JUNK SCIENCE

What Global warming?

Climate Change?

Did Al Gore or anyone else predict this summers record low temps?

I live in Elkhorn Wisconsin. We saw one 90 degree day in the second week of June. We've had 12 days over 80. Last July 18th it reached a balmy 65.

Chicago's average temp for this month is 68.9 degrees.

The dog days of summer are here and over the next 5 days we will struggle to make it to 80 each day!

Did any climatologist predict this?

Did anyone anywhere predict this or any of the 3000 record low temp months for cities across America?

Did man cause this? Did God cause this?

Did you cause this?

These people and their “Acid Rain Dooms Day Dip Stick Pie In The Sky Pin Headed Predictions” are so full of manure their molars are messy.

FOLLOW ME HERE A SECOND WILL YOU PLEASE.....

Ok…here’s my take on this health care reform bill. Follow me on this because my point is as logical as it is simple.

President Obama says he wants this Health Care Reform bill for two reasons
A.) To lower the cost of healthcare in America and…

B.)To make sure the (supposed) 47 million Americans without coverage can get coverage.

Besides the reports from the non-partisan congressional budget office which tell us this plan will raise costs substantially, let’s set that aside for a moment and look at the facts.

What the President proposes are two concepts that are fundamentally opposed to each other.

Who is more likely to use health care: Those without insurance or those with insurance?

By far it is those WITH insurance because the care costs nearly nothing. If someone else is going to pay most or all of the cost, I’m going to use that service more often…Right?

If it is your purpose to lower health care costs, giving it to people who don’t have it (47 million of them…they say…) they are going to use it more often and more aggressively then they would without. So right there, the statement of purpose from Obama is fundamentally flawed. The costs will skyrocket!! Obama has never…NOT ONE TIME…showed to the people of this country or explained to them how requiring everyone to have health insurance will lower the cost of it, and he never will because the numbers add up, they don’t subtract down!
You know how to drop the cost of everyone’s health care in America? Take away everyone’s health care insurance. Now I am not advocating that but the fact is if that happened, less people would go and costs would plummet.

It is illogical to think and irresponsible to say that costs would go down if everyone had health insurance. This is a house of cards and the longer we see what they’re building, the more it falls apart.

You liberals have a 20 seat filibuster proof advantage in the senate. You liberals have a 70 seat advantage in the House, and you can’t pass this bill.

AND WHO DO YOU BLAME? THE REPUBLICANS!!!?????????

Now, besides the fact that every person who becomes gravely ill and is finically capable COMES TO AMERICA FOR CARE BECAUSE WE ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD… And besides the fact that this President is waltzing around the world apologizing for U.S. and seems very ashamed of this country, the bottom line is…

Barry….you got some splainin to dooo!!

And he said the COP was acting stupidly.....

WATERLOO...COULDN'T ESCAPE IF I WANTED TO

Senator Charles Grassley revealed the Obama administration might be more worried than they are letting on that a Republican senator's comparison of the healthcare overhaul to Waterloo might be dangerously close to the truth. If anyone had any doubt that Barack Obama’s nationalized health care isn’t about him, then you haven’t been listening to the lies. His statement yesterday was “It’s not about me”

From the National Journal: "A telling episode recounted by Senate Finance ranking member Charles Grassley reveals the Obama administration might be more worried than they are letting on that a Republican senator's comparison of the healthcare overhaul to Waterloo might be dangerously close to the truth. Grassley said he spoke with a Democratic House member last week who shared Obama's bleak reaction during a private meeting to reports that some factions of House Democrats were lining up to stall or even take down the overhaul unless leaders made major changes.

"'Let's just lay everything on the table,' Grassley said. “A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made ... and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency.'" The president told a Democrat member of the house, "You're going to destroy my presidency."

I thought this wasn't about him. I thought this was about us! I thought this was about us and our precious health care. No, it’s not. It's ALL about him. He's worried about his presidency being destroyed. So all DeMint did was say this could be his Waterloo. Obama agrees with him and recoils when DeMint says this. He can't handle criticism. He's never been criticized, substantively, not without consequences for those who dare to do it. Do you remember back on the campaign trail when Maureen Dowd made some comment about his elephant ears during the campaign, and he walked down off the stage and confronted her? He said, "I'm very, very sensitive about my ears," and she said, "We're just trying to toughen you up!"

