Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Why Are We Helping al-Qaida?

Obama’s Union-Friendly, Feel-Good Approach to Education

By Kyle Olson     3/30/2011

The Obama administration, principally the president and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, are now routinely making public statements which are leading to one conclusion: instead of fixing American education, we should dumb down the standards. 

According to the Associated Press, President Obama “is pushing a rewrite of the nation’s education law that would ease some of its rigid measurement tools” and wants “a test that ‘everybody agrees makes sense’ and administer it in less pressure-packed atmospheres, potentially every few years instead of annually.”

The article goes on to say that Obama wants to move away from proficiency goals in math, science and reading, in favor of the ambiguous and amorphous goals of student readiness for college and career.

Obama’s new focus comes on the heels of a New York Times report that 80% of American public schools could be labeled as failing under the standards of No Child Left Behind.

Put another way: the standards under NCLB have revealed that the American public education system is full of cancer. Instead of treating the cancer, Obama wants to change the test, as if ignoring the MRI somehow makes the cancer go away.

So instead of implementing sweeping policies to correct the illness, Obama is suggesting that we just stop testing to pretend it doesn’t exist.

If Obama were serious about curing the disease, one of the best things he could do is to ensure that there is a quality teacher in every classroom in America. Of course, that would mean getting rid teacher tenure and scrapping seniority rules that favor burned-out teachers over ambitious and innovative young teachers.

That means standing up to the teacher unions. For a while, it looked like Obama would get tough with the unions, but not anymore. With a shaky economy and three wars, it looks like Obama’s re-election is in serious jeopardy. He needs all hands on deck – thus the new union-friendly education message.
Obama’s new direction will certainly make the unionized adults happy. They’ve hated NCLB from the get-go.

And the unions will love Obama’s talk about using criteria other than standardized testing in evaluating schools.

He doesn’t get specific, of course, but I bet I can fill in the gaps. If testing is too harsh, perhaps we can judge students and schools based on how hard they try or who can come up with the most heart-wrenching excuse for failure or how big the dog was that ate their homework.

This makes sense in America’s continual slouch toward mediocrity. But hand-holding and effort awards didn’t produce the light bulb or the automobile or the MRI.

Hard work, accountability and the real possibility of failure – those are the things that made America great. Some kids and parents need to receive the cold hard reality that they’re not up to snuff. The Obama administration should not dumb things down so fewer people feel bad.

Because then those same people will complain when the cancer is incurable.

Kyle Olson is founder and CEO of Education Action Group Foundation, a non-partisan non-profit organization with the goal of promoting sensible education reform.

So what’s new? 
They’ve been dumbing down the education system in this country since the early seventies.

Dennis the Menace

The following column was written by Dennis Kucinich, a man with whom I rarely ever agree.   However, I must give credit where credit is due. He is right on this time.

Last night the President said it took one month to put together a response to the situation in Libya. During that time the President consulted with 28 member nations of NATO, 22 member nations of the Arab league and 15 members of the UN Security Council, ten of whom approved the resolution. There was also time for extensive coordination with France and Great Britain. The President had time to consult with the international community, but had no time to come to the United States Congress?

There is no question that the administration should have followed the Constitution and received the approval of Congress before starting a war. Consulting with a few members is not the same thing as following the Constitutional requirements of Article 1, Section 8.

Further complicating the administration's failure to come to Congress prior to ordering an attack is the fact that our primary partners in the war against Libya, France and Great Britain, had, according to a French military website, planned certain war games which now may have significance.

On November 2, 2010 France and Great Britain signed a mutual defense treaty, which paved the way for joint participation in a military exercise called 'Southern Mistral'. While war games are not uncommon, the similarities between 'Southern Mistral' and 'Operation Odyssey Dawn' highlight just how many unanswered questions remain regarding our own military planning for Libya.

The 'Southern Mistral' war games called for Great Britain-French air strikes against an unnamed dictator of a fictional country, "Southland." The pretend attack was authorized by a pretend United Nations Security Council Resolution. The 'Southern Mistral' war games were set for March 21-25, 2011.

On March 19, 2011, the United States joined France and Great Britain in an air attack against Muammar Gaddafi's Libya pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Scheduling a joint military exercise that ends up resembling real military action could be seen as remarkable planning by the French and British, but it also highlights questions regarding the United States' role in planning for the war. We don't know how long the attack on Libya has been in preparation, but Congress must find out. We don't know who the rebels really represent and how they became armed, but Congress must find out.

With so many unknowns, Congress' only path to protect both the Constitution and the institution of government of the people is to cut off funds for the war in Libya. A cutoff of funds would require the president to follow the Constitutional process with respect to going to war. He would have to seek Congressional approval.

Otherwise, we will have given our tacit consent to a policy that undercuts Congress' constitutionally-mandated role as a coequal branch of government. Moreover, since the Founders established Congress under Article 1 and the Executive under Article 2, Congress is first among equals, unless we refuse to be.

That is why I will propose an amendment to the next continuing resolution or omnibus appropriations bill that would prevent any U.S. funds from being used for the war in Libya.

