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.

Being Vegetarian Shrinks Brain

Becoming a vegetarian could be good for the planet, but it's bad for your brain. Scientists at England's Oxford University have found that vegetarians are six times more likely to have brain shrinkage than those who include meats in their diets. The cause could be a lack of vitamins. Vegetarians are more likely than meat-eaters to be deficient in vitamin B12, which is mainly found in meats, and a B12 deficiency is known to cause anemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Oxford researchers examined 107 people between the age of 61 and 87 using physical exams, memory tests and brain scans. When the same volunteers were retested five years later, those with the lowest amounts of B12 had the most brain atrophy. And here's the political twist -- you knew there had to be one, right? -- more liberals than conservatives are vegetarians. Ba-rump-bump!

Obama Claims Health Care Costs Will Be Reduced
 
Obama has secured the commitments of six major trade associations to reduce the cost of health care spending by 20% over the next 10 years. The groups involved say that the success of their commitments rests on the passage of Obama's health care reforms (well, of course they do -- they had a meeting with the president and he wants universal health care - besides, maybe they're afraid he might just take their companies over, too), but no concrete methods of reducing spending have been detailed (then, uh, how do they know they can reduce health care spending by 20% over the next 10 years?). Obama predicts cost savings of $2,500 a year for a family of four. Huh? If you don't yet have a plan (there's that pesky word again -- like with GITMO) and you therefore don't know if you can realize the 20% savings, how can you say that would result in savings of $2,500 for a family of four? Just because it sounds good? Guess so. It's something like Team Obama saying all the time that they will either create X-number of jobs or save X-number of jobs. Create, I can understand, because you can check to see how many they created, but saved gives me a problem, because it seems a lot like proving a negative. You know, like, here's how many we didn't lose. Again, huh? How do you know, even if you hadn't done whatever it was that you did, that you still wouldn't have lost them -- that they might have been saved, or survived, in spite of whatever you did? Just askin' - Just sayin'.

Obama's Budget

Consider these facts, compiled by the Institute for Policy Innovation: Under the Obama budget, the nonpartisan, non-ideological Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the national debt will soar over the next 10 years from 40 percent of GDP today to 82.4 percent. Obama's budget also states that total federal borrowing will grow by $2.7 trillion this year alone, an increase of 27 percent in one year! The budget Obama proposed for this year increases federal spending by an incredible 34 percent, just compared to the previous year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest ever.

Pelosi's Tuna

Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district. Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi. Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock. Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa, employing 75% of the Samoan work force. In January 2007, when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage, thereby making Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's. In 2008, when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill for $33 million dollars for an "economic development credit in American Samoa." Can we all say "payback"? Or is that "payoff"? And Pelosi has called the Bush administration corrupt? Oh, please! So, remember to serve your next Star-Kist tuna dish with ample side dishes of hubris and hypocrisy, please. 

Napolitano Again

Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently declared that "...crossing the border illegally is not a crime per se." What? Makes me want to ask what part of "illegally" don't you understand? Or, if se didn't do it and it therefore wasn't per se, then who did it? I couldn't make this stuff up, folks. I'm just not that imaginative. Napolitano is definitely gaining on Biden for gaffes.....but I don't think she'll ever catch him. 

A little dated now, but still a goody -- my untiring communiques with my U.S. Representative and Senators

"I cannot believe you voted FOR the pork-laden Omnibus Act of 2009. At a time when our economy is struggling, at a time when President Obama has at least said he forswears earmarks, this legislation contained 8,500 - 9,000 of them, 60 percent by Democrats and 40 percent by Republicans. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

At least President Obama was ashamed enough about going back on his promise to eliminate earmarks that he signed it into law behind closed doors instead of at a public signing. I guess even he doesn't have that much hubris.

And why pass the Omnibus bill anyway? Why not just do a CR (Continuing Resolution) to fund the government for the rest of the year? The Democrats set up the current half-year funding requirement by only appropriating enough for the first half of the FY, probably in hopes that 'their guy' would be in the White House by the time it was time to fund the second half and with the intention of loading it up with pork in the process.

Shame on all of you who voted for this abomination of an Omnibus Act and shame on President Obama for not sticking to his word. He should have taken his red Sharpie and lined the pork spending out, vetoed the bill and sent it back to Congress. Shame on all of you who voted for this overblown and 'oink-ful' legislation."
 
Guess it's a good thing I didn't feel like telling them what I really thought, huh?

AIG 90% Bonus Tax

Here's a "barn burner" I sent my U.S. Representative, Gerry Connolly, back in March. I got an automated reply thanking me for my "interest," but I haven't seen much change in his performance since then, sad to say:

"Although you're still a freshman Congressman, your voting record so far is making clear that you vote lockstep along Democratic party lines and in keeping with Speaker Pelosi's desires. Your motto seems to be -- No independent thinking or action here, thank you!

Have you ever thought that maybe you were elected to be a Blue Dog Democrat? One with a little independence, one at least sometimes more concerned about his district, his state and his country than just his party?

Your voting for the targeted and punitive AIG 90% Bonus Tax is just the latest example of your Democratic party compliant ways and was an outrageously flagrant abuse and overreaching of the Congressional taxing authority.

Not only was it ex post facto, a bill of attainder, and therefore an unconstitutional overreach by Congress, it was also Democratic party political posturing of the most obvious and egregious kind -- done to appease the public that its Congress identified with its outrage and was doing something, as well as, and more pointedly, to obfuscate how many Democrats (at least Senator Dodd, Secretary Geithner, and some senior White House staffer, if not the President himself) were involved in allowing the AIG bonuses in the first place. You know, tucked away in that legislation which nobody read but Democrats produced and rushed to overwhelmingly vote for? Haste does sometimes make waste, or at least cause problems, doesn't it?