Bottom line: The longer nationalized healthcare is debated, the worse it looks and the longer interested parties, with cash to burn, will put adds out showing people what it’s really like “over there”. Socialized medicine takes incentive out of the doctor’s duty and no one knows if the government will allow them to get the care they need.

If this plan is so great, why don’t lawmakers themselves have to use it? They give themselves choices and leave you with the scraps from the table.

Time to pounce with every ounce we have. Kill the beast. This idea…This President, MUST NOT succeed.

Waterloo… Couldn’t escape if I wanted to….

READY OR NOT, HERE WE GO>>>

The left usually presumes that if the rich and near rich get less, someone else will get more. To the liberal, redistribution achieves a better social balance. But when the rich get less, no one else gets more. Regardless of how the rich earned their money -- trading bonds, performing surgery, starting new companies, providing legal work -- it's no longer so lucrative. The incentive is lost. The rich get poorer, but no one else gets richer. Society is worse off.

'Trickle-down economics' is a despised phrase and concept to many, but it also embodies a harsh reality. The rich often play a pivotal role in U.S. economic growth, and if they are enfeebled, then the consequences are widespread.

This is not a time when we should be talking about raising anyone's taxes, middle-income or upper-income. This is a time when we need all of the economy's oars in the water pulling together, especially upper-income investors the Democrats want to tax into oblivion. This economy is desperately in need of tax-cut incentives to unlock an infusion of private investment capital to help job-creating entrepreneurs and existing businesses survive what is very likely to be many months of economic anemia and turmoil.

Ronald Reagan once said something we should all listen to once again. He said, “It's about time we constitutionally mandate the Federal Government to do what every American family must do, and that is balance its budget. That doesn't mean taking more out of your pocket by raising taxes. ... We the people, deserve to know that our jobs, paychecks, homes, and pensions are safe from the taxers and regulators of big government." The fact of the matter is all these things and more are in jeopardy of being taken by this congress and used to pay for their mistakes.

We used to have a strong dollar. Politicians changed that. Marriage used to be sacred. Politicians and the activist judges they appoint are changing that. We used to be respected around the world. Politicians changed that. We used to have a strong manufacturing economy. Politicians changed that by taxing business so punitively they had to look elsewhere in order to make a profit.

We used to have lower tax structures. Politicians changed that.

We used to enjoy more freedoms. Politicians changed that.

We used to be a large exporter of American made goods. Politicians changed that.

We used to teach patriotism in schools. Politicians changed that.

We used to educate children in schools. Politicians changed that.

We used to enforce LEGAL citizenship. Politicians changed that.

We used to have affordable food. Politicians changed that by mandating we use it for fuel. One could go on and on with this list.

Frankly, I'm not sure if I'm just being guilty of wishful thinking, but I have a hunch that while President Barak Obama is doing his best to destroy America and capitalism, the lemming-in-chief is leading the party faithful blindly off the cliff. No matter how personally popular the president might be, and I am beginning to doubt those particular numbers, the same certainly can't be said for his colleagues and cronies.

It is difficult to find in the history of America, a time when the door was so widely opened for the minority party to sweep out the majority. But alas, the GOP has a long history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and the poverty of leadership is repulsive. If they can find their voice, those Democrats who are going along in order to get along are likely to discover next year that the voters are going to tell them in no uncertain words to move along. The dirty little secret is, Pelosi and Reid are about as popular as chicken pox. Most Americans hate socialized medicine and cap and trade. They loathe the idea of the feds being in bed with the unions and nationalizing banks and car companies. They hate the idea of dismantling our missile defense system at the very same time that Iran and North Korea are threatening us.

It’s time to fight back. It’s time to take our country back. It’s time to lead again.

We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the earth. Our government has no power except that granted to it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

WHY NOT?????????????????????????????

From Barack Obama to Sonia Sotomayor to Bill Minnich the nameless cynic to Harry Reid to Nancy Pelosi, we get the same crap day in day out over and over and over again. What is this innate characteristic in them that they cannot, under the simplest of circumstances, answer a question with a very simple “Yes” or “No”?

It’s like they live their lives with a caveat. Every answer comes with a stipulation or qualification or limitation or a crazed gyration to avoid a nauseation frustration cuz they need some lubrication in this situation and with every flatulation comes constipation… congratulations!!