Follow Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Twitter:

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Found this little jewel on the web

A Commentary by Peter Wehner
373 Votes to Go Into Iraq; Zero for Libya

On ABC’s “This Week,” host Jake Tapper asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in the context of the Libya operation, “Why not go to Congress?”

“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” Clinton said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

Secretary Clinton’s implication, of course, is that Iraq was a “unilateral action,” as opposed to what President Obama is doing in Libya.

This assertion is false on multiple levels. Let’s start by citing Josh Rogin in Foreign Policy, who referenced a chart listing all the countries that contributed at least some military assets to the five major military operations in which the United States participated in a coalition during the last 20 years: the 1991 Gulf War (32 countries participating), the 1995 Bosnia mission (24 countries), the 1999 Kosovo mission (19 countries), the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan (48 countries), and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (40 countries), at the height of the size of each coalition. “As of today,” Rogin writes, “only 15 countries, including the United States, have committed to providing a military contribution to the Libya war.”

And while we’re on the topic of Iraq and historical revisionism, it’s worth pointing out that the attempts at diplomacy with Saddam Hussein lasted through 12 years, 17 UN Resolutions, and two administrations, including the Clinton administration (which went so far as to bomb Iraq in 1998 without UN or NATO approval). It ranks among history’s longer diplomatic efforts to avoid war. And under President Bush, five separate Iraq-related UN Security Council Resolutions were passed unanimously, including 1441, which found Iraq in material breach of its obligations and warned Iraq of “serious consequences” (which all parties understood to mean war) for continued violations. For four-and-a-half months, the United States and its allies worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council’s long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council publicly announced they would veto any resolution that compelled the disarmament of Iraq. These governments shared America’s assessment of the danger but did not share America’s resolve to meet it. More than three dozen nations, however, did have the resolve to act against Saddam Hussein.

As for Iraq and Congress: On October 10-11, 2002, the House voted 296-133 in favor of the Use of Force Resolution, while the vote in the Senate was 77-23. All told, 110 Democrats in the House and Senate voted in favor of going to war – including then-Senator Hillary Clinton who, in speaking about the United Nations (whose support in the war she, like President Bush, preferred), said,
It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million of Kosovar Albanians… In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

Which brings us back to Mrs. Clinton’s comments yesterday about “unilateral action.” Since the idea of a Clinton knowingly spreading untruths is inconceivable, we’ll simply assume that her charges of unilateralism are the product of extraordinary sloppiness and an unusual memory lapse.

Plan to Destroy Capitalism

Thursday, March 24, 2011

It's Vacation Time

I'm leaving for a short vacation.
I'll be back next week.

It’s The Oil Stupid

Remember how the Democrats use to insist that Bush went to war for oil.   
Why are they not questioning if “Mr. Hope and change” has gone to war for oil.  BP has a 900 million dollar Libyan oil deal, which Prime Minister Cameron endangered when he quickly came to the aid of the Libyan rebels who appeared to be headed for victory, only to quickly collapse when Gaddafi pushed back.

Back when Qaddafi was securely in power, BP lobbied to free the Lockerbie bomber to avoid Qaddafi’s threat to cut all commercial ties with the UK.  Now the only thing that will save BP is a good old fashioned war.  Qaddafi had already called on Russian and Chinese oil companies to replace Western oil companies.  Not to be left out, the Libya rebels quickly created their own oil company reminding everyone of what this is really about.

I’ve heard all the other, more noble arguments. Yes. It is true that Qaddafi is a dictator, that’s nothing new. Yes, he supported terrorism against the U.S. and France, again nothing new. Yes, he was responsible for the tragedy of PanAm 103.  Yes, he funded, armed and trained radicals in many African countries such as in Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Haute Volta, and in a few Middle Eastern countries, including Lebanon. We all are aware that his regime oppressed his people and tortured and jailed his opponents for four decades.

 But, it is also true that he ruled Libya unchecked during and after the Cold War, before and after 9/11, and he was received by liberal democracies as a respectable leader.  So why has the west waited so long to take action against this dictator?  Of course it’s the oil.  Even the Democrats know it’s all about the oil. Western elites were morally and politically encouraging him by buying his oil and empowering him with endless cash as Libyan dissidents were dying in jails.

There is a reason why Europe yawns at Turkey’s use of chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels, while sending in the jets when Qaddafi bombs rebel positions.  Why the genocide in Sudan was not interrupted by a No Fly Zone, and top European firms still do business with Iran through proxies in Dubai.  It’s not about human rights.  It’s not even about the threat potential.  If it were, North Korea or Iran would be in our bomb sights. Right now Syria is massacring protesters, but don’t look for military intervention there either. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about the bright boys deciding that Qaddafi stands in the way of the future.  Genocide, ethnic cleansing and terrorism are minor crimes, compared to obstructing the emergency of a stable order and the fat profits it will bring.

Obama didn’t consult Congress as the constitution requires, but he did attempt to justify his action after the fact.
He cited “Qaddafi’s defiance of the Arab League”, and the “international community”, as well as “the authority of the Security Council” should send chills up anyone’s spine.

No Mr. President, the fact that you consider the US to be the ‘Enforcer’ for the Arab League is what should send chills up anyone’s spine. 

It may very well be true that a world without Qaddafi will be a better place, but it’s unclear what Libya will be like without him.