It's one thing to cast a populous vote "for the people," to symbolize the outrage of Americans over bonuses being paid to the very people who caused their companies to collapse and necessitated the use of taxpayer money to bail them out. But it's quite another thing to connive to vote as "cover" and "distraction" for mistakes your party made, and still quite another thing yet to ensure that such a vote is at least constitutional. You were elected to not only do the popular thing, your party's thing, but also the right thing, the legal thing, the constitutional thing. Your oath of office says so.

This is not a time in our country when simply going along to get along will suffice, Congressman. Increasingly, the American people are dissatisfied with their Congress, and not only the two major political parties but also individual Senators and Representatives are being tracked and examined. Accountability is not now expected of only your party but also of you personally.

We are watching, Congressman Connolly, and counting on you to do only the right things."

The U.S. Supreme Court recently said it wouldn't hear an appeal from former Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) to throw out most of the criminal charges against him. This sets the stage for Jefferson's trial in Alexandria, VA, on political corruption charges in which he is accused of demanding and sometimes receiving payments from businesses seeking his help to land lucrative contracts in Western Africa.

It's a good decision, but my question is, why does it take so long to bring somebody who was found with an unexplainable $80,000 or so of cold cash in his freezer (couldn't resist the pun) to justice?

I just wish the justice were swifter, to make more of a point and to serve as more of an immediate example.

Now, on to Barney Frank (D-MA) for duplicity in the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Charlie Rangel (D-NY) for multiple tax problems; John Murtha (D-PA) for inside deals for himself and his son on government contracts; Chris Dodd (D-CT) for duplicity in the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, his sweetheart mortgage deal with Countrywide, and for lying about the AIG bonuses, first saying he knew nothing about them but then having to admit he not only knew about them but changed legislative language at the behest of Team Obama to facilitate their payment; Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for lying about the CIA lying to her and for lying to the American people to make political points and then trying to cover her backside by lying about her lying (need a bigger shovel, Nancy?); Joe Biden (D-DE) for his latest slip of the lip in compromising classified information on the VP's secret (not anymore!) security bunker after a couple of drinks at a dinner party; multiple Obama administration officials and appointees for various "lax tax" troubles; and, last but not least, Harry Reid (D-NV) for the million dollar sweetheart land deal he made in Nevada about a year ago - and for just generally being an obstreperous old curmudgeon and sourpuss. Although that last is probably not a felony, just a misdemeanor.

Then too, there's Barack Obama (D-IL) and his pre-election sweetheart mortgage deal with now convicted federal felon Tony Rezko on Obama's Chicago mansion, his illegal campaign contributions, his ties to the previously convicted and now (again) multiple federally investigated ACORN organization, his still questionable natural born citizenship qualification to even become president, his unconstitutional act in firing GM's CEO, and his trying to unduly influence and dictate terms to a federal bankruptcy judge.

Gee, seems like the Democrat controlled House and the Democrat controlled Senate ethics committees, as well as our Democratic Attorney General Eric "Americans are cowards about race" Holder, had better get BUSY!

But don't hold your breath. Not only the courts but especially the Democrats seem to move really slowly on such matters - when it affects other Democrats, that is. If all those listed were Republicans, you can be sure the Democrats would be in full-throated, hot pursuit. 

Global temperature is measured through thousands of temperature reading stations located around - well, the globe. The United States alone has more than 1,000, which are supposedly among the most reliable world-wide. But Anthony Watts, of the Watts Up With That blog, and a group of about 650 volunteers, found out very differently when they actually visited and examined 70% of the U.S. stations:

"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

"In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 - fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

"It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher."

The conclusion is obvious: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since it is based on what are supposed to be among the more reliable temperature readings from around the world, what does that potentially say about many other nations' readings?

So, with ground temperature data revealed as unreliable, what is it that we know that we know?  Well, satellite data indicate the earth warmed from the period 1979 to around 1998, and that it has cooled since 2002. That's 19 years of warming and at least the 7 most recent years of cooling. Yet, countries around the world are instituting disastrously business-damaging programs, like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs. 

The U.S. Congress is considering the Waxman-Markey bill, which would enact a cap-and-trade program: (a) that would impose draconian operating conditions and carbon emission taxes on businesses, (b) that would cause energy costs to skyrocket for everyone who turns on a light switch or drives a car, and (c) that even global warming alarmist James Hansen of NASA and consumer advocate Ralph Nader say won't work. Oh, and (d) that would also raise lots and lots of money in taxes for the government to spend.

Global warming proponents tell us "the science is settled" and that any who disagree with them are merely "deniers," the same type of ignorant or unsophisticated people who deny the Holocaust or that the Earth is round. Of course one of the most prominent of these proponents, former vice president Al "The Goracle" Gore (who can sometimes say the most preposterous things with a perfectly straight face - guess it sometimes actually helps to be a little "wooden"), is ironically, hypocritically and personally responsible for a huge "carbon footprint" himself. With a monster house in Tennessee which uses more energy in a month than those of his neighbors use in a year and with all of his jetting around in a private jet for speaking engagements, fund raising and global warming alarming, Gore, like many other liberal elites who preach to the rest of us about how we should live, creates more carbon emissions in a month than you or I do in a year. But, of course, I guess he, like some other rich people salving their own consciences for their extravagant and wasteful lifestyles, makes it all right by buying what are called "carbon credits" to offset his excessive carbon emissions.