And they think they are so cerebral and highbrow when they do it.

They are so clever and furtive…

I asked a simple question on nameless cynic on his blog… Why not show us the birth certificate? And he said he started to answer but the answer just got longer and longer.

And longer...

And longer...

Now he wants to answer me in a new posting.

GOOD GOD MAN… Have you no idea how this makes you look?

Do you feel a need to be an advocate for this crap?

This is ABC stuff Bill.

If thousands have signed a petition asking to see it, if hundreds of articles have raised the question, if I have to show mine to get a job here in Wisconsin, WHY NOT OBAMA????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????WHY NOT???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Humm…Why not????????????

ROLL OVER~~~ PLAY DEAD

Got yet another call last night from the GOP asking for money. Their sense of timing is just absurd. I’m sitting in my chair watching Republican senators getting ready to vote FOR a Supreme Court nominee who had show herself to be a liar and a bigot, because, as the puppet press would have use believe, her nomination was a lock, and any vote against her would show Republicans to be bigoted and they would lose Hispanic votes.

What tripe.

So I hung up on them. There’s a first time for everything.

Many times I have given money and many times I have not. But I always talked with them and the caller at least seemed to listened.

Not this time. This time I wanted to send a message loud and click.

I will not support these wimps. I can’t. Until I see some “stones” up on capital hill I won’t be sending my hard earned money.

Where were they when this “Transparent White House” would not release some 300 boxes of documents covering Sotomayor’s work at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. They claim the documents are irrelevant to the nomination.

Yeah…I can see right through that.

But in a July 2nd letter to Sen. Jeff Sessions from the nominee, Sotomayor did reveal the different positions she held over her 12 year tenure at PRLDEF:

• Member of the Board of Directors: 1980-1992
• Education and Professional Development Committee: 1980
• Nominations Committee: 1980, 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1990
• Litigation Committee: 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1991
• Chairperson of the Litigation Committee: 1983, 1984, 1987, and 1988
• Executive Committee: 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988
• Treasurer: 1982
• Special Vice Chair of the Board: 1984, 1985
• Second Vice Chair of the Board: 1986
• First Vice Chair of the Board: 1987, 1988
• Finance Committee: 1986, 1987, 1988
• Personnel Committee: 1988

That covers a lot of years and a range of capacities that are shrouded in secrecy in these hearings.

When Sen. Sessions confronted her with documentation contradicting her statements, Sotomayor answered as she did with every other answer she offers: it’s all about context. Not one line taken out of context, mind you, but entire speeches, court decisions and PRLDEF board minutes.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: “Isn't that true that you were more active than you may have suggested to Senator Graham yesterday?”

JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: “…That memo has to be examined in context. The memo was a moment in our 12-year history where the board was planning a retreat. To think about what directions, if any, we should consider moving into or not. We were not reviewing the individual cases to see if the individual cases, what positions were taken, the type of strategies…

From only 300 pages Republicans were able to obtain of the over 300 boxes of contemporaneous documents, there were ample references that refute the nominee’s claims that her duties were mainly fundraising.

March 25, 1981 Litigation Committee meeting minutes of a committee meeting Sotomayor attended, stated: “The Committee was provided copies of the Fund’s Docket of Cases . . .”

The minutes also state: “There was a discussion regarding possible new issues that could be addressed by the Fund,” and “The Board also unanimously resolved to request the Staff to examine what legal avenues might be available to challenge the cuts in federal entitlements.”

To me, these minutes clearly show discussions of legal strategies. In fact, in 1987 when she was the Chair of the Litigation Committee, Sotomayor was responsible for reviewing current litigation.

In a November 11, 1985 PRLDEF report obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the responsibilities of the Litigation Committee were outlined and included:
“(1) Review[ing] docket of current litigation;
(2) Exploring areas of potential litigation and setting priorities for the Fund for the year.”

The documents include Litigation Committee minutes that confirm Sotomayor routinely briefed the committee on the status of litigation:

In October 8, 1987 PRLDEF board minutes: “Chairperson Sotomayor summarized the activities of the Committee over the last several months which included the review of the litigation efforts of the past and present…”

On January 14, 1988, “Committee Chairperson Sonia Sotomayor reviewed the scope of the Committee’s work and indicated a fuller report would be presented at the upcoming Board meeting.”