Bush’s invasion of Iraq, ill-considered as it was, had a trace of idealism in it. That idealism is wholly and completely absent from what is happening in Libya, which is precisely why it stirred so much cynicism and rage.  Bush genuinely believed that Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world could be made better if we just showed them what was possible.

This is about trade, money and power.  It is why we are now spending billions of dollars on regime change in Libya, while ignoring genocide elsewhere.  It’s why a man who denounced the overthrow of Saddam, who actually did commit genocide, is now part of a campaign against Gaddafi, who has not.

The bottom line is, this wasn’t an intervention in response to genocide or WMD’s.        
It’s the oil stupid!

Tuesday, March 22, 2011


How does a liberal determine if a war is a good and just war or a bad, dumb, and unjust one?  Well, the answer to that question is now quite clear.  It all depends on whether a Republican or a Democrat sets in the oval office.

Even though President Obama seems to be channeling the actions of George Bush in military matters, we’re seeing an exact opposite reaction by the liberal media, and for the most part, liberals in general.  There are a few exceptions, like Dennis Kucinich and a couple others that, if nothing else, are at least showing some consistency.

Perhaps the most inconsistent of all politicians is Obama himself.   On December 20, 2007, he made the following assertion in an interview with the Boston Globe. “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”   And on Oct. 2, 2002 Obama said that he isn't "opposed to all war," only "dumb war, rash war."    Well, if the war with Saddam Hussein was a “dumb” war, then the war with Gadhafi is without a doubt a “dumber” war.

Regarding the justifications for war with Iraq, state Sen. Obama said: "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity ... But ... Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ..."

REALLY?   He didn’t believe that Saddam posed a danger to the United States or to his neighbors even though he had attacked or invaded three of his neighbors: Iran, Kuwait, and Israel.    Gadhafi on the other hand, has hardly ranged beyond his own borders.

Even though Obama (like the rest of the world) was convinced that Saddam had "developed chemical and biological weapons" -- and though he knew that Saddam had actually attacked his own people from the air with chemical weapons -- he didn't think that his possession of those weapons warranted war.  In Gadhafi's case, there is no threat of WMD because he wisely relinquished his WMD program after seeing Saddam's fate.

Now that the United States has joined the war against Moammar Gadhafi, I think we are at least entitled to an explanation.  How is the case for war against Gadhafi smarter (remember, Obama is only against "dumb" wars) or less "ideological" or more prudent than that for war against Saddam Hussein?

Certainly, with an army of only 50,000, Gadhafi represents far less of a threat to his neighbors or to us than did Saddam, who commanded an army estimated at 350,000. As for humanitarian concerns, what Gadhafi is doing to the rebels in Libya is exactly what Saddam did to his domestic enemies, but on a reduced scale. As Obama himself said, Saddam is "a ruthless man ... who butchers his own people to secure his power." Yet that didn't justify a war, state Sen. Obama told us.

If Obama really believed what he said about Iraq and Saddam Hussein, doesn't that seem a good rationale for not committing anymore treasure -- which we have run out of -- and possibly more American lives with no greater goal than unseating Gadhafi in the hope that someone better will take his place?

Yes indeed, It seems like only yesterday when we had an "imperialist warmonger" in the White House who was going to be replaced by a peace-loving Democrat who promised "hope" and "change".  Well, how’s that working out for you liberals?  We still have troops in Iraq, we've escalated the war in Afghanistan, and now we're bombing the crap out of Libya.  Oh yeah, and  Obama signed an order closing Guantanamo prison as his first presidential act, but recently announced it will stay open and the military tribunals established by President Bush and supported by Congress will resume.

I always had serious doubts whether or not the lefties actually believed any of the crap they were spewing about the war on terrorism when Bush was in office.  I’m not passing judgment on either war, but if it was true then, it is just as true now, so where are all the massive protests. 

Wednesday, March 16, 2011


Republicans Move to Stop Cap and Trade Regulations
The House and Senate Republicans both moved forward on Tuesday to stop the (EPA) from regulating greenhouse emissions. The Obama administration has started implementing new regulations which tax businesses and raise gas prices for consumers to pursue its climate change agenda.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) on Tuesday by a vote of 34-19. Three Democrats on the committee supported the bill: Jim Matheson (Utah), John Barrow (Ga.) and Mike Ross (Ark.).

“The Energy Tax Prevention Act is about gas prices, and stopping the EPA from driving them even higher,” committee Chairman Fred Upton (R.-Mich.) told HUMAN EVENTS exclusively after the vote.

“This legislation is about our economy, and stopping the EPA from imposing the tremendous cost of runaway regulations. And this legislation is about protecting American workers, and stopping the EPA from shipping our jobs overseas,” said Upton.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.-Va.) said the EPA bill will be voted on by the full House before the Easter recess.  n the Senate, Mitch McConnell introduced the identical bill as an amendment to the small business bill, which was debated on Tuesday.

In June 2009, the House Democrats passed cap-and-trade (or “cap-and-tax”) by seven votes, but the bill died in the Senate. But in December, when the Republicans were about to take control of the House, the Obama administration instituted new EPA regulations to put cap and trade policies into effect.

