too large (new government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.) The government under Obama will suddenly have the right to determine how big a house you should have. He also plans to add new taxes for natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) because the government should also save the world from "global warming," no doubt. Communism, my friends.

Oh yes, and then there is the increase that Obama plans for the gasoline tax. And plans to tax your retirement accounts. And new taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

If Barack Obama was interested in "fairness" over revenue, then he should be talking about the fair tax plan proposed by Mike Huckabee and others. Why not have a flat tax based on consumption rather than based on income? Think of the reduction of government expense if they didn't have to employ an army of auditors to keep the people of our country afraid to do their taxes. Turn those auditors against the government bureaucracy! Let them find the waste in the government and root out the dead wood. That would account for a huge reduction in revenue needed to run the government.

Wouldn't it be much nicer if no one had to worry about doing taxes? If they were handled whenever you made a new purchase? Those who spend less will pay fewer taxes. Those who spend more will pay more taxes. Makes sense to me. Accountants will be able to keep normal hours throughout the year and focus on other aspects of their business that are more enjoyable and incur less liability than personal and business income taxes do.

Barack Obama's economic/taxation policy will bankrupt America. It will take a shaky economy and send it in an unrecoverable tailspin. I pray to the Lord that he never gets his way.

(The text in italics is taken directly from the email that I received. A couple links were offered as verification for the claims made, but there are about 50 articles between the two links and I have not had time to fully investigate. And both links take you to CNN sources, which I hardly trust as unbiased or trustworthy. Is everything contained in this email true? I don't know. The articles that I have tried to scan seem to be all over the place, just like Obama's answers to every question that is asked him.)

In the end, regardless of whether this data is completely true or not it does not influence my decision one iota. I had already made up my mind before I saw this, and it only serves to reinforce that decision. I may take the time to verify all of this data, but realistically I probably won't. I don't have the time, interest, or patience to deal with a whole lot of political hooey right now. You can check the links that I provided above if you have an inquiring mind.

Truth For Sale

You really should watch this report. This is one very large part of what is wrong in America today.

When I was growing up during the Cold War we were always taught about the difference between the freedoms that we have in the United States and the oppression that the Soviets suffered under. We were told that one of the greatest differences between our two cultures was that in America we had freedom of speech. It is too bad that that turned out to be an American mythology on par with the story of Washington throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River.

Of all of the sacred cows that exist in this country, the First Amendment is probably the greatest. And yet this report shows just how greatly injustice, greed, and oppression are the rule of the day in this country I love so much. No wonder nature seems to be conspiring against us. If we don't change soon I fear that judgment will be unavoidable.

In the face of intentional distortion by the mainstream media is there any questioning why more and more people find themselves asking the very question that Pilate asked over 2,000 years ago? "What is truth?"

New Partner In The Axis Of Evil...

Hugo Chavez and his puppets are laying siege to Columbia. I saw this coming. Hugo Chavez plans to rule all of South and Central America either directly or indirectly. All of his actions have pointed to this.

A few months ago Chavez sent "aid" to the victims of an earthquake in Peru. Printed on the packaging of this aid was propaganda about how the government of Peru had failed the people and how much better Chavez could do. Chavez has also been cozy with Nicaragua, Cuba, and Ecuador.

Several months ago Chavez "magnanimously" offered to help try to negotiate a truce between the terrorist organization FARC and the Columbian government. I knew that it was a mistake for President Uribe to allow that to happen. That agreement was eventually cut short when Chavez overstepped the bounds of his authority in dealing with FARC.

So all of this drama on the border of Columbia all came about because Columbia performed a military action inside of Ecuador against FARC without the permission of the Ecuadorian government. I'm wondering what this has to do with Chavez... oh yes, Ecuador is Chavez's lap dog. So Hugo Chavez, messiah of the downtrodden has rushed to the border with his troops.

I was originally very concerned about this and was hoping that the US was going to back Columbia. I mean, two countries against one (Ecuador and Venezuela vs Columbia) hardly seemed like good odds. According to an article that I read on My Way News the army of Columbia significantly larger than both of these armies combined.

Venezuela and Ecuador have about 172,000 active military troops between them. Colombia's U.S.-equipped, trained and advised military has more than 250,000.

Still, I am a little concerned about who else may be around. I know that Venezuela has been receiving military assistance from China. There is also the FARC to consider.

President Bush has backed President Uribe in this crisis. I am glad to see that. I would hate for us to have to become militarily-involved in South America on a large scale. I am concerned, though, that if something isn't done about Chavez soon, it may be too late to avoid a very costly war with dire consequences.