You know, I've heard the carbon credits thing talked about a lot, normally just as if in passing, like, well, everybody understands about that, but I'll admit to having never understood exactly how that works. For example, how much does, say, one carbon credit cost? Who determines what that cost is? Is it market driven or determined and regulated by government bureaucrats? If I wanted to buy some carbon credits, to whom would I make out my check? Do they give me a piece of paper, perhaps a certificate of some kind, to prove that I paid for some carbon credits? Can I deduct buying some carbon credits from my taxes?

(If anyone reading this understands how it all works (if, in fact, it actually does at all), please 'splain it to me.)

But, enough philosophy. Back to science. If the science is "settled," then why do over 30,000 scientists, many of them world-renowned, disagree with the man-made global warming alarmism? First, that doesn't sound all that "settled" to me. And, second, it now turns out that the so-called "settled science" is based on flawed data. If temperature readings are inputted to computer models which then make global warming "predictions" and 8 or 9 out of 10 of those temperature readings are wrong, then aren't the computer model predictions necessarily also wrong? Or did a basic computer principle - garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) - change all of a sudden?
 
Besides, Richard Henry Lee at the American Thinker Blog probably asks a more important question:

"...the real question is why it took a dedicated group of volunteers to find the numerous faults in our temperature record rather than the heavily funded governmental and educational institutions which are continually warning us about global warming."

Well, I think part of the answer to Mr. Lee's question lies in his wording "heavily funded governmental and educational institutions." They don't get funded anymore if there is no man-made global warming or they "solve" the problem, do they?

Perhaps it's less "environmental science" and more "economic science" which has been the point all along - and still is really in play here.

I sometimes "collect" items which individually don't warrant a whole article in and of themselves but which may still give an overall impression of things political. Hence, some of this and some of that, a little bit of this and that, or, in other words, some political potpourri.

Taxes
We already have a steeply progressive income tax, with the top 5 percent of earners paying 60 percent of the taxes (in 2006), and the top 25 percent paying 86 percent. So, how does President Obama claim to be giving a "tax cut" to 95 percent of Americans, when 40 percent of them don't even pay taxes? Because his "tax cuts" aren't really tax cuts, they're just issuing government checks (probably to retain votes or "buy" new ones). To have actual tax cuts, you have to change the tax code and reduce taxes by category on those who actually pay taxes. The fact is that Obama wants to perform an experiment by confiscating more of the income of the most productive earners (who create the overwhelming majority of jobs) and redistributing it to those who earn less. And, if that's not socialism, folks, it's at least socialistic.

Bipartisanship?
President Obama has talked a lot about wanting a new spirit of bipartisanship in Washington. Like the time he invited Republicans to the White House to discuss the so-called stimulus package which the Democratic Congress and our new Democratic President wanted out the door, like yesterday - you know, to help our struggling economy. Republicans cited the recent nonpartisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office) analysis showing that the proposed stimulus package wouldn't really stimulate much and that what it did stimulate wouldn't occur until 2010 or later, perhaps after the current recession is already ending itself. (Economists tell us that recessions in this country historically last about two years before they start working themselves out. Well, that is, unless the government intervenes, and then it might take longer. That last part was a joke - but maybe not.) And when Republican Congressman Eric Kantor of Virginia presented some actual tax cuts which Republicans think would help stimulate the economy right away, Obama basically said there was a philosophical difference between them about tax cuts and that since he won the election, that argument was over. Whoa! So philosophical differences (read: ideology) outweigh potentially practical solutions? Is that what that means? Well, despite all your talk, Mr. President, way to go on actually showing bipartisanship!

Pelosi-Obama Hypocrisy
- Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy "the princess" Pelosi wants all of us to reduce our carbon footprint. For example, she wants us to buy smaller cars. And she's doing such a good job of setting a good example, too. Since she, along with most of Congress, only works about three full days a week (Tuesday through Thursday), she goes "home" to California just about every weekend. Now, after 9-11, the Speaker of the House, being third in line to the presidency (I know, with Pelosi, that's really scary to think about, isn't it?), was authorized necessary travel by government, rather than commercial, aircraft for security reasons. I think Pelosi's Republican predecessor used something like a 10-passenger, corporate-style jet. But Pelosi, who lives farther away and doesn't want to be "bothered" by stopping en route to refuel, travels by jumbo jet. And this gas guzzling 200-passenger jet flies her, and often a gaggle of Congressional staffers and/or friends and relatives, home to California at a cost to the taxpayers of about $60,000, one way! And as some pundit wryly said, "Unfortunately, we (also) have to pay to bring her back on Monday night." So, that costs us another $60,000. Folks, that is $480,000 per month and an annual cost to the taxpayers of $5,760,000 (yes, you read that right, over 5 million taxpayer dollars)! No wonder she complains about the cost of us fighting the war on terror. It might cramp her style. But I don't think she really needs to worry about me driving a smaller car or about my carbon footprint, not when hers is obviously so large - and paid for by me and you.
- And Obama wants us to turn our thermostats down and wear sweaters to conserve energy, yet his own advisor (and door-to-door salesman look alike) David Axelrod says Obama dislikes the cold and keeps the temperature in the Oval Office high enough to raise orchids. I guess that's so he can be photographed "working hard" in his shirtsleeves. Or maybe it's just because he, like many other politicians, just wants us "ordinary Americans" to do as he says, not as he does. Ya think?