The EPA used the Clean Air Act as a vehicle for the regulations which impose a tax in the form of carbon emissions to businesses to regulate their greenhouse gasses. Inhofe predicted that, without this legislation, the EPA’s cap-and-trade regulations would increase taxes from $300 to $400 billion a year.

The House’s Energy Tax Prevention Act stops the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases and impose the taxes, in both current regulations and future efforts. The bill, in essence, prohibits the Obama administration from enacting cap-and-trade policies through regulations, after failing to do so through legislation.

After the Upton bill passes the full House, Republicans will link it together to the Senate amendment as the Inhofe/Upton bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-N.V.) said on Tuesday that the amendment will have a vote “in due time,” although he does not support it. The Senate is expected to vote on it either this week or after next week’s recess.

“It’s my hope that we’ll vote to stop this power grab in its tracks,” said McConnell.

Top 3 Myths in Obama’s Lecture

on Gas Prices

President Obama held a press conference today to discuss rising gasoline and oil prices. Gasoline at the pump now costs an average of $3.50 per gallon nationwide, and experts project prices to eclipse $4 per gallon this year, possibly by the beginning of the summer driving season.
But instead of providing a solution that most of America wants — more domestic drilling — President Obama used his presser to recite misleading talking points to justify his anti-energy policies, arguments that have all been thoroughly debunked.
Here are the three biggest myths from President Obama’s remarks this afternoon:
  • “We can’t escape the fact that we control only 2% of the world’s oil.” This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and it’s repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, it’s 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling America’s proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the world’s oil is clearly false.
  • “Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they aren’t producing a thing.” President Obama adds to this whopper by saying he wants to “encourage companies to produce [on] the leases they hold.” While this sounds like a common sense fix, it’s actually just blind rhetoric reserved only for people with a shocking ignorance of drilling. You can read more about this here and here, but it basically boils down to this: A lease is for exploration and production, not just production, and because oil is not equally distributed across the globe, one parcel of leased acreage may not hold any oil. Moreover, due to the circuitous and needlessly complicated permitting process, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities. To get to the production phase, it could take as long as ten years. Ironically, President Obama wants to tax companies for not producing on their leases, even if the federal government’s refusal to grant permits is the reason why those companies are not drilling.
  • “Last year…our oil production reached its highest level in 7 years.” This is pure spin. President Obama is deliberately trying to take credit for actions unrelated to his policies. The increased level of production is due to the actions of previous administrations and production in the Dakotas where most drilling is occurring on private land. By contrast, the Energy Information Administration projects that there will be a decline in production of 220,000 barrels of domestic oil per day in 2011, and in 2012 America will produce 150 million fewer barrels in the Gulf of Mexico, all because of President Obama’s policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obama’s drilling moratorium (and subsequent refusal to issue drilling permits) has forced at least 7 rigs to leave the Gulf and sign contracts in other countries, taking much needed jobs and revenue with them.
As gas prices skyrocket, Americans are reminded every day that the federal government’s refusal to allow responsible domestic drilling can have an incredibly destructive economic impact. Instead of trying to fix this problem, the Obama administration has worked every day to make sure that America produces less oil and has to rely more on OPEC for our energy needs.
No amount of White House spin or misleading talking points can change that tragic fact.

The Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act

Very interesting

 By- Douglas Hagmann & Judi McLeod 

Again, the corporate media is deliberately silent to the level of complicity on the threats, intimidation and even legislative blackmail that is currently taking place over the issue of states’ rights and the U.S. Constitution. Specifically being referenced are the efforts of individual states to pass a Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act, or legislation that would allow each state to pass legislation verifying the eligibility of a presidential candidate under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

As most people know and despite demonstrably false assertions to the contrary, Obama has failed to provide proof of eligibility to occupy the White House. Furthermore, those responsible for vetting his credentials and filing the necessary documents to allow him to be included on the ballot have failed to be held accountable for their inaction.

Another common yet fallacious argument, one that appears to be boldly embraced by Republicans and the conservative right, is that the issue of constitutional eligibility is nothing more than a diversion from the more important issues of the day. To those who embrace that view, we will ask nothing more than “since when is treason a diversion?” which is an excellent article authored by Neill Turner that can be read here.

As heard last Saturday live on CFP Radio, The Hagmann-McLeod Report (available for download here),  Attorney Mario Apuzzo and retired U.S. military commander Charles Kerchner detailed the reasons that Barack Hussein Obama failed to provide the necessary documents to confirm his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution. Equally important, they further detailed events that are currently taking place behind the scenes to derail efforts that would effectively delay or even halt the states’ efforts to pass such legislation so it is not effective for the next presidential election in 2012.

Before interviewing Attorney Apuzzo and Commander Kerchner, it was our understanding that a number of U.S. states were at various levels of passing legislation that would put the issue of presidential eligibility to rest forever as of the 2012 election. On its face, that assertion appeared to be true, especially if one has listened to the media, high profile conservative talk show hosts and others even in the alternative media. Conservative divas such as Sarah Palin, conservative talking heads who appeared at CPAC, Republican lawmakers and others have made a public showing of openly endorsing such legislation. As such, it appeared that the eligibility matter would be cleared up by 2012, putting the U.S. back on track with the federal eligibility requirements defined in the U.S. Constitution.