Since the raid, evidence has been discovered that all but proves that Chavez has been allied with FARC for as long as 10 years. There were also documents that seem to point to some sort of CIA overtures to the terrorists.

References to U.S. diplomatic overtures are scintillating, if vague.

In a Dec. 11 message to the secretariat, Marquez writes: "If you are in agreement, I can receive Jim and Tucker to hear the proposal of the gringos." ...

Writing two days before his death, Reyes tells his secretariat comrades that "the gringos," working through Ecuador's government, are interested "in talking to us on various issues."

"They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama," noting that Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.

Reyes said the response he relayed is that the United States would have to publicly express that desire.

This quote is disturbing to me on so many levels.

First of all, I feel confident that these spooks are not operating under the authority of President Bush. If this supposition is true, then I think that the organization is in dire need of a shake-up. It will probably never happen. There are things you find out sometimes that it would just be better if you didn't know - especially when you have no power to change things. A little ignorance goes a long way to a better night's sleep.

Secondly, the spooks seemed awful confident that Obama will not only win his party's nomination but will also win the general election. Perhaps they were only saying what they thought these terrorists wanted to hear. I hope so. I would really like to believe that it matters who I vote for in November. (And I REALLY hope they are wrong regardless of their motive.)

We live in a very dangerous world.

Update: March 7, 2008 21:50

Apparently the conflict is over - for now.

But What About The Polar Ice Caps?

So I read this brilliant article today about the polar ice caps. Turns out that they didn't move out permanently - they just went on vacation.

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

Call me smug. Call Gore a liar. AND QUIT INTERFERING WITH MY LIFE AND WASTING MY MONEY WITH YOUR STUPID LEGALIZED EXTORTION SAVE THE WORLD SCHEMES! There is one thing and one thing only that is going to bring about the end of the world: man's sin. PERIOD. Man's sin has created the whole mess.

Every time I turn around there is some new scam being perpetrated on the American people. "Ohmygosh! We're going to burn ourselves up! Global warming! Global warming! Let's make ethanol to save ourselves from ourselves!" "Ohcrap! That made the price of corn go up - and it didn't reduce greenhouse emissions in the first place! (And the oil companies are threatening to take away all that money they give me if I keep pushing this ethanol stuff.)"

I even heard a group of scientists the other day that are ready to suggest that it is actually another Ice Age that we need to fear. Good grief!

I am so utterly sick of the corruption and the lies. They aren't even believable lies anymore. Back in the 70s they told us that we were running out of oil - said that we'd be out by the late 70s or early 80s. Guess what? We still have oil. In fact, every week I keep hearing reports of some huge new oilfield that has been discovered that I should invest in.

There is one reason and one reason only to develop bio-fuels: to provide an alternative to the oil companies' and commodity traders' greed. I firmly believe that the international community's about-face on ethanol has far less to do with corn-driven inflation and far more to do with threats to these spokespeople from the oil industry. Big oil doesn't want any other players on the field, and the politicians don't want to lose that Sugar Daddy. It would be awful hard for Exxon to post those record profits if demand drops by 85%. Yes, I am just cynical enough to believe that. It isn't even a stretch for me.

If I had the money, I'd hire a top-notch team of the brightest, most-creative engineers, chemists, and designers that I could assemble right out of college and I would set them to developing a feasible, cost-effective means of transportation that did not rely on oil for propulsion at all.

While we developed that, I'd have teams of folks scouring the US Patents' Office for any devices created to increase fuel efficiency in petroleum-powered vehicles. I'd set my "Skunk-works" team to improving the ideas that they find and then we'd produce and market those technologies.

I simply don't believe that we have achieved the pinnacle of fuel-efficiency and power that technology can afford. Do I know what I am talking about? No! But neither did Henry Ford. He simply didn't believe his engineers when they told him it was impossible to make an 8-cylinder engine work. Guess who ended up being right? Would it be easy? DUH-HUH! Nothing is EVER easy. I have learned that one the hard way. But then I have digressed, haven't I?

So anyway, the article pointed out just how far it would seem that we are from global warming with the ice caps growing, Chinese houses collapsing under the snow, and young cows dying in Vietnam from the cold weather. If you are interested in more, there was an interesting article published by the Daily Mail that is mocking Gore over this stuff too. Seems like I remember that the Weather Channel guy said that it would turn out like this months ago. If he isn't already mocking the global warming crowd, he should be. I know that I am.

Boob Alert!

