Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming. Schmitt contends that the facade of a "consensus" exists because scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that global warming is manmade.
"They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.
Liberals made a big deal out of tracking the number of "vacations" President Bush took during his time in office. They always included the "vacations" when Bush took foreign dignitaries or administration officials to his Crawford ranch, not bothering to consider if work was being done or not. To the Bush-haters, trips to Crawford always counted as "vacation."
Barack Obama has been in office less than a month and is already taking three days off. Start your counter.
More than a decade ago, the federal government began the process of forcing a transition from analog television to digital. For several years, the message has been Digital transition on February 17, 2009. Get your converter box before it's too late! Millions of people have spent money to buy converter boxes for their analog televisions, so they could continue to watch TV.
The government even set up a government website to address the situation. (www.dtv.gov) A telling phrase is from the FAQ:
Why are we switching to DTV? An important benefit of the switch to all-digital broadcasting is that it will free up parts of the valuable broadcast spectrum for public safety communications such as police, fire departments, and rescue squads. Also, some of the spectrum will be auctioned to companies that will be able to provide consumers with more advanced wireless services (such as wireless broadband).
In other words, the government saw a way to make money. The government now "owns" the broadcast spectrum, to the extent that it can auction it off. No word on who the government bought it from.
The conversion has had a rough start. Test conversions in specific cities have had poor results. Many people were not prepared, or the digital technology had glitches. The government was not able to keep up with the demand for coupons that provided a discount to consumers for the converter boxes.
As a result, Congress has pushed the mandatory conversion back to June 12, 2009. Now, instead of the compulsory transition date they have had in effect for years, they give TV stations the "choice" to switch to digital broadcasting. Many stations, after having spent millions of dollars on upgrading or replacing their equipment, will go ahead with the transition on February 17, as has been the plan for years.
It's likely that millions of people will be without television service come February 17. Only now, instead of Congress taking the heat for their legislation, they will be able to throw up their hands as though they had nothing to do with it. They will likely come out with public statements about how TV stations are victimizing the poor and the elderly. They will put their own foolishness off on someone else.
These are the words of Michigan Democrat Debbie Stebanow. also known as Mrs. Tom Athans, who was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network. Athans refers to his network as a "viable alternative to Air America...Progressive Talk Radio is a viable format that has great commercial potential..."
Air America is the Liberal radio network that had lower ratings than reruns of static and which went bankrupt a couple of years ago (but not before its executives managed to rip off the Boys and Girls Clubs.)
So Senator Stebanow wants to introduce legislation that would eliminate her husband's competition.
Sometimes the crackpot conspiracy theories are right. This story got by me. From an article in Time magazine:
"On October 13, the nine bank bosses, assembled in the Treasury's imposing boardroom, were each handed a piece of paper [by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson]...
"[The government's program] called for the U.S. government to take partial ownership of nine leading banks... "
Although Wells Fargo chairman Richard Kovacevich resisted, Paulson gave the bankers no choice." (Emphasis mine.)
Now Wells Fargo is being slammed in the media for conducting their traditional celebration to reward sales bankers because they took bailout money -- even though they were forced to take it. In other words, the banks have been nationalized, some against their will. And today Obama announced a salary cap for executives in companies who took (or were forced to take) bailout money.
Where is the outrage? The word nationalized has been scrupulously avoided in the media. Shouldn't the federal government be in the hot seat, not Wells Fargo?
The Super Bowl involves two NFL teams that come from cities whose names start with the letter P. (Phoenix and Pittsburgh.) Can you name the three other cities listed in the top 100 most populous American cities that start with P?
Don't look below unless you want to see the answers. I've buried them in text so they're not quite so easy to mistakenly glance at.
***
ABCDEFGHIJK PHILADELPHIA, PA (#6)LMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234567890 ABCEDFGHIJKLMNOP PORTLAND, OR (#30)QRSTUVWXYZ1234567890 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQR PLANO, TX (#69)STUVWXYZ1234567890
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday chose an Arabic satellite TV network for his first formal television interview as president.... See the full story here.
Barack Obama will continue to use his Blackberry to communicate with senior staff and personal friends, despite the security risk, according to his White House spokesman.