Obama White House Vetting Process?
James Hirsen previously wrote in the Left Coast Report a blurb entitled From Little Screen to Big Screen to Magazine to White House Scene. In it, he said: "Change has come to the White House staff. Alejandra Campoverdi, an assistant to one of President Obama’s deputy chiefs of staff, has an unusual resume, even by D.C. standards. Campoverdi has gone from being a contestant on a reality television show to acting in Hollywood films to posing in lingerie for a men's magazine to a high-level position in the Obama administration. After graduating from college, Campoverdi tried out for 'The Apprentice,' Donald Trump's reality TV show, but she didn't make the cut. However, she was able to get on as a contestant in the third season of NBC's 'For Love Or Money,' one of the clones of 'The Bachelor' on which young single women compete for an eligible man's affection. She managed to obtain minor roles in major movies, which include being a vampire who is pursued by Keanu Reeves (“Constantine”) and playing the girlfriend of a military character (“The Aviator”). Campoverdi also has the resume enhancement of having donned a corset for a Maxim magazine photo spread. In the fall of 2008, she worked as an intern on Obama's presidential campaign and was apparently able to leverage the position to become an assistant to a White House deputy chief of staff."
Well, my comment on Hirsen's article is simply that, with some of Obama's main cabinet designees already having had some, uh, vetting problems, I just wonder what the vetting process was like on THIS position?! But, presumably, Ms. Campoverdi has at least paid all her taxes, doesn't employ a nanny and is not currently the subject of a federal investigation of any kind. And if that's the case, then she's already way ahead of many of Obama's other nominees.

Obama's Health Care Board
Remember the "health care board" mentioned in the Obama stimulus package? I don't know if it made it into the final stimulus bill that was signed into law or not (heck, most of the Congressionals who voted for it didn't know what was in it, either), but I don't think we need Washington making our health care decisions for us. Besides, it was inappropriate to include provisions about health care in the so-called stimulus plan anyway. What is stimulative about health care provisions, except, that is, beyond creating more of a shadow government than President Obama has already been doing with czars and czarinas duplicating cabinet secretaries and this and that advisory board and/or task forces out the kazoo? Remember, the stimulus plan, by Team Obama's own definition, was supposed to be: timely, targeted and temporary. Sneaking health care provisions into the stimulus plan may arguably have been timely and targeted but it is not temporary, just as much of the other pork in the House and Senate proposals was not. If you're going to attempt to nationalize the health care system, do it the right way: conduct committee hearings, call in doctors, health care professionals, insurers and other experts, take testimony, have open and full debate on the merits, and conduct the business of the American people in the open. Remember, another watchword of the Obama administration is transparency. (Oops, sorry, we already have multiple examples of how that has gone so far.)

A Billion, A Trillion?
Dave Satre, political and social commentator, has written about how much a billion and a trillion dollars are:
"It is difficult to visualize just how many dollars there are in $1 billion.  The politicians who are spending fortunes in government money make it sound as though they are dealing in smaller numbers by removing quite a few digits. For example, Bush's budget deficit, which at the time of this writing is $422,000,000,000 is more simply stated as $422 billion.
To put it in a different perspective, a billion is a thousand million.
To place it in a better perspective, a billion seconds ago, it was the year 1959.
Humans first learned to write 252 billion seconds ago.
A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate Washington spends it.
A trillion dollars is even more incomprehensible.  A trillion is a thousand billion.
One trillion seconds equals 1,688 years.
The oldest known human was alive 110 trillion seconds ago.
The US National Debt at the time of this writing is $8,538,579,172,593, or more simply stated: $8.5 trillion. The number is so large that the $1.75 billion this debt is increasing per day seems minuscule by comparison.
So, the next time you hear a politician casually use the words 'billion' or 'trillion,' think about whether you really want that politician spending your tax money."

Make Your Voice Heard - Do Your Duty
Our country is in crisis. Our taxpayer money is being spent like never before in our history, much of it on pork barrel projects so politicians can be reelected. Our government is incurring debt which our children and grandchildren will not be able to pay off. Are you making sure your voice is being heard by the politicians? Are you writing/calling your Congressional representatives, the President, signing petitions, trying to make a difference? At no time in our recent history has good citizenship been more important - and good citizenship means staying informed, calling on your elected officials to do the right thing, and calling them out when they don't. Living in this great country of ours is a privilege, but good citizenship is a duty, and one which goes beyond just voting every once in a while. If you're already doing your duty, good for you - keep it up. But, if you're not, don't complain later if things get worse. It does little good to simply agree/disagree or complain among ourselves. Complain to the politicians. Let your voice be heard. One or two of us will not make a difference, but many of us together can. Do you duty - be a good citizen.

Card Check
Rarely has a piece of proposed legislation been more euphemistically and misleadingly named. The Employee Free Choice Act, my foot! Let's call it what it is: a Democrat Party payback to big unions for their support (you know, the type of union which is strangling GM right now) so the unions can use strong arm tactics to grow their membership. The ability of American workers to choose whether or not to unionize through federally supervised secret ballot elections should be protected. The proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is flawed. The bill consists of three provisions, each of which is unacceptable:
•  Elimination of the secret ballot: Trading the secret ballot process for one that invites intimidation and coercion and leads to widespread disenfranchisement of workers is not a step in the right direction and flies in the face of one of our most cherished rights, the right to a secret ballot.
•  Writing contracts through government imposed arbitration: Forced arbitration would impose unreasonable and inflexible terms and cause employers to lose control over their operations, preventing them from growing their businesses.
•  Unreasonable and one-sided penalty expansion: EFCA imposes dramatic new penalties on employers for violations of the National Labor Relations Act, but not a single new penalty on unions or labor organizers.
EFCA would have a particularly devastating impact on small business owners/employers who, as the primary source for new jobs (70%), are counted on to reverse the current economic downturn. This bill is an awful idea in good economic times and a catastrophic idea in the difficult economic times in which we currently find ourselves. Call on your elected representatives and insist they not support or cosponsor the Employee Free Choice Act.