John Kerry blamed the recent round of tornadoes on "global warming."

“[I] don’t want to sort of leap into the larger meaning of, you know, inappropriately, but on the other hand, the weather service has told us we are going to have more and more intense storms,” Kerry said. “And insurance companies are beginning to look at this issue and understand this is related to the intensity of storms that is related to the warming of the earth. And so it goes to global warming and larger issues that we’re not paying attention to. The fact is the hurricanes are more intensive, the storms are more intensive and the rainfall is more intense at certain places at certain times and the weather patterns have changed.”

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I wonder what hotshot drove to the interview in? I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that it wasn't "green."

I wonder if he figured out how to blame this on President Bush?

Why Do I Support Alternate Fuel Technology?

Exxon shatters profit records

Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices.

Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said fourth-quarter net income rose 14% to $11.66 billion, or $2.13 per share. The company earned $10.25 billion, or $1.76 per share, in the year-ago period.

The profit topped Exxon's previous quarterly record of $10.7 billion, set in the fourth quarter of 2005, which also was an all-time high for a U.S. corporation....

Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006.

Do I mind companies making a profit? Not at all. Do I mind companies making monstrous profits? Not if they EARNED those profits in a FREE MARKET economy.

Some may argue that the oil companies compete in a free market, but the problem is that these companies have both intermarried and have grown increasingly greedy. No one is willing to leave any money on the table (i.e. undercut their competition.) It is only a hunch on my part, but I would be willing to bet that there are some major anti-trust violations taking place between the petroleum providers of the world.

These companies also cry that the cost increases are merely caused by supply and demand.

The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline hit an all-time high of $3.23 in May, according to the motorist organization AAA. The high prices were blamed on strong demand and a series of accidents that shut down refineries in the U.S. But slack demand for gasoline in the latter half of last year kept gas prices from rising as dramatically as crude prices.

That is a load of southbound hay in a northbound bull. These companies are restricting supply to create false scarcity. If demand is so great there should be new refineries or updates made to existing refineries to increase production. And frankly, I'm not buying the whole "we're running out of oil" deal either. At least once a month I hear about some massive new supply of oil that has been discovered somewhere in the world.

I'm not really sure what it is that has spurred it, but it is as if the oil companies have suddenly realized that American consumers really don't have any choices. We don't have the infrastructure for public transportation (not to mention being too busy, independent, and impatient to put up with the hassles of public transportation), we're too spread out to make walking or bicycling a viable option, and auto manufacturers (whom I believe are in league with the oil companies) refuse to produce fuel efficient or alternative fuel cars. They have a captive audience and they know it, and what's more they have their hands so deep in Congress' pockets that they are well aware that they don't have the cahunas, er, wherewithal to bring any serious remedy or action against this out of control industry.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. took a swipe at the two firms, calling on fellow lawmakers to break the country's dependence on foreign oil and rollback unnecessary tax incentives for oil companies.

I would agree with him if (a) I believed that he would actually do something about it and (b) if the oil companies wouldn't penalize us even further and whine about how they had to raise gas prices (again) to make up for losing the government subsidies.

(You have no idea how hard I am trying to keep from swearing.)

The oil companies have shot back with numerous excuses.

ExxonMobil representatives ... stressed the cyclical nature of the business and noted that growing global demand for energy will require companies to heavily invest in future growth. The company said it estimates that global demand will grow by 30 percent by 2030.

We'll see how they invest their money. All I can say is that I hope that a new energy source is discovered that will make this the last time the oil companies post profits like that ever again. As soon as I have an equivalent alternative to petroleum based transportation I will take it.

Some Good Resources

If you are like me, you are constantly inundated with requests from everyone under the sun for money to help some worthy cause or another. It is impossible to give to each and every one of these requests - and invariably a donation is welcomed by another hand out for more. No doubt there are many worthy causes and the need in our world is great. So how does someone choose a good charity? How do you know who the crooks are? How can you find out whether someone is a good or poor steward of the monies that they collect?

Charles Colson has written an article over at Townhall.com that exposes a couple of crooked organizations that are exploiting our righteous sympathies for injured soldiers to make themselves rich. He also identifies some good web resources to help identify good charities. I hope that you will take the time to check out this article and these websites as you are choosing where to make your charitable contributions.

Stop the Stupidity!

I found this new career opportunity online today. Global Warming is going to make Y2K look like a legitimate threat! If you think that you got fleeced for Y2K you ain't seen nothing yet!

