The White House's claim this month that 46 million Americans lack health insurance is false because that number includes almost 10 million people who are not “Americans” but are in fact citizens of foreign countries who happen to be present in the United States, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Add to that, that 11 - 13 million (nobody knows for sure) of the alleged 46 million are illegal immigrants who shouldn't be provided health insurance anyway, and you are left with perhaps 23 - 25 million so-called uninsured.

Reduce that by the number of households making over $75,000 per year (about 22 million) who can afford health insurance, and you have a remaining "uninsured" of 1 - 3 million. With a current population of about 300 million, 3 million is  .01 percent of the population.

Furthermore, the U.S. Census Bureau's 2006 American Community Survey found that there were 69,606,117 Americans in the 18 - 34-year-old demographic. If only half of this demographic chooses, wisely or unwisely, not to want health insurance because they are for the most part young and healthy, that's about another 35 million.

So, starting with a claim of 46 million, subtracting 10 million legal visitors equals 36 million; subtracting 12 million (average of 11 - 13 million) illegal immigrants equals 24 million; subtracting 22 million who can afford their own health insurance equals 2 million; subtracting 35 million who think they're too young and healthy to need health insurance equals........MINUS 33 million?! So, who's cooking the books, stretching the statistics, falsifying the figures, nullifying the numbers, altering the arithmetic, manipulating the math? And why?   

Now, there are doubtless Americans who, through no real fault of their own, cannot afford adequate health insurance and who should be helped. Undoubtedly, even .01 percent of the population who can't afford health insurance is still a lot of people. And undoubtedly, health care costs in general are too high and require moderating.

Then too, individual stories of the single, out-of-work mom or homeless person who suffers a catastrophic illness and can't afford medical treatment can be found and highlighted to make a point. But, as much as they tug at our heartstrings and anger us for the injustice, they are thankfully the exceptions rather than the rule, and no system as large as our health care system can ever be perfect. And it is often the involvement and control of local, state and/or HMO bureaucrats who only make things worse anyway. And now we want that on the federal level, administered by even more distant federal bureaucrats?

It's both ironic and hubristically hypocritical that President Obama and Congressional Democrats, as well as their liberal mainstream media handmaidens, so often say that Republicans and conservatives in general are "fearmongering" about this or that, while they "fearmonger" about hurrying to pass their massive nonstimulating stimulus plan, their massive "porky" budget, their massive automaker bailouts-bankruptcies-makeovers-takeovers, and now their massive hurry-up (again) health care reform.

So, instead of Obama and Congressional Democrats using false figures to "fearmonger" us into throwing at least another trillion dollars of our tax money (where DOES it stop?; WHEN does it stop?) into fixing what admittedly is a problem, perhaps we should first:

(a) determine what is the real number of uninsured who actually, legally and deservedly need help

(b) listen, debate and find out what's really wrong with the alternatives being offered by the so-called "Party of No" (or more accurately, the "Party of Not Listened To") Republicans

(c) attempt getting a handle on the runaway fraud and waste of millions of taxpayer dollars in the current, and already going bankrupt, MEDICARE and MEDICAID programs

(d) institute some realistic tort reform which will still allow victims of medical malpractice adequate but not exorbitant redress but without bankrupting doctors with medical malpractice insurance rates and career-ending lawsuits.

Oh, I know, I know, any, much less all, of that would be a lot of work and would take some time (something Obama and his Democrat Congress obviously don't like to do -- they don't even like taking the time to read what they vote on and sign). And it would cause deliberate and perhaps even deliberative action. And some favored special interest group supporters (like trial lawyers, for example) would have to be confronted, maybe even somewhat "disappointed."

Besides, gee-whiz, what a pain in the you-know-what to take the time and effort to do the job right, instead of just hurrying -- once again -- to simply throw still more taxpayer money at a complex set of problems and then claiming you've made it all better, huh? And done it all within your first 200 days, too! How ..... umm, ah ..... hmmm ..... "historic." Just remember, please, disasters can also be "historic."