A Quote for Our Time
Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 - 2005), Christian radio and TV preacher who was a spiritual advisor to five U.S. presidents, said: "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
And note that Dr. Rogers died in 2005, before the era of Obama, so what he said was not directed particularly at Obama - but surely well could have been.

Another Applicable Quote
Joseph Joubert (1754-1824), French essayist, said, "When a nation gives birth to a man who is able to produce a great thought, another is born who is able to understand and admire it."
Our biggest problem is that Obama seems to think he's both of these guys.

President Obama, in his own words, speaking at a town hall meeting in Missouri, April 29, his 100th day in office:

"When you see, you know, those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I'm not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we're going to stabilize social security."

"Claire [McCaskill] and I are working diligently to do basically a thorough audit of federal spending."

"But let's not play games and pretend that the reason is because of the Recovery Act, because that's just a fraction of the overall problem that we've got."

Anyone still seriously arguing that Obama is not arrogant, often thin-skinned and sometimes even petty? Really? With a straight face? Please remind me not to buy a used car from you, then. And I don't want to buy that bridge in Brooklyn, either, so fugeddaboutit.
 
"...those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I'm not very popular..."
Do you mean those which report on what you're doing, rather than just what you're saying, Mr. President? Those which question your actions sometimes, rather than just slavishly hanging on your every word? Those news channels? Gee, don't be so thin-skinned. Actually, I'm surprised to hear you say "news channels," plural. I thought there was really only one - Fox News. But, okay, maybe there's more than just one, at least occasionally.

"...and you see folks waving tea bags around..."
Those "folks waving tea bags around" were Americans, Mr. President - hundreds of thousands of them, in a truly grassroots movement, from all political persuasions, from all across the country, angry at our government (their government), the Congress (their Congress) and your White House (their White House) and protesting to be heard - and the best you can do is refer to them dismissively, almost derisively? Why, you would think you were just another arrogant American, being dismissive and derisive about the Europeans again.

"...let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we're going to stabilize social security."
So, by implication, their protests were not serious but you will be glad to have a serious conversation with them about what you want to talk about. No, Mr. President, you don't always get to choose what you want to have serious conversations about with the American people. Sometimes they choose. And if you choose not to listen, then you will lose in the long run

"Claire [McCaskill] (U.S. Democratic Senator since January 2007 and former Missouri State Auditor) and I are working diligently to do basically a thorough audit of federal spending."
Oh? And how is that going for you so far? I mean, aside from one of your cabinet-level departments suddenly "discovering" that it could save millions of taxpayer dollars just by ordering office supplies in bulk (duh!), by you "saving" American taxpayers $100 million (about .002 percent of your budget), and also about $17 billion, mainly by cutting Department of Defense spending on about 120 programs, during a time of war being fought on two fronts, while your pork-laden, so-called stimulus package, your even more porky budget and your set-asides for future projects (health care reform) for which you don't even have a plan to implement yet are sending deficit spending into the trillions of dollars which our children and even our grandchildren will have trouble paying off. Please let me know when you and "Claire" come up with some real savings, some real contraction of runaway government spending. Then, I'll give you some credit. But, don't expect any from me just based on what you say you're doing or going to do. Seeing is believing.

"But let's not play games and pretend that the reason is because of the Recovery Act, because that's just a fraction of the overall problem that we've got."
Well, finally, Mr. President, you and I agree on something. But, first, you're wrong to imply that the TEA Party protesters were "playing games." They were not. They were serious and angry at their government for not listening to them. You had people protesting who had never protested before in their lives, about anything, and taking time off from work to do it - and you had them by the hundreds of thousands. However, what you're right about is that their protests weren't just about your so-called Recovery Act, and they weren't "pretending" that it was. They were angry about much more than just that, although that was one thing which many Americans think you and your Democratic Congress pushed through without proper input or consideration.

Oh, and we agree on something else, too. "..the Recovery Act, because that's just a fraction of the overall problem that we've got." Yes, Mr. President, your Recovery Act is just a fraction of the overall problem we've got. Some of us know that. Some of us who know that were among the TEA party protesters, and will be again on July 4th. You and the Democratic Congress have done much more than just that to try and move this country to the left, to take over businesses in order to "save" them, to redistribute the wealth of this country from those who earn it to those whose votes you can buy with it, and to deficit-spend more than any of what little may remain into creating multi-generational debt. Yes, Mr. President, some of us know your so-called Recovery Act was only the beginning. But we also know that, hopefully, your "beginning" may be short-lived. After all, 2010 and 2012 are coming, thank goodness - and probably not any too soon, either.

The U.S. House of Representatives has recently passed a bill, now on its way to the U.S. Senate, on new (more) hate crimes legislation.

That means, with everything else Team Obama and this Congress are taking onto their plates (running banks, auto companies, finding new things on which to spend tax money we don't have for things which many question we need, trying to influence a federal bankruptcy judge, socialize our national healthcare, etc.), some committee somewhere in Congress is, once again, spending our tax money considering some kind of new hate crimes legislation, as if Congress doesn't already have enough other stuff to get done.

