Interesting Points, Madame Speaker and Mr. Gore:

South of Dallas, Texas February 2010
Re: Ms. Pelosi, who states that the health care bill will be bipartisan even if no Republicans vote for it. Or have had any input into it.
Interesting idea.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/28/pelosi-health-care-bill-can-be-bipartisan-even-without-gop-votes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%2Brss%2Fcnn_politicalticker%2B(Blog%3A%2BPolitical%2BTicker)&fbid=_5-MibGxrZVSomeone found Mr. Gore, who wrote an op-ed piece saying that a few minor mistakes don't mean that there isn't global warming.
Except that these aren't just a few minor errors, Mr. Gore.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html
Mr. Gore's comments: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html

I am Appalled....

by President Obama's call for "an up-or-down" vote on health care.

This is against our Constitution.

And so is Nancy Pelosi's appeal to just-pass-healthcare, despite what the American people want.

Mr. President and Madame Speaker--it's spelled C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N and D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100228/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

To write the White House:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

DC Ethics

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100226/ap_on_go_co/us_ethics_rangel

Representative Rangel (D-New York), Chairman of the House Ways & Means, and his ethics problems

And back to our regularly scheduled programming: Job Losses Rose UNEXPECTEDLY

Again! It's....unexpected.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/25/new-jobless-claims-rise-unexpectedly/

The Roundup on the Health Summit

The non-Summit: Democrats talked 233 minutes, including 119 minutes that President Obama spoke. Republicans spoke 110 minutes.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/26/obama-listens-at-health-summit-but-mostly-hears-fr/
The numbers-don't-matter (who cares about the cost?): Mr. Obama doesn't want to discuss the money, or "let's not get bogged down":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022504074.html (Hint: Read the question and then the response. It's like Mr. Ryan and Mr. Obama are in 2 separate rooms.)
And pork barrel politics? Just be quiet, Mr. McCain, I don't want to talk about those deals:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/25/health.care.summit/index.html
In summary--if you're interested:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33571.html
And now for a humorous moment: Mr. Biden likes being VP because he doesn't have to do anything:
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1002/biden_its_easy_being_vp.html
And how do the American people feel about the health care proposals?
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmJhOGViZmYwYjM3N2VhY2E5YzNlNTU4YTBiNjRhYTM=

Mr. Climatologist, You're Kidding, Aren't You?

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/160556

According the Daily Express, "Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, said yesterday: 'January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen.' " while the United Kingdom has been suffering as severe a winter as we have had in the United States. In fact, it's their coldest winter in 30 years.

Someone needs to calibrate the satellites.

And Don't Forget!

Vote!

At least here in Texas, it's primary time. You have tomorrow and next Tuesday to vote. Exercise your political voice!

The Health Care Summit

Sorry, just can't help share some of my readings today about the Summit.

The consensus seems to be that the Democrats didn't have anything new to say, and are threatening to "ram the bill down our throats" (our throats--as in We, the People) despite Americans really not wanting this health care bill. "If you would just DO as we say" seems to be their argument.

The Republicans would like to start over, with specific ideas in mind, and not spend a trillion dollars providing health care for just a few million people.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzM4MDZlYjI3Y2M5YjhjOTA2ZTY1ZDcyNzYwNzliNTM=

And a little lesson on "reconciliation"--

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522149

And lack of leadership:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/25/obama_at_health_care_summit_i_dont_count_my_time_because_im_the_president.html

In a nutshell:

"After a day of debate and disagreement, President Barack Obama concluded....with the bleak assessment that accord between Democrats and Republicans may not be possible. He rejected Republican preferences for seeking a step-by-step solution or simply starting over."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

So What is this Summit Today?

From Representative John Boehner, House Minority Leader (R-Ohio):

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/24/opinion-whos-listening-to-the-american-people/19372482/ on why this a sham.

Dear Readers--

I am planning to take a quasi-break from political blogging.

What is "quasi"?

I will post links to articles and editorials that I feel express a conservative viewpoint, OR that are relevant to being "in-the-know" as far as politics in D.C. are concerned.

I will NOT be posting my viewpoint, nor will Sunday Fun be posted for the time being.

Thank you for understanding!

And keep reading! Please read those links--they are important!

Health Care a la President Obama

Mr. Obama today has revealed his plans for government run health care.

His plan would, yet again, propose that control of our health insurance be in the hands of the federal government. Washington would control both the pricing of health insurance and the health benefits offered. Individuals would still be required to buy health insurance (so-called private or individual mandates) and employees must still pay mandates (or taxes) on employers' health care (although the President does want to exempt the smallest businesses from the tax). This plan also eliminates the "Cornhusker Kickback" though it retains the "Louisiana Purchase".