These and other documents clearly show, to me anyway, that the nominee had a much more extensive role than she indicated. What Republicans saw or gleaned, that’s another story. But Sotomayor was not only integrally involved but led PRLDEF litigation efforts to offer or deny promotions to city workers based solely on race -- which clears up some of the confusion over her actions in Ricci v. DeStefano, the controversial New Haven firefighters’ racial discrimination case.

And the GOP has the audacity to call in that 5:00 o’clock hour when the news of the day is being trumpeted from coast to coast, and ask for my financial support. Not going to happen today guys and gals. These RINO’s and rollovers we keep sending to OUR doom are a most pathetic lot. The problem comes when you realize they have so much to gain by standing their ground and resisting this nomination as well as the policies and czars this anti-constitutional administration has foisted upon us.

I have found the only way to make them pay is hitting them in the wallet, I mean why not, by their actions, they’re hitting me in mine!?

For those of you in the fundraising are of the GOP who read this blog, and I know you do, I’m sure I’m not the only one out here saying this. Are you deaf? We need warriors not wimps in Washington. If they haven’t the stomach to stand up for the people who voted them in, then by God we will vote them out.

Do I feel bad? Well, let’s just say reports of my contrition are greatly exaggerated.

And by the way, I won’t roll over for your “We need you now more than ever” line.

That line is already reserved… For the voters.

PURJURY!!!!!

Confronted with her disturbing racially oriented past statements, Judge Sonia Sotomayor had an excuse that only a liberal activist jurist could make: She meant the opposite of what she said. Sotomayor's oft-repeated rhetorical riff on race is clear as a bell: 'I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.' She would sometimes leave out the 'white male' part, but the remark was always a pointed disagreement with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's maxim: that a wise old man and wise old woman would agree on a judicial case's outcome.
Yet when the Senate Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, quoted Sotomayor's own words to her, the response was basically: 'I didn't mean what I said.' Kind of like how the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, as so many judges believe? 'What I was talking about was the obligation of judges to examine what they're feeling as they're adjudicating a case and to ensure that that's not influencing the outcome,' Sotomayor told Sessions. 'We have to recognize those feelings and put them aside.'
Put it all together and it comes out something like this: The richness of a Latina's experiences will help her reach a better conclusion than non-Latinos because she will 'recognize those feelings and put them aside.'
That's tough to swallow. ... By claiming her 'wise Latina' comment meant the reverse of the plain meaning of her words, Judge Sotomayor has blemished herself on the first day of questions. If she dances around that, why should we believe her when she says 'the task of a judge is not to make the law; it is to apply the law’? Why would we the people have any reason to believe she will interpret the constitution any better than she did Sandra Day O’Conner?
There are certain qualifications to being a Supreme Court Justice. The chief qualifications are impartiality between parties and deference to the Constitution as written. And while judges like Sotomayor can lie and mouth slogans, their legal positions betray their true judicial philosophies.
With the Sotomayor nomination, Obama is introducing the threat that justice will be administered differently for politically favored groups than for politically unfavored groups. The rule of law will be replaced by the rule of a judge's emotional empathy -- or antipathy -- as determined by what subjective 'perspective' the judge chooses to see. That's what is at stake in the Sotomayor nomination, and it has huge consequences for our lives and prosperity.
Look at what she is saying here. It sounds like perjury: “In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law -- it is to apply the law." --Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in direct contradiction to statements she has made in the past
For example, "[The] court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I'm -- you know." --Sotomayor in 2005

IT'S JUST HOT AIR~~~

"Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens." --Federalist No. 62

Last week, scores of Americans were mesmerized by an event they believed would have consequences of epic proportions for the nation. No, I'm not referring to the passage of the colossal CO2 "cap and trade" legislation, but the MSM's endless and equally mindless tributes to, um, well I can't recall his name but I think he was a black artiste who somehow morphed into a white performer -- but then, hybrids are all the rage these days.

Meanwhile, as the masses slumbered, the House passed H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey version of Barack Hussein Obama's Orwellian legislation to regulate and tax CO2 -- a gas byproduct of cellular synthesis and industrial output, ostensibly responsible for global climate change. The measure, all 310 pages of it, passed by a narrow vote of 219-212. Some 44 Democrats voted against the legislation, but eight Republicans voted for it, giving BHO the first leg of a cap-n-tax victory.