Congressman Louie Gohmert, himself a former judge, told Human Events about the radical nature of this so-called hate crimes bill and what happened when House Republicans tried to amend the bill so it did not offer protection to pedophiles:

"When we tried to get the term sexual orientation narrowed down to where it didn't include something like a pedophile ... that was voted down on party lines ... there are about 30 different types of sexual orientations, and they can include exhibitionism and voyeurism or things that are so offensive such as pedophilia or necrophilia. The problem is that the supporters of this bill did not want to exclude any of those and even voted down the amendment that would have excluded pedophilia."

Gohmert pointed out the absurdity of the legislation as written, as it would warrant the prosecution of a woman under the federal hate crimes statues if she hits a flasher with her purse after he exposed himself to her, because exhibitionism is a protected sexual orientation under this bill.

"The one who did the flashing committed a local misdemeanor," Gohmert said. 'The one who hit (the flasher) with the purse singled him out because he's an exhibitionist, and therefore she has now committed a federal hate crime and is looking at felony time."

Kevin Theriot with the Alliance Defense Fund said it best:

"So-called 'hate crime' laws actually serve only one purpose: The criminalization of citizens based on whatever thoughts, beliefs, and emotions they have that are not considered to be 'politically correct.' No one should fall for the idea that this bill does anything to bring about greater justice for Americans."

Well, my take on this is even more simple - not simplistic, just more simple: I cannot think of one subject of so-called hate crimes legislation for which there are not already adequate laws on the books. If you are heterosexual and I assault you, I have committed assault. If you are homosexual and I assault you, I have still committed assault. If I am White and you are White and I murder you, I have committed murder. If I am White and you are Black and I murder you, I have still committed murder.

In most, if not all, capital crimes, it must be proven that one had the intent to commit the alleged crime, but the "why" of that intent does not have to be proven. The "why," as you sometimes hear lawyers, mainly on TV, say, is "irrelevant and immaterial." The intent itself, e.g., to commit murder, not the rationale behind it, is what is important. That's why someone may be found guilty of manslaughter and not murder, but in both cases the result for the victim is the same - he or she is dead. In the case of murder, the intent was to kill, but in the case of manslaughter there may have been intent to harm, or to accidentally or negligently cause harm, but not to kill.

Hate crimes legislation, instead of making various classes of people more equal before the law, actually attempts to make them more equal than other classes, and in the process represents adding another and unnecessary layer to the jurisprudential system.

Besides, it should be remembered that morality cannot be legislated, and that's exactly what hate crimes legislation attempts to do.

 

As President Obama (and his mad-about-you mainstream media minions) celebrated his recent 100 days press conference, one of the hard-hitting, probing and challenging (actually, probably scripted) questions asked of the president by a New York Times reporter was what has so far most "enchanted" him about being president.

Could Obama be becoming overexposed? Even some TV talking heads have begun raising that question, but Obama still seems to think, "Nah, people LIKE seeing me on TV, almost as much as I like seeing MYSELF on TV." Besides, I don't think he can help himself. Most narcissists can't.

But, back to the NYT reporter's question. Hmmm, is there a mirror in the Oval Office? Ideally, a full-length mirror, perhaps? If so, I'm pretty sure what has "enchanted" Obama the most so far is looking at his own reflection - as president, in the Oval Office. After all, remember that, to him, image is everything.

However, at another time and in another venue, Team Obama's smoke and mirrors imagery was recently challenged by no less than a Democratic senator, Senator Max Baucus from Idaho, who said to Treasury Secretary Tim "The Tax Cheat" Geithner, while he was appearing before Baucus' committee: "You created a situation where you cannot be wrong. If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say, yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

Obama, Geithner and other Team Obama players saying they're going to "create or save" jobs, or anything else, for that matter, reminds me a lot of my days of overseeing and teaching security in the Army. If you've got an area to protect from intrusion, you do the best you can to devise a system, preferably a layered system, of barriers to control or prevent entry. But that's never a guarantee against a determined and resourceful opponent. So, the fact that you've not had a breach is not the same as assuming your security measures are all that effective. Another explanation may be that no opponent has yet attempted a breach. In other words, it's like proving a negative.

Another old joke in the security business told of a worker entering the office of a coworker, only to see him with a big tub and spatula spreading peanut butter all over his office furniture. Worker: "What the heck are you doing?" Coworker: "I'm keeping the elephants away." Worker: "Well, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen - that's not going to keep any elephants away." Coworker: "You don't see any elephants, do you?"

Yeah, a lot of what Team Obama says is like that.

When President Obama was at the G-20 meeting in Europe recently, he apologized for America (again) and said we have sometimes been arrogant, dismissive and even derisive of Europe's leadership in the world.

Then, at a recent town hall meeting in Missouri (prior to his celebratory 100th day so-called press conference that same night), he said that all he was aware of about the April 15th TEA Party protests was that it involved some people waving tea bags around and coverage of it appeared on a TV network that doesn't like him very much.

Well, I think it deliciously ironic that an American president who apologizes, especially while overseas, for America having been arrogant, dismissive and derisive of Europe's so-called leadership in the recent past is himself arrogant and narcissistic, dismissive of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans who participated in the TEA Party protests, and derisive of Fox News, conservative commentators and columnists in general, and anyone else who disagrees with him and his policies, particularly while being so petty and thin-skinned about it all. It's simply unpresidential.