If you want to wallow sideways in the public trough here is the perfect opportunity for you. (What do you think Al Gore is doing? I'll bet he is beating these salary levels too.):

Carbon coach
Reducing contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, or the carbon footprint, is one huge step toward sustainability, but few guidelines exist for how companies gunning to be green should proceed. Carbon coaches offer this essential information. In addition to calculating carbon footprints and offering advice for offsetting them, carbon coaches help companies fit sustainability into their overall mission. Their services range from providing branding strategy for "green" product launches to advising companies on their relationships with NGOs....

Few guidelines exist, indeed. In fact I read an article today about how the UN is now saying that bio-fuels will cause more trouble than they will mitigate, but I will get to that in a moment. Back to the article at hand.

Most carbon coaches work at consulting firms, where they command salaries ranging from $40,000 to $60,000 for entry-level positions and $60,000 to $100,000 for mid-level positions.

Sadly, folks working for not-for-profit companies aren't going to make that much. "Non-profit organization salaries aren't as high; an entry-level carbon coach with a master's degree can expect a salary of $30,000 to $50,000." Well, it's for the children, though, right? Just like John Edwards' compassionate legal work for all of those poor children, right? It WAS for them, wasn't it? But then why did he take HALF of the rewards in legal fees? But I digress...

In another "What the crap?..." story, check out this headline from across the pond:

A British bus company has apologized to a girl who is led around on a leash by her boyfriend and describes herself as a human pet after one of its drivers threw her off a bus. Tasha Maltby, 19, told British newspapers she was the "pet" of her 25-year-old fiancé Dani Graves….

WHAT?!!! Yes, I read that right.

Maltby -- who lives on state benefits and got engaged in November -- said her choice of lifestyle might seem unusual but was harmless.

"I am a pet," she told the Daily Mail. "I generally act animal-like and I lead a really easy life. I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone."

Well, can't say that I could see that happening here... the very suggestion that a woman wear a leash would end up sending a fellow to the dentist for a new set of teeth with most of the women I know. People are weird.

So back to the UN article I was talking about earlier. I find it hilarious (in an infuriating sort of way) that the UN is backpedaling on its claim that bio-fuel will be the great messiah of our poor, little, carbon-polluted world.

...Regan Suzuki of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization acknowledged that biofuels are better for the environment than fossil fuels and boost energy security for many countries. However, she said those benefits must be weighed against the pitfalls — many of which are just now emerging as countries convert millions of acres to palm oil, sugar cane and other crops used to make biofuels.

...Foremost among the concerns is increased competition for agricultural land, which Suzuki warned has already caused a rise in corn prices in the United States and Mexico and could lead to food shortages in developing countries.

Is anyone besides me not surprised that no one stopped to think about the possible negative effects of this policy? Politicians never do. Just like the stupid bill that was passed by the geniuses in Washington that outlawed incandescent light bulbs - while favoring fluorescent bulbs that contain heavy metals and other serious toxins. I stopped needing someone to wipe my nose about 34 years ago, thank you very much.

Here's a shock for you: I am totally in favor of the development of alternative / renewable fuel sources. I suspect that I just surprised some of my more loyal readers with that statement. Why am I in favor of the development of alternative fuels and new technologies? Do you think that it is because I am concerned one iota about global warming? NOT A CHANCE.

The reason that I support bio-fuel development is because (based on my own reading) it looks like a relatively small farm could produce enough ethanol to allow a family to cut its dependence on oil severely if not completely. I am sick of the oil companies and commodity traders and the local gas stations charging as much for their product as they can without starting a riot.

They know that there is no competition for their product. They have a captive market. Americans can't just stop driving cars. The public transportation infrastructure does not exist on a large scale and the structure of our communities is not conducive to public transportation. Big oil knows that they have us between a rock and a hard place. The development of bio-fuel technology gives me the chance to produce my own fuel and stick it to the man. Viva la revolucion!

Anyway, this new "concern" by the UN is a big smoke screen in my opinion. They are already looking for a graceful way to escape the corner they have put themselves in by buying into the Chicken Littles' dire predictions and drinking the loonies' Kool Aid. See, it will cost all of the big wheels in the UN too much profit if petroleum goes away. They can't have that, but in the meantime they will line their pockets with ummm, spend waste trillions of dollars (yes, Virginia, that is trillion with a "t") until everyone figures out that the sun still keeps coming up in the morning and realizes that all this climate change is a bunch of hooey. (Then they'll blame Al Gore for it all, but he'll shift the blame to President Bush somehow.)

Come QUICKLY, Lord Jesus!