The two most invasive means our central government has at its disposal to control American lives and livelihoods are taxation and regulation, and this bill is a double header. It authorizes BHO's government to collect substantial new taxes and to exercise unprecedented economic control via new environmental regulations, all against a backdrop of the worst economic decline since Jimmy Carter was at the helm. (Fortunately Ronald Reagan implemented the right formula for economic recovery -- BO's "solution" is Carter's formula.)

After the bill's passage, Obama trotted out this whopper: "Thanks to members of Congress who were willing to place America's progress before the usual Washington politics, this bill will create new businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs, all without imposing untenable new burdens on the American people or America's businesses."

Of course, that depends on what the definition of "untenable" is. In January 2008, Obama proclaimed, "[U]nder my plan of a cap and trade [sic] system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket ... because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas ... you name it ... whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. ... [T]hey will pass that money on to the consumers."

Anyone interested in retaining what remains of the legacy of liberty bequeathed to us by our Founders might take pause to consider what BHO meant by "you name it," since you and everyone you know are emitters of CO2. Think about it: An American president is regulating and taxing carbon dioxide, the very thing we exhale, and the very thing that green plants on this planet use to generate the oxygen which sustains us.

Cap-n-tax requires American manufacturers to reduce by 2020 carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases by 17 percent from their 2005 emission levels. Even more egregiously, it requires an 80 percent cut by 2050. Industries would be "allocated" government permits specifying allowances for these gases. About 15 percent of these permits would be auctioned to the highest bidders and the resulting revenues would be transferred to offset energy expenses for Obama's low-income constituents.
And you thought the U.S. Tax Code was convoluted?

Now, if you're still under the illusion that Waxman's Malarkey is about saving the planet, you're either: A) a card-carrying member of BHO's sycophantic socialists; B) a true-believing disciple of AlGore's eco-theology; or C) too distracted by coverage of that chameleon-guy's funeral.

Here, at least the socialists are intellectually honest about their objectives. Albert Arnold Gore's minions, on the other hand, are still hooked on phony assumptions about the relationship between CO2 and climate change -- as if our planet's climate is supposed to remain utterly unchanged for all time.

(Of course, Gore's objectives are the same as BHO's.)

However, the climate debate (yes, there is one) is far from over.

It is not for me to suggest that the extremely complex ecology of our planet -- its trillions of organisms and ecosystems and its interaction with the Sun -- is beyond the scope of what human scientists can understand so conclusively as to project how the restriction of one small contributory element, among all environmental influences, will affect our climate 100 years from now. Instead, you can read what some of the planets most renowned scientists have to say about climate change in "Global Warming: Fact, Fiction and Political Endgame" (update coming soon).

Or start with an open letter to Congress delivered last week, from academicians including Princeton physicists Will Happer and Robert Austin, and climatologist Richard Lindzen of MIT, in which they insist, "The sky is not falling ... the Earth has been cooling for 10 years [a trend that] was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them."

Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman aptly sums up the current state of climate change hysteria. "Both the seriousness and imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been overstated. [H.R. 2454] would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases. ...[It is projected to] reduce the earth's future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice." (For the record, it would do this at an average annual cost of $2,979 per family of four. So much for BHO's pledge not to raise our taxes.)

A recent MIT study likewise concludes, "The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead. ... The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation."

Two of the biggest producers of CO2, China and India, will continue industrial production unencumbered by this self-mutilating sham. Indeed, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson confessed in a Senate hearing this week, "I believe that ... U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels."

As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich explains, "The sponsors of Waxman-Markey are telling Americans that not only will the legislation save us from calamitous climate change, it will also produce new jobs and new prosperity by transitioning America to new forms of 'green' energy. In other words, there's no trade-off necessary to save the planet; no price to be paid. It's a win-win-win. Right. And 2+2=5. The reality is that the bill before the House today imposes what could be the largest tax increase in history on the American people. And every single one of us who heats a home, drives a car, and manufactures or consumes products made in America will pay the price."

Of course, Gingrich could be wrong. BHO's cap-n-tax plan could be as economically successful as his "stimulus" package. Oh, wait, that hasn't produced a single private sector job -- and the ranks of the unemployed have still soared. But maybe it "saved" some jobs that might have been cut, and it has certainly funded countless marginal government jobs occupied by the marginally employable in order to swell the ranks of government unions -- the Left's permanent constituency.