But, Mr. Obama, if America has been arrogant, dismissive and derisive of Europe, what were you being about hundreds of thousands of Americans and the TV news coverage their protests got?

Obama is increasingly showing that he still has style but less and less class. Doesn't he know he was elected to be the president of ALL the American people? Doesn't he know that if he feels he is not my president simply because I disagree with his policies, he runs the risk that I, and many others, will start to think of him as not our president, too?

The outright hubris of Obama, Emanuel, Axelrod, Gibbs, Napolitano, Holder, Pelosi, Reid and many other Democrats and liberals is almost mind-boggling -- as well as infuriating. It's as if they consider themselves above any accountability. Well, an accounting is coming, and 2010 cannot arrive too soon to suit me.

So, et tu, Obamicus? Yes, et tu.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, our homeland security nanny who increasingly seems to have only a nodding acquaintance with her job and is quickly gaining on VP Joe Biden in the verbal gaffe department, recently released a so-called "intelligence assessment" report, which was based on policy and opinion rather than citing supportive studies or fact-based intelligence trends. Even more troubling, this "report" was never meant to become known to the public, much less to the people it targeted. It was released to law enforcement agencies only. Therefore, it was actually an attempt by a powerful agency of our government to act in secret, identify or "target" a sector of our population by inference, opinion and policy differences rather than any actual facts, and to have American citizens so identified "investigated" and "reported." But the so-called "intelligence assessment report" was somehow "leaked" and picked up by news media who made it public.

This report profiled and targeted veterans, Americans opposed to the social policies of President Obama, and those who oppose abortion, same sex marriages, restrictions on firearms ownership, and one-world government -- as "right-wing extremists" and "potential domestic terrorists."

Even worse, Napolitano called on state and local law enforcement agencies across the country to investigate and report on these so-called "right-wing extremists."

Well, up until recently, I thought of myself as a more-or-less friendly neighbor and a pretty good citizen, father, grandfather and friend. I was and am a conservative and an unashamedly proud American, but I didn't realize before this "report" that I might also be considered a "right-wing extremist."

Let's see, what would make me think that Secretary Napolitano would think I am a "right-wing extremist"? (1) I am a 26-year military veteran. Worse than that, I am a Vietnam veteran. And a disabled veteran to boot. Wow, look out! (2) I actually am opposed to many of Obama's social policies and think he and a Democratic Congress are pushing this country to the left as far and as fast as they can, using the current economic crisis as rationale (read: "cover" or "distraction") -- an economic crisis, by the way, clearly traceable back to at least 2001 and Democrats in Congress for refusing to regulate the GSE's (Government Sponsored Entities) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac whose collapse started the fall of the financial house of cards. And (3) I am opposed to: (a) abortion, except for cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother's physical health, (b) same sex marriages but not civil unions, (c) any restrictions on Second Amendment rights to firearms ownership or use, and (d) one-world government, also known as "globalization," and advanced by such things as LOST (the Law of the Sea Treaty), the Kyoto Accords and other world-wide measures, often designed to inhibit developed nations' capabilities, co-opt their sovereignty and create some ideologically and idealistically utopian, world-wide "level playing field" in which nations yield their own vital self-interests to cooperate and compromise for the "betterment of all." (Of course, we should just wait for Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and others, to include any smart sovereign nation, really, to actually do that. Wait, but don't hold your breath.)

But, I digress. The point of this article is to "out" myself, I guess, and admit to my friends and neighbors that, at least according to Nodding, Nanny Napolitano, I must be a right-wing extremist -- and I live just down the street or across town from you and, for Madame Secretary, I live within 20 miles of Washington, DC. So, I guess you should all be afraid -- be very afraid. Not of me, but of your increasingly out-of-control, out-of-touch and inept government. After all, any government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have, or words to that effect by one Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. Remember him? He seemed to know about Big Brother long before Orwell and 1984. I wonder if he would have been thought of, say, by the British and perhaps some of his own fellow Americans, as an extremist, too? Just a thought.

President Obama announced on January 23, 2009, that he was closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without a plan on where the terrorists were going upon its closure. Now, just over three months after Obama set the arbitrary one-year deadline for closure, terrorist detainees are already being released.

First, Obama announced during his first week that he was closing Guantanamo Bay to fulfill campaign promises but without a plan on what to do with the detainees. That "dummy" President Bush also wanted to close GITMO but thought he should at least have a plan about what to do with its detainees first (you know, sort of horse before the cart, instead of Obama's cart before the horse). But Bush didn't want to release them into the United States, most of their home countries either wouldn't take them back or would have released or even helped them to return to the battlefield, and none of our "allies" would take any of them, so Bush was stuck.

Second, however, while Obama still has no "plan," he has taken some interim actions. But those interim actions are troubling - like the release of Binyam Mohammed, a terrorist who allegedly plotted multiple attacks on American soil. Binyam Mohammed is a dangerous al-Qaeda terrorist and should have been kept in custody to protect our country and our allies. A detainee since 2004, he has admitted to training at various Al-Qaeda training camps, where he specialized in firearms and explosives. He is accused of plotting a series of attacks on the United States with Jose Padilla (The Dirty Bomber) and Khalid Sheik Mohammed (Mastermind behind 9/11). He is now free in England.