Oh, how the increasingly irrelevant mainstream media (MSM) like to take very few facts and blow them up into a sensational story to garner TV ratings or gain some newsprint readership. Hence, some play in the liberal MSM lately that recent domestic terrorist attacks lend credence to, perhaps even "validate," the April DHS "intelligence report," which DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano had to subsequently "apologize" for and withdraw for revision and update.

First, keep in mind that the April DHS report was supposed to be secret and issued only to law enforcement agencies across the country. So much for transparency in government. Second, remember that DHS Secretary Napolitano had to ineptly "explain" the poorly written report only because it was leaked and became known to the public, ending in her nonapologetic "apology" -- the typical political, "If YOU were offended, then WE'RE sorry." What, sorry that you got caught putting out such a so-called "intelligence report"? Or sorry that it was so indefensible that you had to offer at least some kind of apology for it? Third, the report was insulting, not only to anyone who is legitimately against illegal immigration or holds anti-abortion positions but also to our veterans, our currently serving troops, and any conservatives who generally disagree with Obama's left-wing policies, his spendthrift ways and his fascist takeover of, so far, three major sectors of the American economy. In addition, the DHS report was largely based on speculation and opinion rather than on empirical information or credible, citable intelligence.

Next, "Civil rights activists say a string of recent attacks blamed on right-wing extremists..." Did I miss something in the news recently? Let's see, (1) there was the killing of Dr. George Tiller, the "Baby Killer," by a lone, right-wing, anti-abortion nutjob with a pre-existing history, (2) there was the random gunning down of an American soldier outside a recruiting station by an American Black Muslim domestic "jihadist" bent on revenging an eye for an eye for what U.S. soldiers are doing in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and (3) there was the killing of a security guard at the Holocaust Museum, again by a lone, right-wing, white supremacist nutjob with a long history of anti-Semitism, white supremacy and Holocaust denial.

Well, since one of the three incidents involved an American Black Muslim domestic "jihadist," he's obviously not exactly a right-winger. And although two of the three incidents involved right-wingers, I still fail to see how that becomes "a string of recent attacks." Don't you need more than just two for there to be "a string"?

And since even those two incidents were perpetrated by long-time right-wing nutjobs, how does that in any way lend any credence to the DHS report which predicted a rising, current or future danger from those with any of several conservative positions in opposition to Obama's policies? Obama hasn't even been in office that long.

No, the attacks by the two right-wingers were based on long-standing feelings and beliefs as much as anything to do with Obama or his policies, as amazing as that may seem to him and his adoringly slavish media pals. In fact, one could argue that the attacks by the two right-wingers were almost personal, instead of political. Tiller's killer no doubt personally hated Tiller himself, not only what he was doing in performing late-term abortions of convenience by the thousands and becoming a millionaire while doing it. And von Brunn, the right-winger who killed the Holocaust Museum guard, probably blamed any- and everybody working at the museum for the Holocaust which he schizophrenically both despised and denied. However, for the Black Muslim murderer, his act was ideological and his victim selection was random. For him, any soldier to shoot and kill as a "symbol" would do.

Case Number 1: Dr. George Tiller, the "Baby Killer," is murdered in his church by a lone, right-wing, anti-abortion gunman. President Obama, on the same day, issues a statement of outrage and condolences about this act of domestic terrorism. Case Number 2: An Army private is randomly gunned down and killed outside a recruiting office by a Black American, a so-called domestic Muslim jihadist, and there is no comment by the White House at all, to the point that reporters have to ask Obama's mouthpiece, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a day or two later if there is even going to be a statement. Case Number 3: An elderly, right-wing, white supremacist enters the Holocaust Museum and shoots a security guard, who later dies, and is in turn critically wounded himself. Once again, Obama is Johnny-on-the-spot, same day, with a statement condemning such an act of domestic terrorism.