Forbes.com has an article detailing who it considers the 25 most influential Liberals in the media. Few surprises as to who is included, (Bill Moyers and Jon Stewart, for example,) with a couple of names that I had never heard of before. Notably missing were the movie and television stars such as Tim Robbins, Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen who always lend their celebrity to Liberal causes.
Here's the headline from an AP story by Liz Sidoti: "Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands." The story then goes on to delineate how Obama " focused on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government."
Yeah, that reinstatement of money to international groups that promote and provide abortions really helped the economy. So did Guantanamo Bay closing, and providing foreign terrorists with Constitutional rights.
And cleaning up government? He chose Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, despite the fact that her husband takes millions of dollars a year from foreign governments. He chose Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, despite Geithner's failure to pay income taxes for several years. In fact, he failed to pay, or to admit he owed, income taxes from 2001 until after his nomination to the post -- upon which he promptly paid what he owed.
As part of his "cleaning up government" pretense, Obama supposedly imposed strict rules on lobbyists and their influence on his administration. Unfortunately for his fragile credibility, Obama also nominated Bill Lynn as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Mr. Lynn until recently worked as a lobbyist for Raytheon, one of the government's largest defense contractors. Hardly any conflict there, right?
Liz Sidoti, as it turns out, is a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. Hardly surprising that someone from San Francisco "reports" on all the righteous work Obama is doing, with nary a whiff of partisanism. As long as you don't count approving the deaths of infants, supporting America's enemies and appointment of bought-and-paid-for poltical prostitutes to his Cabinet, Obama's right down the middle of the road.
If we interpret the concerns expressed by the Democrats and new President Obama correctly, then what we see is a group who wants Guantanamo detainees released. Now there's a report identifying three former detainees who were released (under Bush) who have apparently been promoted to high-ranking positions in al-Qaida, to the extent that the three appeared in an al-Qaida video posted to a jihadist website after they were released.
From the report: "The latest case highlights the risk the new US administration faces as it moves to empty Guantanamo of its remaining 245 prisoners and close the controversial detention camp within a year."
Obama promised a lot of things to a lot of people, but none of his promises received as much emphasis as his vow to deconstruct the security and safety measures implemented by President Bush. So far he's issued several executive orders doing just that. Obama and the other Democrats are very concerned with the rights and well-being of those prisoners held in Gitmo. Apparently, not so much the safety, security or well-being of American citizens -- and our right not to be killed by Islamic terrorists.
Environmentalist and supergreen activist James Lovelock, who originated the Gaia theory describing the earth as a self-regulating entity, had this to say about carbon trading and the business of making money off of global warming fears:
"Most of the green stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is...not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people..."
I've heard rumors that there was some kind of an inauguration or something this week. I've avoided the media coverage because I'm trying to cut back on sugar, and I'm sure the saccharine fawning would overload my system.
So far in Obama's few days in office, he's issued executive orders to 1) Shut down Guantanamo Bay, 2) Halt military tribunals of terrorists held there, 3) Restrict interrogation methods of terrorist suspects, and 4) Halt offshore drilling.
Do you feel safer yet?
One thing to keep in mind with President Barack Obama - the welfare and security of the United States is not his priority. He wants nothing -- and I mean nothing -- more than to ingratiate himself with the rest of the world, especially Muslims in the Middle East. It is more important to the new President that America be "liked" than anything else on his agenda. He will likely try to accomplish this by throwing Israel under the bus and by sending American dollars to other countries, especially those who hate us the most.
Don't expect any public pronouncements from Obama on how great America is. Pride in our country is what Obama thinks is the problem. He will spend the rest of his time in office talking about the problems we face, and our failures as a nation. This is what the rest of the world wants to hear.
The rest of the world is happiest when it sees America on the decline militarily and financially. My brother asked me which countries I thought were America's enemies. My answer: All of them, potentially. Obama's attempts to buy friendships will be met with greed and derision. Greed, because other countries want our money. Derision, because Obama naively thinks his strategy will work. How much money would you have to pay a suicide bomber not to attack?