Our investigation and the findings by Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner, however, have confirmed that the American people have been lied to again. The efforts at the state levels have been significantly co-opted, and those who have openly endorsed such legislation appear to be involved in a high-stakes shell game designed to fool the American public. Most troubling is that it is the very people who conservatives and constitutionalists have placed their faith are those who are the operators of the shell game.

Georgia: the current legislative battlefield

As detailed by Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner, the most obvious example of this travesty of law is illustrated in the state of Georgia, where we, as Americans, have less than 36 hours to put pressure on the legislators to do the right thing by the U.S. Constitution. As detailed by Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner,  Georgia HB 401, The Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act is deliberately and purposely being stalled in committee by the Georgia House of Representatives by lack of full backing by the Republican Speaker of the House David Ralston.

Co-Sponsor of the Georgia Proof-of-Eligibility Law, Representative Sean Jerguson has laid the unvarnished truth out to the American people in an interview last week about the media’s distortion of the bill. He slams the media for spinning the truth or only offering half-truths about the bill. The video of this March 7, 2011 interview can be accessed here and provides an excellent glimpse into what has been going on behind the scenes pertaining to this bill.

The Devil Went Down to Georgia

To paraphrase a 1979 song performed by the Charlie Daniels Band, it would appear that “the Devil went down to Georgia” and is prepared to make a deal for souls out of desperation.  Investigation finds that the reference to the song is not too far off, if one considers team Obama and those who downplay or disregard the immediate importance of this constitutional issue as the Devil, while fiddle player Johnny represents those who understand and care about the rule of law.

Tomorrow, failing sufficient objection on the part of the American people, the bill will either die in the relevant house committee or be modified and moved out of committee with an effective date of 2013, after the 2012 election cycle. This will effectively permit Barack Hussein Obama and others to circumvent legal compliance with Article II, Section 1 of our U.S. Constitution and not require him or any other ballot member to prove eligibility as a “natural born Citizen of the United States.”

If this does indeed happen, certain conservatives, Republicans, and those who claim to be on the side of the rule of law can claim that they have supported the efforts of those of us who want this matter resolved before the 2012 election.

We can expect such behavior by Progressives and others who are unconcerned about constitutional issues, but we must not be fooled by individuals and groups who claim to be for the rule of law but have acquiesced to the extent that they can claim they are on the side of right when, in fact, they are not. Unlike the 1979 song, however, that is much like Johnny impressively playing the fiddle, but only for show and not to win, deceiving his audience and losing the golden fiddle. We must not allow that to happen.

What is immediately needed

We ask that you immediately contact Georgia Speaker of the House David Ralston by telephone or facsimile, or even in person - not by e-mail or mail, and respectfully demand that HB 401 is passed to take effect for the 2012 election.  We also suggest contacting the governor of Georgia by telephone to request that he openly call for its adoption in committee and movement to the full Georgia House for passing and adoption for the 2012 election cycle.

We also ask one more thing. Please listen to the two-hour long show and give the show or links to your family, friends, and co-workers so they might understand the issue and what is at stake in this matter.

Please contact:
Georgia Speaker of the House of Representatives David Ralston, in person or by telephone or facsimile at 332 State Capitol, Atlanta, GA 30334 Telephone: 404.656.5020
Georgia Governor Nathan Deal via E-Mail)

America, please let’s show them we are watching, and act accordingly.

GE screwed up big-time

Thirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing -- the Mark 1 -- was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident.

Questions persisted for decades about the ability of the Mark 1 to handle the immense pressures that would result if the reactor lost cooling power, and today that design is being put to the ultimate test in Japan. Five of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which has been wracked since Friday's earthquake with explosions and radiation leaks, are Mark 1s.

"The problems we identified in 1975 were that, in doing the design of the containment, they did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with a loss of coolant," Bridenbaugh told ABC News in an interview. "The impact loads the containment would receive by this very rapid release of energy could tear the containment apart and create an uncontrolled release."

Read whole article here.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

President Obama on Gun Control

President Obama published an op-ed in The Arizona Daily Star over the weekend, calling for more enforcement of current gun laws. 

He used Jared Loughner as an example of a mad man who got his hands on a gun, citing lax gun law enforcement.  Here is a man the Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.”

And, let’s not forget that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, had multiple encounters with Loughner for issuing death threats to a radio host among other things before the shooting on January 8, meaning Dupnik allowed him to slip through the cracks of law enforcement more than once.

In the op-ed, Obama calls for more enforcement of existing gun laws, saying he wouldn’t be surprised if law-abiding gun owners were in agreement with him.
Well yes!   Obviously there were many opportunities to enforce existing gun laws.  The question is “Why didn’t they”?   And while we’re on the subject Mr. President, why are we not enforcing existing immigration laws?   Oh, and how about the existing “same sex marriage” law?     

Risk Free Energy

You can please some of the people all of the time but you can’t please the environmentalists none of the time.