And at the expense of incomprehensible deficit accumulation that exceeds all previous presidents combined -- but I digress.

Cap-n-tax is nothing more than a well-executed piece of BHO's socialist playbook, which seeks to ratify central government administration of the economy by way of regulation and taxation.

This unbearable piece of legislation is now on its way to the Senate, where Obama has a filibuster-proof majority with the arrival of that "clown from Minnesota." It is likely to face opposition from some centrist Democrats, but, regretfully, there are still enough wayward Republicans left in the Senate to give Obama a victory.

Here, I would challenge the members of that august body to find anything in our Constitution's prescription for Rule of Law authorizing the central government to administer any and all elements of commerce that produce some amount of CO2. But then, who pays homage to the credence of that venerable old document, other than the 65 or 70 million modern-day Patriots standing at the ready to restore constitutional Rule of Law?

Next up for congress-- ObamaCare -- and you thought cap-n-tax was bad. Again, I'm quite sure that there isn't a word in our Constitution authorizing the central government to administer healthcare, but then...

Hillary's Bedfellows

One the conflict in Honduras:
Help me out here. President Obama immediately 'meddles' in the affairs of Honduras, denouncing a military coup, the intent of which is to preserve the country's constitution, but when it comes to Iran's fraudulent election and the violent repression of demonstrators who wanted their votes counted, the president initially vacillates and equivocates. Are we expected to accept this as a consistent foreign policy? Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was reluctant to call the removal of President Manuel Zelaya a coup, if for no other reason than it would stop U.S. aid flowing to the impoverished Central American nation. The fingerprints (or in this case the boot prints) of the Castro brothers, Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua are all over this. If one is known by the company one keeps, the specter of the Castros and their protégé dictators joining President Obama in denouncing the Honduran military coup is not reassuring. Clearly Zelaya was the choice of the dictators to help spread 'revolution' to America's back door. ... The threat by Chavez to send his troops into Honduras ought to be another signal to the Obama administration that thugs can't be made nice by talking to them. So far, the world's tyrants have been unresponsive to Obama's offer of a new start. They are getting the message, but it's a different one than President Obama hoped to send. The message is that Obama is weak and can be had. It is one thing for a president to be liked, but in a dangerous world with dictators who have, or wish to acquire, nuclear weapons and by these and other means destroy the United States, it is better that an American president be feared.

Is the U.S. at least consistent in its promises not to meddle? Not all the time. When Benjamin Netanyahu came to power in Israel, the Obama administration made its distaste clear. It also has tried to find ways to isolate Hamid Karzai's elected government in Afghanistan -- and was initially not happy about the prospects of its re-election. Most recently, the U.S. condemned the Honduran military's arrest of President Manuel Zelaya. The nation's supreme court had found his efforts to extend his presidential tenure in violation of its constitution, once Zelaya tried to finesse an illegal third term. In other words, the U.S. pressures other nations as it pleases -- though strangely now more to lean on friends than to criticize rivals and enemies. In contrast, had President Obama voiced early, consistent and sharp criticism of the Iranian crackdown, the theocracy would have worried that the president's stature could have galvanized global boycotts and embargos to isolate the theocracy and aid the dissidents. And the reformers in the streets could have become even more confident with a trademark Obama 'hope and change' endorsement. Internal democratic change in Iran is the only peaceful solution to stopping an Iranian bomb, three decades of Iranian-sponsored terrorism and a Middle East arms race. When thousands risked their lives for a better Iran, a better Middle East and a better world, we, the land of the free, simply were not with them. Well, maybe we were, but our President wansn't.

Well, Ronaldus Magnus said:
"Ludwig Von Mises, that great economist, once noted: 'People must fight for something they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil.' Well, the conservative movement remains in the ascendancy because we have a bold, forward-looking agenda. No longer can it be said that conservatives are just anti-Communist. We are, and proudly so, but we are also the keepers of the flame of liberty. And as such, we believe that America should be a source of support, both moral and material, for all those on God's Earth who struggle for freedom. Our cause is their cause, whether it be in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, or Angola. When I came back from Iceland I said -- and I meant it -- American foreign policy is not simply focused on the prevention of war but the expansion of freedom. Modern conservatism is an active, not a reactive philosophy. It's not just in opposition to those vices that debase character and community, but affirms values that are at the heart of civilization."