Then Tell Me Why I Haven't Been Warm All Day Long...

"Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday."

What a boob.

I Just Love This Headline

Hot Air Emitted by Climate Summit Equals 20,000 Cars

That really just about says it all. The delegates traveling to this summit are basically hot air balloons.

More nuttiness from the article:

"The delegates each will produce an average 4.07 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or CO2, to reach the resort island..."

In today's world of modern communication is there a valid reason why they couldn't have had a big teleconference? Oh, yeah, no resort.

``It's very hard for the public to understand that you come together with so many people to a very distant place and cause a lot of emissions, and at the same time talk about emission reductions,'' Artur Runge-Metzger, head of climate strategy for the European Commission, said yesterday in an interview in Bali, adding that he had offset his own emissions.

Well, duh! That's because it makes no sense at all! It proves that either the whole thing is a sham or that the people hosting and attending this summit really aren't serious about personally suffering any inconvenience or discomfort for the sake of saving the planet.

Here's the way the Socialist/Elitist/Liberal mind works: the sacrifices are for the little people to make, but the big, important people deserve these perks because of all the pressures they are under making sure the proles toe the line. Do you think that any of the world leaders supporting this fallacy are riding around in electric cars or taking a bike or, God-forbid a subway instead? No. Do you think they will suddenly change if they manage to get these stupid treaties passed? Don't be stupid.

They are now and always will be riding around in the biggest gas-guzzler that they can get their hands on. Meanwhile you and me and all the other peons will lose half our trunk to grain storage to power our new kangaroo powered carts. (Horses produce too much methane.)

Here's another doozy from the article.

Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas responsible for the higher temperatures that are causing a surge in sea levels and an increased risk of droughts and floods, according to UN reports.

Rising sea levels? Last I checked, Florida was still there. Lies, lies, lies. Hell will be full of bureaucrats.

Only liberals could take a fairytale and create a bureaucracy.

Congratulations and Condolances

Congratulations to the people of Venezuela who told Hugo Chavez to stick his Socialist/Marxist Constitutional amendments in his ear. Bravo to you for standing up for freedom and democracy. I will admonish you to not give up. Chavez won't give up. He'll keep pushing for the changes that will allow him to set himself up as the new Joseph Stalin to your country. Be strong and courageous!

Condolences to the people of Russia who seem to be slipping back under the heel of totalitarianism. I predicted months ago that Vladimir Putin would not leave office at the end of his term, and my suspicions seem well founded. I pity you truly, for I have no confidence that the voting results in Russia are valid. If they are then you deserve no pity. Freedom has a cost. I feel certain that you cannot have forgotten already!

My charge to the people of America: observe and learn.

True Colors

Imagine the scene:

I followed Clinton during a recent bus tour across Iowa, when she and her entourage pulled into a Maid-Rite, a greasy spoon famous for its loose-meat sandwich. Clinton settled into a red stool at the counter, ate a sandwich, chatted with her waitress and then was on her way.

The scene gave Clinton perfect fodder for her next few stump speeches. It turns out her waitress was a single, working mom — just the kind of voter Democrats are courting aggressively this year.

Clinton recalled the meeting for an audience up the road in Boone. "The woman waiting on us — it was her first day," she said, adding, "She was a little nervous. Single mom, raised two boys, works at a nursing home and always has a second job."

If she's elected president, Clinton promised, people like her waitress will have it better….

Hillary Clinton, defender of the little guy, savior of the poor, friend to women... not so much.

Enter Exhibit A: It would seem that neither Hillary or anyone in her entourage believes in tipping.



As was surprisingly reported by NPR reporter David Greene neither Hillary nor anyone else in the entourage left a tip. The waitress that waited on and spoke with Hillary said, "I don't think she understood at all what I was saying. I mean, nobody got left a tip that day."

That's not the worst of it either. Hillary's exploitation caused the waitress even more problems than the work without pay.

The local paper ran photos of her with Clinton. She said her supervisor at the nursing home isn't a big Hillary Clinton fan and she thinks that may be related to why her hours were almost totally cut.

Because of the lost hours she has had to get yet another job. (Just like all of us "rich" people will have to if Hillary gets to tax us like she would like to.) She went on to say, "I wished I would have been asked first. I wish she would have asked if she could talk about me later. I didn't like it when someone called me up and said Hillary Clinton is talking about you. It's like, what'd I do now? What's she saying?"