Obama wants to bring the prisoners at Gitmo to America, and to try them in the American judicial system. Clinton tried this during his administration, with horrible results. Obama's appointees so far are mostly Clinton retreads, so expect things to be very similar. Obama doesn't have enough experience or the judgment to make good decisions, so beyond his coterie of yes-men will be a staff of policymakers who have already shown themselves to be failures at protecting America.
Finally, proving that the scorpion is true to his nature, John McCain urged "speedy confirmation" for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, telling fellow Republicans they should drop demands for more promises on the activities of former President Bill Clinton's global foundation. Texas Senator John Cornyn -- who I am beginning to respect more and more as a Conservative leader -- had delayed confirmation for Clinton. He feels that foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation, totaling millions of dollars (much of it from foreign govenments,) might influence her decision-making on foreign policy. Incredibly, McCain doesn't think that's pertinent.
If McCain ever claims to have a Conservative bone in his body again, he needs to be shown the door. Let's hope we can do the same to the rest of the Obama crowd before a disaster befalls America.
A comment by a poster on another blog made me think about labeling someone Conservative or Liberal. We all operate on a spectrum, but generally an individual believes one way more than another. (My answer to that person was that Conservatives proudly claim to be Conservatives, while Liberals do everything they can to avoid admitting that they're Liberals.)
Google helped me find the "How Liberal or Conservative Are You?" Quiz. It's got a list of not-bad questions to help you find your own leanings. According to the quiz, I'm 90% Conservative.
You Are 90% Conservative, 10% Liberal
Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
In Charles Krauthammer's column this morning on the rehabilitation of President Bush's reputation, he comments on how many holdovers Barack Obama is keeping from the Bush administration. According to Krauthammer, Obama is vindicating Bush's judgment by retaining his people. The key phrase occurs thus:
"Vindication is being expressed not in words but in deeds -- the tacit endorsement conveyed by the Obama continuity-we-can-believe-in transition."
Yahoo News reports that Obama attended a dinner party at George Will's home, where a bunch of "Conservative" columnists were in attendance. Larry Kudlow confirmed that besides himself and Will, Peggy Noonan, Paul Gigot, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer "and others" were there. Kudlow reported that it was a smoochfest (my word, not his) and that all of them were impressed with the President-elect and "wish him the best."
There are so many things going on here. First, with the possible exception of Krauthammer and some of those unnamed, the "Righties" were all part of the Rockefeller Republican set who believe that the Republican party must be more like the Democrats in order to win electiions. They all want to be "reasonable" when dealing with politics. This in spite of the fact that the Republican candidate who just got trounced in the presidential election has been one of the most conciliatory and compromising Senators imaginable. Obama chose his audience carefully, slumming among the friendliest foes he could find. The tone was reported to be extremely cordial and polite, with discussion but no antagonistic conversation.
Now, imagine if Bush had tried something similar with any of the Liberal media anywhere along the way. First, no Liberal media figures have been even remotely friendly or even forgiving of George W. Bush. They have been in attack mode for eight years, except for a brief honeymoon after 9/11. (For example, Bush was heavily criticized for his "extravagant" inaugural expense of $50 million in 2005. Compare that to the media love lavished on Obama's $120 million inauguration this year.) Bush would have been lucky to escape without bloodshed.
There is a rift in the Republican party between those who are mired in Washington DC political and social circles, and who will accept defeat in elections and principle to keep their place on the guest list, and those who believe that Republicans stand for a certain set of principles (such as smaller government and fiscal responsibility) who desire to defeat Democrats politically, socially and in the battle of ideas.
For those of us who want Republicans to do battle, these are cold times indeed. President Bush, despite his rhetoric when campaigning for President, proved to be one of the "Rockefeller" Republicans, rather than the more populist "Goldwater" Republicans. The Republicans who were at that party were, for the most part, those who are willing for Republicans to bend a principle in order to win an election. The flaw with that philosophy was demonstrated in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
With Obama's inauguration a little more than a week away, I thought it time to reflect on President George W. Bush, and how wrong his detractors have been about him. Completely wrong.
Liberal Democrats officially became Bush haters when he won the election in 2000. That was the first time that the media tried to influence a presidential election in an obvious way, "officially" calling Florida for Gore before the polls closed. Voters, ignorant of what the media wanted them to do, elected Bush. Despite claims to the contrary, Bush won, legitimately. This infuriated Democrats, and they have determined to undermine him ever since, in whatever way they could, no matter how vile the charges.