So, who does it seem like Obama, and the mainstream media, for that matter, cares more about -- a late-term abortionist, a Black Muslim jihadist, or an American soldier? Oh, that's right, both of the killers of the abortionist and the security guard were right-wingers, whereas the killer of the Army private was simply a domestic Muslim terrorist who has said that he was extracting an eye for an eye for what American soldiers are doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But, to me, all three of the perpetrators are murderers, or domestic terrorists, if you will, and should have been immediately and equally condemned by Obama and his slavish, liberal media pals. The fact that two were and one was not is telling, to say the least. So, tell me again, will you, Mr. President, how much you support, admire, value, etc., etc., our troops? Is that all of them all of the time, most of them most of the time, some of them some of the time, or one of them any of the time? Hmmm. Uh-huh.

Well, President Obama has appointed his latest "czar." This one's his so-called "Pay Czar," Kenneth Feinberg, the attorney who oversaw the federal government's compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and who is also known as a "Special Master," whatever that is. His being a "Special Master" initially made me wonder if he was a senior member of some kind of secret society or fraternity -- and he just may be: the secret society of czars.

You see, one thing that worries me is just how many of these so-called czars are there now? Some newscasters say 12, some say 16 and others say 20. Twenty?! Really?! I don't know that anyone who's not on Team Obama really knows. And I suspect that may be the point -- we're not supposed to know. Just like we're not supposed to pay attention to what Obama's actually doing versus what he says he's doing.

Now, past presidents have used "czars" for special emphasis on various things, so probably nothing all that wrong with that -- but none ever like Obama.

Even if you consider however many czars there are, also don't forget there are some "czarinas" in the mix, too, as well as "special advisors," "task forces," "advisory boards," etc., etc., now seemingly out the kazoo. All appointed by Obama, all answerable to Obama, all loyal to Obama, none accountable to Congress (there have already been at least two cases where Obama czars requested to appear before Congressional committees simply didn't show up -- how rude!), and most of them, much less what they're doing behind the scenes, are mostly unknown to and by the American people. Transparency anyone?

And if you consider that, at least collectively, these czars, however many there are, oversee, direct, supervise, control, whatever it is that they do, about two trillion dollars in taxpayer money, then I think it's fair to ask: Accountability anyone? Oh, I forgot, they're accountable to Obama (just not to the Congress and therefore not to the American people which the Congress purportedly represents). So, no worries. Never mind.

And if you factor in that each of these czars, czarinas, special advisors, task forces, etc., have assistants and some kind of staff, then how many people are we talking about? How much are these czars, etc., paid for their services and how much taxpayer money is spent on their staffs? I'm sure none are working pro bono.

Quite the "shadow government," eh? Why does one need so many czars, etc., when one has multiple cabinet secretaries, each with numerous subordinate officials, who have not only been nominated and gone through some kind of public vetting process but also been approved and confirmed by the peoples' representatives in Congress, instead of an unknown number of individuals simply being designated by the president? Why does Obama need so many "extras"? How much is Obama's shadow government costing us taxpayers? And what is Obama's shadow government really doing behind the scenes?

It's all quite bizarre, really, that seemingly no one -- not Congress, not the Justice Department, not so-called national journalists, reporters or commentators, not government watch or waste groups -- is forcing Obama to address and clarify all of this. Or maybe I should simply say, in the upside down world of Obamaland, it's just another "be-czar" move toward -- what? -- socialism or fascism? Take your pick, but neither is very transparent, very accountable or very American.

Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and President Obama’s Energy Secretary, recently told a conference of Nobel laureates in London: “If you look at all the buildings and if you make the roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of color rather than a black type of color and if you do that uniformally [sic], that would be the equivalent of ... reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years – just taking them off the road for 11 years."

Uhhhh, what? And just how much would it cost to paint all our residential and commercial and industrial rooftops white and redo about half of all our roads? What a lame-brained idea and an even dumber thing to say out loud in public! I guess it's a good thing that Chu's Nobel in physics had nothing to do with climatology. Instead he was one of three scientists who received a joint award for developing methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light.

Now, his being a physicist presumably means he's intelligent, but it may also be that he's like a couple of people with whom I went to college -- smart as a whip but no common sense. You know, the type who can discuss almost anything about anything but can't remember to tie his own shoelaces. Yeah, that guy. We've all known at least one.