I knew from the get-go it was only a matter of time before environmentalists would point toward Japan, and say, "We told you so," and then declare a moral victory for anti-nuclear activism.  Eliminating nuclear power might sound nice, but there is one big problem:  Environmentalists are trying to eliminate all the other alternatives, as well.

1.  COAL - They oppose coal because they say It’s environmentally hazardous to extract, in addition to being dangerous to miners.  And, burning it produces too much carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming.  They also say "Clean coal" is a fiction and is not worth researching.

2. OIL - They oppose oil because drilling poses a risk to the environment.  That’s primarily why the United States is not tapping its own natural resources, such as in ANWR.  Also, the U.S. has to rely on foreign powers to satisfy our "oil addiction."  This threatens our national security and is ethically questionable.  And, just like coal, they say it produces too much carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming.

3. HYDROELECTRIC POWER – It used to enjoy broad support, but that appears to no longer be the case.  Some now express concern because the process of constructing the plant itself (such as creating a reservoir) releases greenhouse gases.  Environmentalists in Ohio blocked the construction of a hydroelectric plant because it would endanger plants and inconvenience fish.  I suspect we would soon run out of acceptable places to build the damns anyway.

4. WIND POWER – It’s fashionable today to support wind power, as long as it’s not near Nantucket Sound, where it is socially acceptable to oppose the Cape Wind project on aesthetic grounds.  Others oppose wind turbines because they occasionally kill a few birds.  And we are now learning they’re not nearly as efficient as we once thought.

5. SOLAR POWER - Ideally, the world would run entirely on solar power.  It is both clean and safe, and the sun provides the planet with enough energy in a single hour to power the world for an entire year.  And the best thing is it's completely renewable.  This may someday be the solution, but that’s still many years away.  Solar cell efficiency (converting sunlight to electricity) remains an enormous technological obstacle.

 Currently, solar power only provides about 1% of our national energy, and it’s unlikely to greatly increase anytime soon.  But even if we could increase the efficiency of solar power, evidence indicates that environmentalists would oppose that, too.  In California, the construction of a solar power plant has been held up due to concerns raised over the welfare of a lizard.  Are you kidding me? A freaking LIZARD.

6. NATURAL GAS – They oppose natural gas as well.  They say that although it is much cleaner than coal, it’s still not carbon neutral.  Thus, natural gas should be avoided, too.  Well, this is where we need to draw the line and tell the greenes to go pound sand.  This is the best option we have and we need to fully utilize it until something else proves to be more efficient.

These tree huggers that never propose realistic solutions are simply not worth taking seriously.  Unfortunately, this characterizes the arguments put forth by most environmentalists. 

I don’t agree with Bill Clinton very often, but. . . .

Maybe he’s getting smarter in his old age.

More Federal Intervention

When a citizen in Dayton, Ohio picks up the phone and dials 911 for help, he or she would naturally assume that the police officers dispatched to their aid are highly-qualified, trained professionals.

However, owing to affirmative action idiocy imposed by the Barack Obama-Eric Holder version of Dumb and Dumber, the city of Dayton is being forced to lower its qualification standards for applicants.

My question is, why the hell is race being used as a factor in determining qualifying criteria?  Whatever happened to recruiting for the “best and brightest”?

Monday, March 14, 2011

Obama's oil production protest fails fact-checking test

From The Washington Examiner

By Hugh Hewitt

"So any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn't match up with reality." So declared President Obama Friday with the practiced firmness of voice and direct look into the teleprompter that signals to veterans of the Obama watch that the chief executive has strayed far from the truth. 

In May of 2010, Obama's secretary of the interior, Ken Salazar, issued a six-month moratorium order for drilling on the outer continental shelf. When the courts struck down that illegal order, Team Obama switched to a slow-roll strategy, demanding new permits for exploration, and accomplished the same thing as a moratorium.

Jonathan Tilove, the New Orleans' Times-Picayune's Washington correspondent, set a standard that few met national reporters met when he collected the statements of Louisiana legislators in response to the president's whopper:
"The gap continues to widen between what President Obama claims to be true about domestic energy production and what Louisianans know is true," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La.

"With prices at the pump climbing toward $4 per gallon, the president is asking us to believe that his administration supports expanded drilling off the Gulf Coast," Vitter continued. "I guess that's true only if you don't actually need a permit."

"Someone should tell the president that April Fool's Day is still weeks away," said Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La., told Tilove. "Today's news conference is another example of the president misleading the American people regarding his energy policy.

Tilove got similar quotes from Louisiana Republican Reps. Charles Boustany (the "president's remarks ... are wholly untrue"), Rodney Alexander, Bill Cassidy and Steve Scalise. They all provide variations on the same theme: The president isn't telling the truth about oil production and his administration's war on new supplies.

Of course, we don't have new wells off East or West Coast, and, of course, the president hasn't done anything to expand production in Alaska either. It is absurd for the president to claim anything other than that for which he deserves complete credit: Bringing new exploration to a halt in a vain and destructive attempt to force America to stop consuming the oil that in his mind and the mind of his political allies is imperiling the planet.

Far more remarkable than the president's brazenness with the truth, which has become a routine feature of Obama's "preside-but-don't-lead" tenure in the Oval Office, is the liberal mainstream media's willingness to indulge it.