The accusations portray him alternately as either an evil genius or an ignorant rube. No consistency is required in Bush-hater logic; if one charge doesn't stick, move on to the next one.
For example, Bush has repeatedly been portrayed -- even in the media -- as ignorant, unintelligent, incurious, and otherwise intellectually deficient. His Democrat opponents in his two Presidential elections have been portrayed as near geniuses. When it's pointed out that Bush had a higher GPA in college than either Gore or Kerry, Bush-haters maintain that GPA doesn't mean that much.
When it's pointed out that Bush has an MBA from Harvard, Bush-haters say that his family bought the degree.
When it's pointed out that Bush reads several dozen books a year, most of them histories or biographies, his critics say they doubt that he actually reads them. When it's then pointed out that authors who have spoken to the President confirm that he's read them carefully and thought about their ideas, Bush-haters say that doesn't prove anything.
In other words, there is no proof that is enough.
Recently in another forum, Bush was blamed for the most recent Israeli-Palestinian problems because he had "completely ignored" them for seven years. I pointed out to the poster that he was right, if you disregard:
- Bush's call for an independent Palestinian state (2002) - American participation in the Quartet on the Middle East and the "Roadmap for Peace" (2003) - Bush's open support of Sharon’s position that a final peace should not be based on pre-1967 borders - a departure from longtime US policy (2004) - Bush's endorsement of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, welcome of the Palestinian leader in Washington, and support for parts of the Palestinian position (2005) - the setting of a timetable by the US for easing Palestinian travel and bolstering Israeli security (2007) - the hosting of a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis (2007)
The next accusation blamed Bush for supporting democratic elections among the Palestinians. In other words, nothing Bush did would have been acceptable.
Bush's legacy will be the war in Iraq and its consequences. Time will determine how he is judged. Regarding the Democrat Bush-haters, however, their legacy is already established. For Democrats, simple opposition is no longer enough, they must hate and destroy their opponents by any means possible. Hatred in politics has no need for logic or consistency.
Just as Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto guided communism and Hitler's Mein Kampf guided Nazi Germany, Democrats in American have their canon, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Alinsky was a community organizer that influenced leftist politics using harsh, brutal and immoral tactics -- that worked.
Democrat attacks against Bush follow two of Alinsky's rules. Rule #5 says that "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There can't be any doubt at how effective this tactic has been, since the majority of younger voters get the majority of their "news" from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. (Both, tellingly, from Comedy Central.)
Alinsky's Rule #8 says "Always attack, never let up." When one tactic fails, switch to another. This has been the modus operandi for Democrats since 2000.
History will determine the Bush legacy, but it's up to us to tell others the truth as we see it. Otherwise, the Bush-haters, using Alinsky's tactics, will influence our children and grandchildren. Regardless of his deficiencies and mistakes, Bush was a good man thrust into a horrendous situation. The major proof of his effectiveness is the absence of any more terrorist attacks in America for the last seven years, something that would have been considered a miracle on September 12, 2001.
Obama is inheriting his share of problems. Let's see if he can prove himself a good man.
Bill Richardson withdrew his name from contention as Commerce Secretary yesterday, because of a federal grand jury's investigation of how a California company won a lucrative contract in New Mexico after it contributed to Richardson's campaign.
Add this to Obama's links to the Illinois governor's legal problems surrounding his attempt to sell Obama's vacated Senate seat, and once again we find Obama surrounded -- but supposedly untouched -- by scandal. Remember during the campaign that Obama left behind Reverend Wright, ACORN, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko. Now we can add the names of Bill Richardson and Rod Blagojevich.
The word "vetting" comes from horse racing, where horses were evaluated by a veterinarian to make sure they were healthy and in good condition to run a race. In politics, vetting means to thoroughly examine the past of a candidate for a position to determine if anything could arise out of his past that would be a liability while he is campaigning for office. And, if he wins, whether something could hinder his ability to do the job.
It certainly appears that our unvetted President-elect has trouble vetting people around him.