Oh, and before you get too impressed by Chu having a Nobel, so does Al "the Goracle" Gore, who never struck me as even being all that super-intelligent about anything. In fact, a lot of people have been awarded the Nobel in a lot of different fields, a lot of them for highly specialized stuff. On the other hand, for example, Yassar Arafat also won a Nobel, and for peace, no less. He shared it in 1994 with Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres after their secret meetings in Norway resulted in a peace agreement between Israel and Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

But Arafat was a life-long terrorist. And Chu, Nobel prize winner or not, certainly could use a healthy dose of good old common sense -- and maybe double-check that he tied his shoelaces. But, what worries me most is that this is who Obama chose to oversee our country's energy policy?

So, we've got Democrat Representative Henry Waxman and the Democrat Congress trying their best to hurry up and pass the draconian, minimally effective (for global climate change) but maximally damaging and costly (for American businesses and consumers) Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme that Obama wants sooner rather than later -- and no common sense Chu is in charge of our energy policy? Great. Just great. Oh well, just something else to worry about, folks.

Judicial Watch is a nonpartisan, public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, and it announced Thursday, May 28, that it had finally obtained U.S. Census Bureau documents detailing substantial involvement of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in the 2010 Census.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Census Bureau on March 23, 2009, but after the Obama Commerce Department stonewalled releasing the information, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on May 14, 2009. The documents were released to Judicial Watch the next day, on May 15, 2009. I guess sometimes Team Obama's so-called and much touted "transparency" only happens after they're sued for it. 

In an official statement, the Obama Commerce Department discounted ACORN's participation in the Census, labeling the idea that ACORN would be involved in any Census count as "baseless." However, the Census Bureau had offered ACORN the opportunity to "recruit Census workers" who would participate in the count. Oh, so I guess one step removed makes it all okey-dokey. Not likely any influence peddling there, I'm sure!

Moreover, as an "executive level partner," ACORN has the ability to "organize and/or serve as a member on a Complete Count Committee," which, according to Census documents, helps "develop and implement locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns." Well, we already know that ACORN is all about "locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns," even alleged illegal ones.

Included among the documents is ACORN's original Census partnership application. The document describes 18 different areas of responsibility requested by the community organization, which is under investigation in multiple states for illegal activity during the 2008 election, including voter registration fraud. It's also strange that the documents show the decision to add ACORN as a partner occurred in February, long after the January 15th Census partnership application deadline. One can only surmise, then, that ACORN was given the "favor" of an exception, or extension, by someone.....in the Census Bureau.....or the Commerce Department.....or the White House.

Other conclusions from the documents:

a. The Census Bureau requested that ACORN "help us highlight [ACORN's] innovation and hard work and share best practices so other organizations can learn from your experiences." In what, fraudulent voter registration practices? Employing previously convicted felons to coerce people into signing multiple and therefore fraudulent voter registration applications? Intimidating banks into making risky loans by physically interrupting their board meetings, or by staging protests outside their places of business, or by following employees to their homes? 

b. Members of the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce staff assigned to organize the 2010 Census were evidently unaware of when the decision to involve ACORN was made, how the Census Bureau chooses and defines partners, or whether partners are paid. Oh, well, if the Census Bureau or the Department of Commerce staffs didn't know when ACORN was brought on board as an "executive level partner," then I guess that answers the question of where that "favorable" application exception or extension must have come from, because only the White House is left in the decision chain.

And if the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce staffs didn't know how the Census Bureau chooses and defines partners, or whether partners are paid, then I guess that means they just don't know what they're doing. Let's see, neither staff knows what it's doing but good old ACORN is going to be right there, as an "executive level partner," to help them. So, I guess that means the 2010 Census is off to a really good start.

c. Unless a preliminary name check provided a match, the Census Bureau did not conduct background checks on the 3.7 million people hired to conduct the 2000 Census. Overall, 8 percent of the applicants, or over 300,000 of the people who assisted in conducting the 2000 Census, were considered "risks for hire." I wonder how many (more) that will be with ACORN's involvement this time?