On Cap & Trade:

Here's how to get a dubious bill into law, or at least past the U.S. House of Representatives, which of late has deserved to be called the lower chamber: -- First, make the bill long. Very long. So long no one may actually read it, supporters or opponents. Introduce a 310-page horse-choker of an amendment at 3 in the morning on the day of the roll-call vote. So it can't be examined too closely or too long. Only after the bill passes may its true costs emerge. ... -- Make sure that the bill itself, which was already 1,200 pages long before this super-sized amendment was added, surpasseth all understanding. (Which may be the only thing it has in common with the peace of God.) ... -- Insert all kinds of exceptions into the bill so those special interests that stand to benefit by them -- whether regional, economic or ideological -- will join the stampede. -- Coat the bill and the campaign for it with high-sounding sloganspeak, if not hysteria. Warn that The End Is Near unless this bill is passed, at least if you consider the year 2100 near. ... -- If necessary, change the subject at the last minute. Say, from climate change to creating jobs. And, hesto presto, though the vote may be close (219 to 212), a confusing bill can be on its way to becoming even more confusing law. Which is just what happened the other day in the U.S. House of Representatives. ... -- Forget the actual content of the bill, since few if any can understand it anyway. Instead, just recite talking points. It's a lot easier than actually thinking. ... Whoever said you never want to see sausage made or laws passed did a grave injustice to sausage-makers, who are surely engaged in a much more wholesome enterprise."

On July 4th of 1776, our Founders, assembled as representatives to the Second Continental Congress, issued a declaration stating most notably: "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 whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

In other words, our Founders affirmed that our rights, which are inherent by Natural Law as provided by our Creator, can't be arbitrarily alienated by men like England's King George III, who believed that the rights of men are the gifts of government.

Our Founders publicly declared their intentions to defend these rights by attaching their signatures between July 4th and August 2nd of 1776 to the Declaration. They and their fellow Patriots pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor as they set about to defend the Natural Rights of man.

At the conclusion of the American War for Independence in 1783, our Founders determined the new nation needed a more suitable alliance among the states than the Articles of Confederation. After much deliberation, they proposed the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, ratified in 1788 and implemented in 1789 as subordinate guidance to our Declaration of Independence.

Since that time, generations of American Patriots have laid down their lives "to support and defend" our Constitution -- and I would note here that their sacred oath says nothing about a so-called "Living Constitution" as advocated by the political left.

Given that bit of history as a backdrop, consider the lexicography of our current political ideology.

On the dark side of the spectrum would be Leftists, liberals and tyrants.

(Sidebar: One should not confuse "classical liberalism" with "contemporary liberalism." The former refers to those, like Thomas Jefferson, who advocated individual liberty, while the latter refers to those, like Barack Hussein Obama, who advocate statism, which is the antithesis of liberty.)

Statism, as promoted by contemporary American liberals, has as its objective the establishment of a central government authorized as the arbiter of all that is "good" for "the people" -- and conferring upon the State ultimate control over the most significant social manifestation of individual rights, economic enterprise.

On the left, all associations between individuals ultimately augment the power and control of the State. The final expression and inevitable terminus of such power and control, if allowed to progress unabated, is tyranny.

The word "tyranny" is derived from the Latin "tyrannus," which translates to "illegitimate ruler."

Liberals, then, endeavor to undermine our nation's founding principles in order to achieve their statist objectives. However, politicians who have taken an oath to "support and defend" our Constitution, but then govern in clear defiance of that oath, are nothing more than illegitimate rulers, tyrants.


Some Leftists contend that Communism and Fascism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Properly understood, however, both of these forms of government are on the left, because both have as a common end the establishment of an omnipotent state led by a dictator.

Over on the "right wing" of the political spectrum, where the light of truth shines, would be "conservatives," from the Latin verb "conservare," meaning to preserve, protect and defend -- in this case, our Constitution.

American conservatives are those who seek to conserve our nation's First Principles, those who advocate for individual liberty, constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, strong national defense and traditional American values.

Contemporary political ideology is thus defined by tyrannus and conservare occupying the Left and Right ends of the American political spectrum, defining the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Though there are many devoted protagonists at both ends of this scale, the space in between is littered with those who, though they identify with one side or the other, are not able to articulate the foundation of that identity. That is to say, they are not rooted in liberal or conservative doctrine, but motivated by contemporaneous political causes associated with the Left or Right. These individuals do not describe themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" but as Democrat or Republican. Further, they tend to elect ideologically ambivalent politicians who are most adept at cultivating special interest constituencies.