Since this story aired the Clinton camp vehemently denies its veracity:

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer wrote to NPR in an e-mail: "The campaign spent $157 and left a $100 tip at the Maid-Rite Restaurant. Wish you had checked in with us beforehand."

Esterday said "nobody got tipped that day," and NPR should have checked with the Clinton campaign before the story aired to see if any tip was left and how it was done. We regret that this was not done. On Thursday, Esterday was sticking by her story.

"Why would I lie about not getting a tip?" she told NPR. She also maintained that her co-workers at the restaurant had not received tips.

A Clinton campaign staffer called on Esterday at the restaurant Thursday after the story aired. The staff member apologized to her and gave her a $20 bill, according to Esterday. The Clinton campaign confirmed that visit. The campaign also produced photocopies of receipts showing $157.46 was paid to Maid-Rite on a VISA card on Oct. 8 for meals consumed by the candidate's entourage. The tip was supposed to have been paid in cash, and the campaign insisted such a payment was made but has declined to make available a staff member who was present at Maid-Rite and left tip money.

I bet they do wish they had checked beforehand. This whole thing smells like last week's fish. #1 Why would someone who admitted to liking Clinton in her interview claim that she hadn't been tipped? #2 Why, if they HAD actually tipped Ms. Esterday did someone from the Clinton camp return and give her a $20?

Clinton's claim would be a whole lot more plausible if it hadn't happened before. Enter Exhibit B:

February 11, 2000
It's all the buzz in Albion: Hillary stiffs a single mom
By Barbara J. Saffir
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Maybe it's no big deal elsewhere, but it's all the buzz in Albion.

Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped into the Village House, a favorite diner in this upstate farming town, and ordered two orders of scrambled eggs, home fries and rye toast. So far, so good. The locals appreciate a hearty appetite.

Her breakfast was on the house, and when she left the waitress, a single mom, found not a penny at her plate.

The locals have been talking about little else since Tuesday, when she stopped for breakfast after making a speech about how New York's farmers "are really hurting these days."

I rest my case.

The thing that gets me is that in both of these stories the people who were stiffed were still willing to vote for this fraud. No wonder we have so many bad politicians. There are a lot of stupid people out there voting.

Well SOMEBODY's Gouging!

Have you ever noticed that when there is a news article about the price of oil going up or if there is a fresh outbreak of middle eastern violence that within 30 minutes the price of gasoline goes up? I mean the guys are out there changing the signs with the little suction cup things! If you ask them why the prices are going up they always reply along the lines of the headlines that you just read not an hour earlier.

Have you also ever noticed conversely that when the news is the opposite, for instance, as it was last week - that OPEC is going to be producing 8% more oil than its current quota - the price doesn't move for weeks or months - until the next tightening of supplies?!

I dare someone to prove to me that someone along the way isn't stoking up the prices. I absolutely defy someone to prove it. I sincerely believe that it cannot be done.

I offer for proof a trip that I took last night to the armpit of North Carolina - Durham. Here where I live, the lowest price that I have seen for regular unleaded gasoline is $1.89. I have seen it as high as $1.95 locally. Last night, as I was driving through the Mebane area (you'll need two hands, a map, and a flashlight to find that one) I saw four gas stations selling gasoline for $1.79. That is 10-16 cents cheaper per gallon not 80 miles away from where I live! We're not talking about another state; we're talking about 4 counties away! Someone is gouging prices. PERIOD. And we're not talking about some towel head over in the Middle East either. Some scum-sucking-son-of-a-so-and-so is taking advantage of his neighbors by selling a necessary commodity at a higher rate of return than is customary.

When confronted by newspapers and other news media you always hear the same sad story, "We're not gouging! We're barely breaking even on our gas sales." Baloney! Now, I guess it is remotely possible that the individual stations are not the guilty ones, but I dare say that it doesn't go far back up the chain. The next likely perps are the distributors. Whoever is responsible needs to quit it.

I know, I know, someone is out there saying, it's just 10 cents a gallon. It's a free market! It's the capitalist way! Well that's fine if you are talking about coloring books, Thighmasters, or Mexican jumping beans, but we are talking about gasoline. America doesn't have widespread access to acceptable public transportation. We depend on our cars, and our cars depend on gasoline. If you are unfortunate enough to live in one of the areas where the gougers are, (kind of reminds me of that children's book Where the Wild Things Are) you are pretty well out of luck.

And for any of you in the "it's only a dollar more per fill up" crew, if I had two gas dispensers side by side and one charged you $1.90 per gallon and another charged you $2.00 per gallon which one are you going to choose? If you say $2.00, you are not very smart.