The Census is more important than many citizens realize. One, it's only conducted once every ten years, so whatever it concludes and publishes has pretty lasting effects. Two, among other things, Census data are used to allocate $300 billion in federal funds to the states. Three, and possibly the most important and far-reaching, the Census "determines how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the redistricting of state legislatures, county and city councils, and voting districts." Read that underlined part again. That means Census data affect our governments at all levels, from the federal right down to the district and city or town in which you live and the place where you go to vote.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, "Given its history of illegal activity and fraud, ACORN should be nowhere near the 2010 Census." He also said, "And shame on the Obama Commerce Department for continuing to demonize conservatives by lumping together law enforcement and anti-immigration groups with 'hate groups.' This discriminatory policy raises First Amendment concerns. Indeed, these documents provide further evidence that the Obama administration is politicizing the 2010 Census."

Politicizing the 2010 Census? Why, Team Obama would never politicize anything, would they? Much less something as important, impactful and far-reaching as the once-in-ten-years Census, right? The involvement of the federally investigated ACORN; Team Obama previously stating it would run the 2010 Census out of the White House, at least when a Republican was up for Secretary of Commerce; Obama's appointment of Robert Groves, a survey researcher at the University of Michigan who supports controversial methods of counting heads where workers estimate the number of individuals in a given area using statistical sampling and who thinks this is a better method of counting illegals who may confuse census workers with law enforcement officials and avoid them -- do you really think any or all of this means Team Obama may be politicizing (read: trying to manipulate and control) the 2010 Census?

And nowhere in the Constitution is the word "Census" used, anyway. It says, in Article I, Section 2, dealing with the legislative branch and the basis upon which the number of U.S. Representatives will be determined, that: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of Free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons (the three fifths reference to slaves was later changed by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment). The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct." So, in the Constitution, the Census of today is called an "actual enumeration," or, as defined by the dictionary, a counting -- not a statistical estimation, but a counting.    

So, in view of all of this, conservatives who claim Groves' method of estimating instead of counting is politically motivated and will result in over-counting the number of Democrats in the U.S. (legal and illegal -- or "documented" and "undocumented"), or that Team Obama is politicizing the Census -- why, they must just be looking for something to complain about, right? R-i-i-i-g-h-t!

And if you believe that, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

But, forget all that for a minute. By now, you've probably at least heard of the Waxman-Markey bill, or the "American Clean Energy and Security Act," also known as H.R. 2454. But did you know that, if enacted, H.R. 2454 would be the biggest government takeover of the economy since WWII, which is the last time energy, food and other basic commodities were rationed? It would also be the biggest tax increase in history and would cause a huge transfer of wealth from individual consumers to Big Business and Big Government.

It also is, at best, all based on possibly false, or at least highly questionable, "science" about man-made global warming -- but, oh, sorry, I didn't mean global warming -- I meant global climate change, as it has more recently and euphemistically been renamed -- which is supposedly "settled science." I guess "settled science" is supposed to be something like indisputable facts. But if that's the case, then why do over 33,000 other "scientists" worldwide, many of them internationally renowned, contest that man-made global climate change even exists, or that, if it does, that it's merely an insignificant contributor to what Planet Earth does normally, naturally and cyclically over time? Call me one of those crazy "deniers" about global warming alarmism, but if you couple that with the fact that studies have been done confirming that WRONG and INFLATED temperature readings were used in the computer models which advanced the man-made global warming/climate change argument in the first place, then I guess the old axiom about computers, and therefore computer models, is all-of-a-sudden wrong and that GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) no longer applies. Besides, some other "scientists" even argue that increased amounts of CO2 are good for plant life, you know, trees and shrubs and stuff like that. So, if "scientists" are confused among themselves, no wonder little ole me doesn't understand all there probably is to know. I'm just askin' - just sayin' here.

But, did you know that the Democrat Congress is working feverishly to pass Waxman-Markey, so they can hurry up and please their fearless leader, President Obama, by having it ready for him to sign into law before Congress recesses in August, as he requested?