Some questions remain: does the President's plan, in going along with the Senate proposal, propose federal health plans to compete with private health plans, and does it pay for abortions? Two questions not answered thus far....

And the price tag---1 trillion dollars.

All this comes on the heels of California health insurers asking for a hefty hike in premium prices. But before demanding that the federal government clamp down on price increases, let's ask what might happen if the feds control BOTH prices and benefits?

From the New York Times: "The president’s bill would grant the federal health and human services secretary new authority to review, and to block, premium increases by private insurers, potentially superseding state insurance regulators." So, first of all, you would lose control of the health care process. That control would go to Washington.

Next, from Cato Institute, “Premium caps, which Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is currently threatening to impose, force private insurers to manage care more tightly — i.e., to deny coverage for more services.”

The federal government wouldn't have to actually fix anything, of course--just wring its hands at the poor outcome of its legislation. But it can't provide something--health care--when there isn't any money available. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/02/22/obamas-best-idea-rationing-care-via-clinton-esque-price-controls/

As President Obama's economic advisor says, "The...lesson is that price and exchange controls inevitably create harmful economic distortions. Both the distortions and the economic damage get worse with time." http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/rr1247.htm

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/22/presidents-proposal-introduces-aig-risk-in-federal-insurance-rate-regulation/

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/22/a-first-look-at-the-president%e2%80%99s-health-summit-proposal-liberal-proposal-number-three/

Cash-for-Caulkers....Or, How Weatherizing Our Houses will Save the Economy

Part of President Obama's Stimulus Bill entailed weatherizing homes across the US in order to save energy and to create jobs.

Five billion was set aside for this endeavor, popularly named "Cash for Caulkers".

According to the Government Accountability Office, only 9,100 homes have been weatherized thus far. The Energy Department claims 22,000 homes.

The cost so far? 522 million dollars.

That's $52, 637.00 per house (using the GAO numbers) or $23,727.00, depending on who you believe.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/stimulus-weatherization-jobs-president-obama-congress-recovery-act/story?id=9780935

Obama's National Security Deputy Speaks Out...Or the Tale of Another Nut in the Administration

Mr. John Brennan, National Security Deputy for President Obama, spoke at New York University law school earlier this week.
He spoke to law students, mostly Islamic, about terrorism.
While simulataneously agreeing that the US was safer now after 9/11, Mr. Brennan also stated that some of the tactics taken by the Bush Administration were "over the top", including "violations of the patriot act (N.B.--obviously, violations of the Patriot Act were not intended by the Bush Administration), surveillance that has been excessive, policies perceived as profiling, over-inclusive no fly lists subjecting law-abiding individuals to unnecessary searches and inconvenience."

Mr. Brennan assured the students that the Obama Administration would put top priority on the civil rights aspects of counter-terrorism----while also stating that sometimes safety countered civil rights. Mr. Brennan also feels that many of the counter-terrorism measures are "excessive" and represent "an overabundance of caution".

Mr. Brennan is also concerned about the "ignorant feelings" of Americans toward terrorists, and that we Americans are now back into fearing terrorists after the Christmas Day attack and the murders at Fort Hood.

Duh. Of course we're scared of terrorists.

Especially since our government doesn't seem too concerned about them.

http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/?p=3380

Partisanship

is a good thing.

It's how our government is supposed to work.

Our founding fathers set up a system with checks and balances, give and take, argument and debate.

When we, the people, are against health care, cap-and-tax, spending this generation plus the next's money--we need more discussion, more discourse, more partisanship.

Let's hear it for PARTISANSHIP!

Madame Secretary Declares that Iran is becoming a Military Dictatorship

Duh.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/15/hillary-clinton-iran-military-dictatorship

Mrs. Clinton has begun to push sanctions on Iran to deter them from their nuclear ambitions while she is visiting Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis replied that sanctions might be a long-term solution, but that sanctions really aren't up to the urgency of the situation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_clinton_saudi_arabia

An Object Lesson, Perhaps?

Greece, that is.

Is Greece a model for the United States on how NOT to run an economy?
Greece is part of the European Union, as in "euros". Those countries are not supposed to have over a 3% deficit. Greece currently has a deficit of 12.7 %. Compare this to the United States' deficit of 10%.