The president preaches fiscal restraint but advanced a reckless budget and refuses to suggest any entitlement reform. The MSM is silent.

The president imposed Obamacare on an unwilling country and then issues more than a thousand waivers to the friends of Obama and the politically connected. The MSM is silent.

And now with gas prices soaring and an angry population turning their political fury on the president, he runs from the responsibility which is surely his and claims childlike wonder at the idea that his no-growth/no-oil policies are to blame. And the MSM is silent.

A craven MSM continues to abet the president's enormous incompetence in all aspects of his job. The credibility gap that has grown and grown around the president since January 2009 has now reached the point where Obama no longer cares to pretend to the truth and the press no longer cares to report that fact.

The price at the pumps doesn't lie, however, and that is Obama's price, a price that flows from his policies, and which defines his politics. That price will also define his presidency from now until November 2012.

Japan is not like New Orleans

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Shared Sacrifice

Last month, our President addressed the National Governor’s Association, wherein he suggested that “shared sacrifice” should become a new catch-phrase, of sorts, for America. “If all the pain is shared by one group,” he said, “that’s not good for anyone.”

This recession has been felt in nearly every sector of the economy, among people from nearly every socioeconomic category.  Those of us who are retired didn’t get a “cost of living” increase in spite of the soaring prices of virtually everything.  Even the wealthiest among us have had fewer opportunities in which to invest and with which to expand their wealth and that has resulted in fewer employment opportunities for others.

In reality, the “one group” of people that has been most successfully sheltered from the “pain” that the President wants us all to “share” is government employees.  But, speaking from the other side of his mouth, President Obama told the Governors that "I don't think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified.”

Here is the truth for those who can handle the truth.  In the state of Wisconsin, state taxpayers pay nearly 100% of the costs of government employee retirement pension contributions, and well over 90% of government employee’s healthcare insurance costs.  What we have here is a case of Parasites Devouring Their Host.

Do you have any idea of what a lousy job America’s “teachers” do educating our children?  The more money “we the people” pour into the US educational system, the dumber our kids seem to get.    (Link)
The problem is, the unions prevent firing the bad teachers and giving pay raises to the best of them.  Unions require all such actions be biased strictly on seniority.

There’s an eighth grade civics test from 1954 that can be accessed on the Internet.  It asks such questions as “Tell the provisions of each of the amendments,” and “Write the Preamble to the Constitution.”  Now, THAT is what I call an education?    (Link)
I have a grand daughter who is a high school senior and a straight A student.  I knew more about civics, or any subject for that matter, in the seventh grade than she knows as a senior.  And she is about to graduate at the top of her class.

I’m of an age where I can vouch for the fact that “back in the day” we were taught American civics in school, and we were taught to be proud of America.  Nowadays, more often than not the kids are taught to be, at best, neutral about the United States, and at worst to hate it.  (Link)

Not content with dumbing down America’s children, many of our “teachers” have promoted anti-American propaganda, globalism, and entitlement mentality.  School has become more indoctrination than education.

I don’t mean this as an indictment against teachers.  The real problem is the unions involved in the protests in Wisconsin, and I know that the idiots marching in Madison are not representative of many or even most union members.  It’s the union leaders and the "Marching Moron Brigade” that I find detestable.  (Link)

The uproar there has not been about Wisconsin indiscriminately firing government workers or cutting the workers’ benefits, but about the necessity of government employees taking more financial responsibility for their own retirement and healthcare. This, of course, led to Wisconsin school teachers storming the state capitol and chanting “tax the rich – don’t cut our benefits…”

Take a look at this YouTube video.

Time for a national right-to-work law

From The Washington Times

Compulsory unionism has no place in a free country

Even as they scream for “workers’ rights,” the one workers’ right that union bosses despise is the right to work. Big Labor and its overwhelmingly Democratic allies oppose a woman’s right to choose whether or not to join a union. Instead, they prefer that predominantly male employers and labor leaders make that choice for her.

The American left has hoisted “choice” onto a pedestal taller than the Washington monument. Liberals and their Big Labor buddies will race to their battle stations to defend a woman’s right to choose to abort her unborn child. Meanwhile, they holler themselves hoarse to prevent her (and her male counterparts) from freely choosing to accept or avoid union membership.

Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, understands that exercising this choice is a basic human right and neither private employment nor government work should require joining or paying dues to a union.

“Many Americans already are struggling just to put food on the table,” Mr. DeMint stated, “and they shouldn’t have to fear losing their jobs or face discrimination if they don’t want to join a union.” Thus, on Tuesday, Mr. DeMint introduced S. 504, the National Right to Work Act (NRTWA). If not today, then soon, a federally protected individual right to work should be signed into law.

Ahh those piece loving Democrats.

Death Threats Against Republicans Uncovered Daily

Saturday, March 12, 2011

The Japanese Quake:

 Another Ice Age Precursor?

I don’t know this fellow (Philip V. Brennan) who wrote this article, but he makes a heck of a lot more sense to me than Al Gore and all the other global warming nuts.  

 By Philip V. Brennan      March 12, 2011
Back in the summer of 1997,  I wrote a nine-part investigative report on climate change: Global Warming or Globaloney. It attracted a lot of attention at the time, but given the fact that the nation was being barraged by advocates of the socialist global warming propaganda campaign and their media allies, what I had to say fell mostly on deaf ears.