[Hmmm, why does all legislation nowadays seem to have to be done in such an all-fired hurry? Have you noticed that with the Obama administration and this Democrat controlled Congress, or is it just me? Whatever happened to deliberation and debate, much less, as was the case with the so-called "stimulus plan," even reading what you're voting for? And why the rush to judgment about climate change itself when it obviously is NOT "settled science" but also the rush about what we must hurry up to do about it? Why, one might think -- especially a cynical person like me -- they were all trying to sneak something past the American voters, might one not?]

Waxman-Markey's stated purpose is to contain global warming by reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. This would be accomplished by a cap-and-trade scheme which would severely limit the amount of energy from the three carbon-dioxide producing fuels -- coal, oil and natural gas -- which Americans would be allowed to use.

That may sound okay, especially to those who still believe in global warming. And "believe" is the correct word, because for those who tout it, it is a near religion. "Don't confuse me with facts (or challenge mine). I know what I believe."

However, another one of those little inconvenient truths is that, currently, over 80 percent of U.S. energy comes from these three "bad" fuels, simply because they are the least expensive fuels available, as well as, practically, the most readily abundant here at home. Waxman-Markey would require cutting emissions by 17 percent below a 2005 baseline by 2020, 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050.

That may all sound reasonable because it's "spaced out" over years, sort of like your mortgage or car payments, but it is, in fact, draconian. Why? Because, to meet those standards (which are significant enough in and of themselves), coal, oil and natural gas producers would have to substantially retool their facilities and at great costs. And if this bill becomes law and since retooling often takes a long time, they will begin doing that sooner rather than later.

And, typical of businesses everywhere, those producers may initially pay those costs but they will then pass them on to consumers in the form of higher rates and prices. So, the costs of meeting the standards becomes a tax on everyone, and pretty quickly, too.

It's hard to tell exactly how far energy prices might rise under Waxman-Markey, but even some energy committee Democrats think it may require more than doubling electric rates and sending gasoline to somewhere above five dollars a gallon. And a Heritage Foundation study says it could increase your family's energy costs about $1,500 to $3,000 a year.

Evidently, even President Obama agrees. When he was Candidate Obama, he told the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17, 2008, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket." Skyrocket? That means go up really high, really fast, right? Well, there you have it, folks, in the man's own words, the same man who made a mantra out of "words matter." And I think, in this case at least, those are words we actually can believe in -- yes, we can. 

That same week, former president Bill Clinton was in Spain talking about green jobs. And what did he say? As reported in the Spanish press:

"Former U.S. President turned ecologist Bill Clinton is aware of the impact on employment by the development on renewable energy. Even though he is, as a former dweller of the White House, one of the most visible supporters in that industry, the U.S. Democrat recognized yesterday that clean energies 'have cost many jobs' in Spain. Though without citing it directly, Clinton was acknowledging yesterday during his conference in Madrid that the study about the impact of public support on renewable energies, released by Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has very valid conclusions. That report, which has received enormous coverage in U.S. media and been used against Barack Obama's energy policy, argues that every job in renewable energies created in Spain in the year 2000 has cost 571,138 Euros and has been the cause of the loss of 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy. Bill Clinton recognized yesterday that 'this commitment to clean energy has cost many jobs' while at the same time calling for Spain to intensify investment in this industry to be able to turn high costs into new jobs."

So, wait a minute now. Let me see if I've got all this straight:
a. The "science" underlying claims of man-made global climate change is still questionable at best and at least arguably false.
b. The cap-and-trade scheme in Waxman-Markey, although dramatically and rather quickly impacting our production means and overall economy, will actually only reduce global warming from greenhouse gases by a minuscule amount overall.
c. Countries like China and India are building fossil fuel plants as fast as they can bring them on line, with little to no concern for "clean technology," and even if man-made greenhouse gases are "bad," any reductions we make will be obviated by their increased and steadily increasing emissions.
d. Obama himself has said his cap-and-trade policy would cause electricity prices to skyrocket.
e.. Committee Democrats have estimated Waxman-Markey would more than double electric rates and send gasoline to above five dollars a gallon.
f. A Heritage Foundation study says it could increase your family's energy costs from about $1,500 to $3,000 a year.
g. And Clinton admits that Spain's experiment with "going green" has cost not only a lot of money (one U.S. dollar equals 0.7617 Euros, so 571,138 Euros equals $435,035.81 per green job created) but it's also cost a lot of regular jobs, yet he still advocates doing more of the same and to even intensify investment in the green jobs industry "to turn high costs into new jobs."