Greece has been on a spending spree--it has doubled the wages of government employees. Compare this to the wages in the US of our federal workers: Average salaries for civilian workers in the US government are double those of the private sector.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm

What worries the other countries in European Union is that Greece will default on its debts. Greece doesn't have a very good "credit rating".

The White House insists that the US has no problem with its "credit rating"--touting the US as the "most creditworthy country in the world".

Yet there have been rumors that China may call our loans, so to speak, and not necessarily for economic reasons: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6183KG20100209

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-16/foreign-demand-for-u-s-financial-assets-slowed-in-december.html As China is selling off US treasury bonds, we may no longer be able to finance our excessive government spending this way.

So what will happen to our credit rating then?

The Religion of Global Warming

One of the definitions of "Religion", from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
So, I will submit that those who hold to global warming as a cause or principle are holding on to this system of beliefs with ardor and faith.
With the increasing amount of evidence that global warming and the scientific evidence for and against it was fabricated, manipulated, lost, mislaid, and ignored--face it, it takes a lot of faith to continue to insist that this is a scientifically proven phenomena.
The United Nations, Al Gore, and the rest of the bunch need to realize that global warming is a set of beliefs that is a FAITH, not a scientifically proven fact. Not even a good hypothesis.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/14/AR2010021404283.html

Sunday Fun

Answer: Paul Revere's Ride

Poor Paul Revere doesn't get much respect nowadays for his part in the American Revolution. I've heard theories that he was, ahem, drinking, that he allowed himself to be captured, that he was a real coward, etc, etc.

The truth is that he did arrange for the signal lanterns in Old North Church, did ride out from Boston, did elude capture near Boston, was joined by Prescott and Dawes, but was finally captured by the British so that only Prescott managed to escape and warn Concord about the British troops that were coming.

When the British heard the shots and church bells ringing, they released Revere, who then went on to help John Hancock and Sam Adams flee from the British. He bravely went back and gathered up papers left by Hancock as well.

For a somewhat fanciful but famous account, read Longfellow's epic poem, "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere": http://poetry.eserver.org/paul-revere.html

Okay, now, what's the tree above?

A Fun Spoof: Minnesotans for Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03QcymdCtg&feature=player_embedded
Our home, today!

And Remember Those Miranda Rights that the Christmas Day Would-Be Bomber Has?

The rights that the Obama Administration insists that the Bush Administration had put in place for terrorists AKA enemy combatants? Those rights that Had To Be Done Because It's All The Previous Administration's Fault.

A wee falsehood. Or, as Heritage Foundation puts it, "Fantastic claims that have no basis in reality."

Reminds me of the little ditty that children sing: La-La, La-La--"Pants on fire!"

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/12/mukasey-ends-obamas-miranda-misinformation/#more-26415

And What's That About Iran?

Iran has declared itself a "nuclear state."
Well, actually, Iran may be having some "technical difficulties". There are some reports that the centrifuges at one of the enrichment plants are doing so well. Or maybe the Iranians are just lying, trying to fool everyone.
Nevertheless, Iran seems hellbent on becoming "nuclear", and not just your medical isotopes either.
I must agree with Heritage Foundation that President Obama must do something, and not just hope that Ahmadinejad goes away.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/12/morning-bell-the-president-must-stop-voting-present-on-iran/#more-26304

Incompetent At Best

That's how I might describe Attorney General Holder's dithering on holding civilian trials of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other terrorists in New York City.

It's reported that the White House was unable to muster up enough political support to try these admitted terrorists in the city of New York.

Political? I thought this was about justice!

Whether an enemy combatant is tried in military or civilian courts, we're supposed to have justice--and that's not a handmaid of politics.

Mr. Holder seems to suggest that the trial might be moved, even to military courts, saying, "what we have to ensure is that it's done as transparently as possible and with adherence to all the rules."

Mr. Attorney General, does that include prejudicing the jury? Or holding kangaroo courts here in the United States?

Because, that is what Mr. Holder has done, when he stated, "What I told the prosecutors ... is that failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result."

Then Mr. Holder goes on to say that the most important thing is "what the world sees in that proceeding."

Sir, I beg to differ, but our justice system is not up for the world's scrutiny. It only has to measured by our laws and by our Constitution.

And please stop blaming everyone else.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/1119/p02s13-usju.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021105011.html?hpid=topnews

And Back to Iran....

The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, promised today to "punch the arrogance" of the West tomorrow, February 11th, "in a way that will leave (us) stunned".

Threats from Iran. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/10/iran%e2%80%99s-supreme-leader-promises-a-stunning-%e2%80%9cpunch%e2%80%9d/#more-26133

Iran is also threatening any of its people that might protest and has also been blocking internet and text messaging inside Iran in an attempt to prevent protests.