After that came the announcement of two more GITMO releases, both of whom trained at al-Qaeda camps and met with Osama bin Laden. One of them is Ayman Saeed Batarfi, a Yemeni doctor, who is a member of al-Qaeda, supported the Taliban and has been an official of al-Wafa - another organization identified by the U.S. Government as a terrorist supporting group. The U.S. government had charged him with providing medical support to al-Qaeda terrorists and he has freely admitted meeting with Osama bin Laden. As a medical doctor, he also worked closely with senior al-Qaeda microbiologists while in Afghanistan and purchased medical equipment for al-Qaeda. Why release him? Because the evidence against him is thought to be inadmissible in a civilian court.

(Aside: Of course, to me, therein lies part of the problem. Since the GITMO detainees are at least suspected terrorist enemy combatants and not U.S. citizens, nor POWs under the Geneva Conventions, they are not entitled to the rights of either U.S. citizens or normal POWs. So, whether evidence against them would normally be admissible in a civilian court, as if they were just common criminals subject to law enforcement and our regular federal court system, is beside the point. They are not just ordinary criminals. It's not simply a law enforcement and normal civilian jurisprudence issue. It's a wartime and the enemies of our country issue. They are enemy combatants and terrorists, but without the protections of the Geneva Conventions, and therefore should be tried by military tribunals which can give them at least the same or similar protections that military courts-martial give our own troops, while at the same time not compromising matters of national security which could occur in open, civilian court.)

And now, it's reported that approximately 20 more GITMO detainees, a group of seven and then a group of 13, will soon be released. There's no word from Team Obama yet on where the 13 will be released, but the seven GITMO detainees are to be freed, probably within the United States.

The seven terrorists, known as "Uighurs," were captured on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and were trained at the al-Qaeda affiliated East Turkistan Islamic Movement ("ETIM") Tora Bora camp. You may recognize the name Tora Bora because in December 2001, U.S. and Afghan forces were closing in on the location of Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora, Afghanistan. Not so coincidentally the Uighurs were captured in the area around Tora Bora while Osama bin Laden used an escape route out of the region. Pure coincidence? And now these terrorists will be freed in the United States, their detention summarily ended with no trial of any kind and no justice.

The release of these terrorists not only potentially endangers American citizens on our own soil but is against federal law (8 U.S.C. 12 § 1182) which plainly states that any alien who had engaged in various forms of terrorist activity or training cannot be permitted into the United States.

Especially when Bush-bashing or agreeing with Obama about how bad America has been - particularly about how readily we "torture" our enemies - isn't it Democrats and other liberals who incessantly rail about "the rule of law" and "nobody being above the law," etc., etc.? Well, what about THIS law, then?

Or is it that whoever is in charge (of the White House, the Justice Department or the Congress) can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones not? It would seem the Obama Administration is more concerned with the safety of these detainees than that of the American people and what our laws say.

So, while Obama let the genie out of the bottle by summarily declassifying Top Secret documents on CIA "enhanced interrogation techniques" - against the advice of his own Director of National Intelligence, his own hand-picked CIA director and four previous CIA directors - and directed his Attorney General Eric holder to publish them under the guise of still more "transparency" and "openness," he then vacillated about whether he would seek to prosecute those involved in devising them, rendering legal opinions on them, or using them. And when all this resulted in a firestorm of criticism and Obama realized that not only could he not put the genie back in the bottle but also that his actions, I'm sure really intended to "satisfy" and "placate" his leftist base as another way to bash the Bush Administration, had instead emboldened his left-wing supporters and many Congressional Democrats to use it as another chance to "get" the Bush Administration, he vacillated again and seems now to have left it up to his AG Eric "Americans are cowards about race" Holder to decide whether to prosecute anyone and, if so, who. Which is just another example of someone like Obama's AG deciding which laws to enforce and which ones not, and against whom.

And, of course, by underreporting what amounts to a real blunder by Obama in releasing critical interrogation techniques, especially during a time of war, and by glossing over the release of the GITMO detainees, the liberal mainstream media is complicit and collusive, as usual. The Chicago Tribune: "The Obama administration is preparing to free into the United States Chinese Muslims being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the first release of any of the detainees into this country, according to current and former U.S. officials." The Los Angeles Times: "Officials have not said where in the United States they (Uighurs) might live. But many Uighur immigrants from China live in Washington's Virginia suburbs, and advocates have urged that the detainees be resettled near people who speak their language and are familiar with their customs."

Well, as Dana Carvey's old character the Church Lady would say, "Isn't that SPESH-SHUL?" I mean, all that concern and consideration for the detainees and assisting their "transition" into American life, and all. Team Obama seems more concerned with the well-being of terrorist detainees than that of the American people, and the LA Times unbelievably wants to ensure the detainees are sufficiently coddled and "accommodated" in the process of being "freed" and "relocated"! What is this, like the U.S. Marshals Witness Protection Program for Terrorists or something?

Woe be unto "The One" and his one-term presidency, if not his impeachment, if any of these untried, released detainees commits an act of terrorism against this country. But then, perhaps woe unto any number of the rest of us, too, who had nothing to do with their release. And there's the real rub in all this.

Well, I've got news. Not only have I recently been identified, at least by Obama's DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, as a potential right-wing extremist, but FYI, Team Obama and the LA Times: I also already live in a Virginia suburb of Washington, DC, and it's probably best if I don't run across these Chinese Muslim terrorists and soon-to-be former detainees, who have never been adjudicated as innocent of being terrorists.

I'm just saying that I doubt I could be very welcoming, that's all. But then, I'm sometimes just cynical and a little close-minded like that. Also pretty picky about who my friends and neighbors are. But, maybe that's just me.