SO, TELL ME AGAIN WHY WE'RE IN SUCH A HAIR-ON-FIRE-HURRY TO ENACT THIS LEGISLATION?!

[My goodness, but it does sound a lot like Team Obama's "plan" to spend us out of the recession, doesn't it? But, of course, in typical liberal fashion, if you just "know you're right" and "trying to do the right thing" but it just hasn't worked so far (after all, it's "good intentions" that count, not "actual results," right?), then just "throw more money at it," and eventually it will all get better. And that seems a lot like a quote most often attributed to Albert Einstein but which I think harks back even further to a Roman philosopher in early AD, or maybe late BC, that doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result, is a definition of insanity.]

Oh, and don't forget Spain's own Universidad Rey Juan Carlos' study which statistically documents that for every expensive green job created, 2.2 other jobs (read: regular, existing) were lost to the economy. Well, that's like taking one step forward and two steps backward, so far as the overall economy goes, isn't it?

And even that is exacerbated when you consider that many so-called "green jobs" are not sustainable but are green business/facility "start up" jobs which go away once that business/facility is up and running. In other words, it takes more "green jobbers" to build a green facility than it does to run it.

So, the Green Agenda, or, as I call it, the Going Green Gosh-awful Gamble, really seems to consist of the probability of a dramatic rise in overall unemployment, coupled with the biggest tax increase in world history, all because of, at most, the possibility of man-made, rather than natural, earthly cyclic, global climate change. And, even if Waxman-Markey is fully implemented, greenhouse gas "reductions" will be of a minuscule percentage of overall global greenhouse gases, while China, India and others continue building fossil fuel plants apace with little regard to "clean technology."

Gee, that's just swell, as they used to say back in the '40s or '50s: (a) Retard and restrict our normal production means before we have alternative energy sources on line, (b) cripple the American economy while still in a recession and (c) further burden the American taxpayer/consumer. Sound good to you? Yeah, let me hurry up and vote for that, too. "No, I don't need to think about it, much less read it. Obama says, so just gimme it and tell me where to sign."

Or do you think, just maybe, that YOU might want to contact YOUR Representative or Senator about all this BEFORE it becomes just ANOTHER DONE DEAL? Just a thought. But if they don't HEAR from you, how do they know what YOU want them to do, or NOT DO, as the case may be? Think about it.

 

Since President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus plan in February, going on four months have passed and the states most in need of stimulus plan funds, those where unemployment is the highest, haven't seen most of the contracts worth only a comparatively paltry $4 billion in U.S. stimulus funds so far awarded. Four billion dollars is only .005 percent of $787 billion, and the states most in need haven't even seen much of that.

The so-called America Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was intended, and tenaciously touted by Team Obama, to help turn the economy around by using federal money to create jobs, especially in states most severely affected by the recession. Most of the money is for state projects such as highway and infrastructure work, but federal agencies also are expected to spend billions on federal projects as well.

It seems the first so-called "shovel ready" project contracts were awarded unevenly for several reasons. Some federal agencies more quickly signed contracts than others, while some contracts were awarded to projects either already under way or to companies with a history of doing government work.

In other words, it seems that haste, rather than targeting (remember transparent, targeted and temporary?) was the byword. "Just get some of it out the door, so we can say we've done something. Don't worry about where it's going or for what." Which, in a strangely twisted way, seems almost appropriate for legislation: (a) for a massive amount of taxpayer money, (b) which was hastily cobbled together by the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, while refusing input from Republicans (Bipartisanship, wherefore didst thou goest?), (c) which wasn't even read before it was voted on and passed by Democrat majorities in House and Senate, and (d) which was equally hastily signed into law by the Democratic president (without Obama's promised online 5-day transparency review by the American people -- oh my! But, I guess if the Congress which voted on it didn't read it and the president who signed it didn't read it, then Obama probably thought, why should we? Well, maybe because it's our money? Just a thought.).  