That having been said, however, there is a major difference between those on the Left and the Right, as demonstrated by our most recent national elections. Those on the Left tend to form a more unified front for the purpose of electability; they tend to embrace a "win at all costs" philosophy, while those on the right tend to spend valuable political capital drawing distinctions between and among themselves.

I would suggest that this disparity is the result of the contest between human nature and Natural Law.

The Left appeals to the most fundamental human instincts to procure comfort, sustenance and shelter, and to obtain those basic needs by the most expedient means possible. The Left promises that the State will attain those needs equally, creating a path of least resistance for that fulfillment.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Right promotes the tenets of Natural Law -- individual liberty and its attendant requirements of personal responsibility and self-reliance.

Clearly, one of these approaches is far easier to sell to those who have been systematically dumbed down by government educational institutions and stripped of their individual dignity by the plethora of government welfare programs.

That easy sell notwithstanding, the threat of tyranny can eventually produce an awakening among the people and a reversal of trends toward statism. But this reversal depends on the emergence of a charismatic, moral leader who can effectively advocate for liberty. (Ronald Wilson Reagan comes to mind.)

For some nations, this awakening has come too late. The most notable examples in the last century are Russia, Germany, Italy and China, whose peoples suffered greatly under the statist tyrannies they came to embrace. In Germany and Italy, the state collapsed after its expansionist designs were forcibly contained. In Russia, the state collapsed under the weight of 70 years of economic centralization and ideological expansionism.

The Red Chinese regime, having witnessed the collapse of the USSR, has so far avoided its own demise by combining an autocratic government with components of a free enterprise economic system. (My contacts in China, including that nation's largest real estate developers and investment fund managers, believe the Red regime will be gone within five years.)

Of course, there exists an American option for the rejection of tyranny: Revolution. And it is an essential option, because the Natural Rights of man are always at risk of contravention by tyrants. At no time in the last century has our Republic faced a greater threat from "enemies, domestic" than right now.

"Our individual salvation," insists Barack Obama, "depends on collective salvation." In other words, BHO's tyranny, et al, must transcend Constitutional authority. And in accordance with his despotic ideals, Obama is now implementing "the fundamental transformation of the United States of America" that he promised his cadre of liberal voters.

It is yet to be seen whether the current trend toward statism will be reversed by the emergence of a great conservative leader, or by revolution, but if you're betting on another Ronald Reagan, I suggest you hedge your bet.

Our Declaration's author, Thomas Jefferson, understood the odds. He wrote, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground," and he concluded, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Accordingly, George Washington advised, "We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times."

Indeed we must.

PAUL RYAN'S PLAN COULD BE OUR TURNING POINT

The Obama administration has given no reason for any person with a brain to trust them. They have broken nearly every campaign promise. They have repeated lies in order to make people think the statements are true, when in fact the opposite is the case. Over and over and over again they have pushed a socialist agenda and when called on it, they say they're not. Even though we’ve began to see cracks in the slobbering love affair the press has with Obama, they carry the water for his schema like slaves. His cohorts in the House of Representatives, lead by the wacked out Nancy Pelosi, push through huge spending and tax increases at blinding speeds with little debate or time to read and understand what they mean or the ramifications they foist on the taxpaying public.

My representative, Paul Ryan, whom I’ve met and am very impressed with, has found the break pedal, and if the Republicans in the House are worth their salt, they would wise up and read what he has drafted here. http://www.house.gov/ryan/PR/HCmemo/

Here in mid-2009 we must begin to mend the smashed fences compromise has brought this party. This is an humbling task given the numbers we have in the House. It is only because we have been divided that we failed. When we stood toe to toe on the stimulus bill, we began to forge the way back to accountable government. Obama hates being accountable, why else would he have broken the constitution by appointing so many czars to so many positions? He has so many czars now just in foreign affairs that Secretary of State Clinton has been reduced to the margins of policy making.

I applaud Paul Ryan and his efforts. My prayer is they succeed. Someone must right the ship. This President must fail. Rush was right. He’s seldom wrong. We must do all we can to stop this very corrupt and very dangerous man.