The Iranian militia has also been sent to the French and Italian ministries to hold "student demonstrations" in protest of their supposed interference in Iran.

Two days ago, Iran stated its plans to enrich uranium for a "research" nuclear reactor.

In response, the United States, while "lamenting the hypocrisy of Iran's ruling regime", has added one person and 4 businesses to a list of potential sanctions--or is that sanc-tees?

Also, Defense Secretary Gates is finally pushing for these financial sanctions from the United Nations, sooner rather than later.

Irony...

Today, the Senate Committee hearing on Global Warming has been postponed due to snowy weather. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b3e826ad-802a-23ad-45b8-8fa00c661d62
And more: the current blizzards are due to global warming, just as last year's warmer winter was due to global warming. The problems with this non-sensical train of thought is explored here:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/10/the-dc-blizzard-more-proof-of-global-warming/#more-26168
Yet, cap-and-tax continues to be pushed in the name of global warming. Of course, as Senator Bingaman (D-New Mexico) admits, these measures will force up our utility bills.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9485513
Thrilling....Not

Oh, My....Too Close to Home

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/i_was_a_teenage_president.html

I have teen-agers.

How Times Do Change...Now Bonuses are Hunky-Dory!

President Obama now calls the multi-million dollar bonuses earned by Wall Street execs "savvy" and "good business"--just "part of the free-market system".
These are the same bonuses he villified just a few short weeks ago. Those same bonuses that his Pay Czar demanded some of it given back.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/wall-street-bonuses-president-obama-once-called-obscene-and-shameful-now-he-doesnt-begrudge.html
Interestingly, if you read the disclaimers at the bottom of the piece, you will notice that the author changed the headline after protests from the White House.
Wow.

Please, No Comments on Terrorism...

....asks John Brennan, Mr. Obama's Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, in an op-ed piece in USA Today.

No lectures, no dissent, no criticism, please, says Mr. Brennan.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/opposing-view-we-need-no-lectures.html?csp=34

Mr Brennan states, "Senior counterterrorism officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was Mirandized", a statement which is questionable. National Intelligence Director Blair admits that the special interrogation unit wasn't called in, (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIEsvnXhoEw) and Blair, FBI Director Mueller and Homeland Security Napolitano have all testified that they weren't consulted by the FBI team that was interrogating the 'underwear' bomber.

Mr. Blair seems to insist that a 50 minute interview was adequate, which is difficult to swallow, and that "breakthroughs" that have occurred in the last few weeks of the underwear bomber's detention are to be applauded.

Indeed, any intelligence gathered from the terrorist is to be welcomed--but what about anything that has occurred in the intervening weeks while the terrorist has been quiet? Such as any would-be terrorists moving their bases of operation, or destroying implicating evidence, or changing their plans?

Finally, let's look at the old canard of "Well, it's Bush's fault." Mr. Blair insists that, because President Bush had would-be-shoe-bomber Reid was Mirandized and put into civilian courts, it's an okay thing to do. Quite a weak argument, IMHO. In 2001, there were no military commissions, no special interrogation units for suspected terrorists, nor was there a Guantanamo Bay prison.

Indeed, Mr. Blair insists that "we must come together to keep us safe." But his version of "coming together" is--don't criticize us, don't point out our failings. I might instead restate this "coming together" as working together, pointing out problems and alternate solutions, being critical where necessary, so that we can all be safe.

For some more info on why this is such a mess:

http://detnews.com/article/20091226/METRO/912260358/Detroit-flight-terrorism-suspect-in-court-Monday

Sunday Fun

Answer to last week's question: The Boston Massacre

This week's question: What famous event is this?

The Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770. It was not truly a "massacre"--five died (either immediately or later on) and six were wounded.

And it was really more of a misunderstanding. After an argument between a British soldier and a local merchant in Boston, a mob gathered at the Customs House in Boston and began to throw things at the soldier. More British soldiers arrived to face the mob. When a colonist threw a club or stick at a soldier, causing him to fall, someone (who know who it was? It was not the captain, Thomas Preston) shouted "Fire". And so the soldiers did so.

However, this event fueled the anger and discontent that the colonists felt toward the British Army. About 4000 Redcoats were in the city, and many of the soldiers were vying with the population for part-time jobs. On top of the soldiers forcing them to pay taxes as demanded by Parliament, the soldiers were threatening many people's livelihoods. The Bostonians were not happy with the Redcoats in their city.