Team Obama spokeswoman Liz Oxhorn said that the stimulus plan is "providing unprecedented assistance at a record pace to benefit as many Americans as possible." Well, Liz, there's only three things wrong with that statement: (a) "providing unprecedented assistance..." -- not yet; (b) "....at a record pace..." -- definitely not yet; and (c) "...to benefit as many Americans as possible." -- tell that again to the unemployed in the hardest hit states.

Maybe Liz and other liberal Democrats, and especially President Obama himself, should remember that just saying something is so doesn't make it so. And, one might argue, saying something which is patently not so, is, well, euphemistically speaking, disingenuous, but in plainer words, just plain lying.

In addition to the comparatively measly $4 billion in contracts it has awarded so far, the federal government has also asked companies to bid on thousands of projects worth more than $30 billion. Once that is done, whenever it does get done, that would total $34 billion contracted, out of the $787 billion in the stimulus plan. Even that's only .04 percent. But, oh, somebody is already spending at least several hundred thousands of federal or state dollars on roadside signs which advertise the projects which are coming. (Hey, no jobs yet, but this is where they'll be, whenever there are some.) Must be the new, "nuanced" definition of "shovel ready."

Economists say that this recession actually started almost a year ago and that, historically, recessions in this country usually last about two years. So, it would seem the recession had a better chance of curing itself, if the federal government had mainly just stayed out of the way, than Obama's so-called "stimulus plan," which so far has "stimulated" little -- and in the wrong places, to boot.

 

I was recently reading some posted comments online about President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, and one commenter suggested: "Could the case be made that the 'moderate Democrats' need to be the ones to step up here and do the right thing in opposing this nominee?"

My reaction:

First of all, that seems like a rational question to ask. And, yes, the case could be made, and should be made, but the watchword unfortunately seems to be: "Please don't hold your breath." In other words, no disrespect intended, but -- are you kidding?

For example, where were those "moderate Democrats," those so-called Blue Dog Democrats, when the UNREAD and NONstimulating "stimulus" bill was passed? Or when the PORK LADEN "budget" was passed? Or when still more billions, even trillions, in generational deficit and debt are spent -- and even Obama says such debt is "unsustainable" -- in a vain attempt to SPEND us out of a recession? Is that how YOUR checkbook works? Mine neither. But then, neither of us can just print more money, like Team Obama can, either.

However, I agree, it would seem that at least SOME Blue Dogs would show they have some common sense about all this, but, so far, not much of a whimper. They, like other Democrats, are too busy either wagging their tails over being in power or running around chasing their tails, fascinated, like a puppy with a squeaky ball, with any and all bright and shiny new spending ideas they can play with. So, sorry to say, don't expect any help from them on something like this Supreme Court nominee, either.

Sotomayor is "qualified" -- more so than Myers was but probably less so than Thomas, or even Bork, would have been -- because of her long time on the federal bench. But she certainly is not one of the "best qualified." She really is a twofer quota fill for Obama in payment for the Hispanic vote in particular and the liberal vote in general. She seems to lack the depth and breadth of legal intellect or personal charm to sway the current 5/4 court, which is good, making her basically a one-to-one replacement for the liberal Souter. So, as far as the Court is concerned, this nomination is probably a wash.

But watch out for Obama's NEXT nominee. THAT will be the deal-breaking nominee. There are lots of things I don't like about Obama, but I have to give credit where credit is due -- and he is a shrewd politician. The Sotomayor nomination could be his testing of the waters, to see how far and hard he can push an even more liberal pick next time around. Hopefully, he won't get another chance until 2010 or after and, by then, Republicans should have regained enough in the Senate, if not the Congress overall, to kill the chances, if appropriate, of whomever he nominates next.