After all, a lot of the global warming enthusiasts appeared to have all sorts of impressive sounding scientific credentials and who’s going to pay attention to a mere journalist with no academic background in climatology who claimed that global warming was a contrived myth and that there was every reason to believe that the current interglacial period of temperate weather has about reached its end.

In that series I wrote that one of the precursors of the onset of an ice age are violent tectonic events such as earthquakes of an ever increasing magnitude as was the quake that just devastated much of the Japanese islands.  And despite the alarms issued by Al Gore and his cohorts much of the world has not been warming but instead experiencing some bitterly frigid winters because the polar ice caps have been growing.

In the Northern Hemisphere, the polar ice cap is the machine that sends icy blasts southward. The colder and thicker the ice cap, the colder the winds it sends in our direction. It would seem to be reasonable to suggest that perhaps instead of slowly melting, the ice cap is getting icier and thicker. After all, a warming polar ice cap simply can’t produce the bitter cold winters much of the world has experienced in recent years.

In Global Warming or Globaloney, I raised some questions that nobody in on the global warming scam was ever able to answer. I’ll now ask them again.

1. Climatological records show that whenever the level of CO2 rose above 290ppm, an ice age inevitably followed. I repeat, inevitably followed. When I wrote my report the level had already reached 362ppm and was still climbing.
Question: If the Climatological record shows that this indicator of climate change is an accurate predictor of an approaching ice age, why should we not expect it to be performing that function once again? What’s past is prologue. If the rise of CO2 levels above 290ppm, has always indicated coming global cooling, why should we not view it as such now?

2. There have been a series of seven ice ages over the last 700,000 years, according to paleological records - one every hundred thousand years or so, followed by an interglacial period of about 10 to 12 thousand years. The last ice age ended about 10,800 years ago, meaning that the present interglacial period is approaching its end.
Question: If the past is prologue, and interglacial periods last only 10 to 12 thousand years, and we are approaching the end of that cycle, why should we believe that what appears to be an immutable law of nature has suddenly been repealed by Al Gore, Dan Rather , Mikhail Gorbachev and the New York Times?

3. The rise in CO2 levels that signaled the end of interglacial periods over the past 700,000 years occurred as the result of natural causes. Now we are being told that the levels of this so-called “greenhouse gas” are mainly the result of nasty old mankind polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of disgusting junk, such as the residue of fossil fuels. Mother Nature, they say,  had nothing to do with it.
Question: If CO2 levels skyrocketed prior to the onset of the last ice age, 100,000 years ago, with no help from mankind, and when there wasn’t a Toyota or an backyard barbecue oven around to create greenhouse gasses, why should be believe that those levels are rising now solely because of humanity’s refusal to go back to the technological dark ages and forego their cars and trucks and other appurtenances of modern life?

Here’s a brief summary from Global Warming or Globalony:
“‘Most people who worry about global warming assume that the earth’s temperature right now is ecologically ideal and that any significant warming would be harmful if not disastrous. Scientists who take the longer view know otherwise. ” wrote Kent Jeffreys of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the National Center for Policy Analysis’ Policy Report #96.

• In the past two to three million years the earth’s temperature has gone through at least 17 climate circles, with ice ages typically lasting about 100,000 interrupted by warming periods lasting about 10,000 years.

• Since by some calculations the current warm period is about 13,000 years old, the next ice age is overdue.”
“Jeffreys notes the fact that back in the 1970s: ‘Many scientists warned of a coming ice age, and with good reason. Although there has been a slight increase in average temperatures during the twentieth century, many regions of the globe have experienced sustained cooling trends.’

• The record speaks for itself. In the history of the Earth, ice ages are the norm. They occur regularly as clockwork and as such, must be regarded as immutable laws of nature. It would be sheer folly to believe that this law has somehow been repealed.

• We are now between 10,800 and 13,000 years removed from the end of the last ice age. Is it not prudent to expect the onset of another ice age?

• Studies have show that when atmospheric levels of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)—the principal greenhouse gas—exceeded 290 parts per million (ppm), the last ice age began. The current levels of CO2 exceed 362 ppm and they continue to rise.

Studies of data collected from ocean bottom samples 200 miles off the coast of Ecuador by Nickolas Shackleton and associates at Britain’s Cambridge University provided CO2 readings for the past 130,000 years, a period covering the last interglacial, the ice age that followed, and the current interglacial.

“These data confirmed the rise of CO2 levels that preceded the last ice age, and the point at which the process became inevitable.”

Finally, ice ages approach slowly. If you live in New York you’re in no danger of being buried under a sheet of ice a mile thick, unless you plan to be around 30,000 years from now. But it is going to start getting colder and colder. If, as the evidence shows, the present interglacial period is ending, summers will be progressively shorter and cooler, and winters will get progressively longer and colder.

And despite the arrogance of those socialist King Canutes who will stand in front of the approaching wave of cold and icy weather and demand that it go away, as they have with their global warming fantasy, there’s not a damn thing we can do to prevent nature from doing what she wants to do and always has done.