The first couple of lines of Yahoo's story on the "controversy" surrounding Obama's inauguration prayer: "President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation drew one kind of protest. Whether the evangelical pastor offers the prayer in the name of Jesus may draw another." The story goes on to cite how gay rights advocates protest the choice of minister, and how anti-Christian groups protested the inclusion of the word "Jesus" in Bush's inaugural prayer. Atheists even filed a lawsuit in protest. There is pressure on evangelical pastor Warren to avoid the use of the words "Jesus" or "Christ."
This is about the inaugural prayer. Imagine the special interest groups' influence on Obama's policies.
Christopher Booker has written a column in the UK Telegraph entitled "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved."
A few pertinent quotes from the column:
"...all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the [global warming] scare."
"All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise."
"At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions." ("Proper" scientists as opposed to agenda-driven ex-politicians; i.e. Al Gore.)
We have to fight every move by politicians to devote more money to fighting a "threat" that does not exist. With the government throwing alms to the beggars in the financial and auto industries -- and more businesses/beggars waiting in the wings -- it's stupid to throw good money after bad. Any further attempts by politicians to control our lives in the spirit of "fighting climate change" are merely more ways of imposing government control where it doesn't belong.
This message was sent to me by a good friend via e-mail. It embodies much of the philosophy I have as a human being and as an American. While not political in nature, it represents much of the Conservative belief I have that, in an imperfect and sometimes harsh world, people can -- with determination, hard work and yes, hope (thought not hope alone) -- persevere.
With Las Vegas and other parts of the country (and world) having record snowfall and record low temperatures, it reminded me of something I've noticed lately. If the earth is getting warmer, and the last decade is the warmest on record, etc. etc., why have those people started calling the whole problem "climate change" after years of calling it "global warming?" Could it be so that now, regardless of the temperature, they can cite it as an indication of the peril we're in? For years the alarmists have declared this year or that year as "the hottest on record." When the facts start to diverge from their claims, they simply change what they call their claims.
It seems to me that if your argument is strong, you don't start calling it something else. Are we in supposed danger from global warming or from climate change?
A quick look at a poll on the IMDB website made me realize something. Many of my favorite movies have one word titles. From their list of the top-rated one-word movie titles, I enjoyed:
Thomas Sowell has a column today in which he discusses how bailing out the big three automakers postpones reality. Their way of producing cars failed, whether through their own business practices, the excessive demands of the unions or the excessive demands of the government.
One passage in the column introduced me to a concept I hadn't seen before. To wit:
"A renowned economist of the past, J.A. Schumpeter, used to refer to progress under capitalism as "creative destruction"-- the replacement of businesses that have outlived their usefulness with businesses that carry technological and organizational creativity forward, raising standards of living in the process."
Sowell then goes on to describe what happened to the horse and buggy business with the introduction of the automobile a hundred years ago.
"Creative destruction." I like that. It implies a constant renewal, like a snake shedding its skin or a butterfly leaving a cocoon. In economic terms it causes short term pain for groups that are displaced, but the process is what's necessary for long term economic growth. Plus, as Sowell said, a greater standard of living.
Try selling that idea to a politician who's trying to be re-elected. Feh.
The murder of Adam Walsh has finally been solved. Adam was the son of John Walsh, who started the television show "America's Most Wanted."
If you can call anything "good" that comes out of the murder of a 6-year-old boy, it's that now parents and police departments treat missing children cases much more seriously. Because of John Walsh's determination and activism, we now have faces on milk cartons, shopping bags and mailbox flyers, fingerprinting programs and increased security at schools and stores. "Code Adam," the internationally-recognized alert that a child has gone missing, is named for Adam Walsh.
The family now has closure. "America's Most Wanted" has put hundreds of scumbags behind bars. And the killer is dead. May he get what he deserves in his next existence.
I'm working on a book right now with a savage deadline approaching. The writing is going well, but I have a lot to do. My experience with the previous book, which nearly beat me down, served me well. I work much better when I take the time to write up an extensive outline beforehand.
I'll be missing the Christmas party Monday evening as I try to make this deadline. Doggone it.
Barack Obama, Spartanburg, NC, November 3, 2007: "I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House."
December 11, 2008, Washington Post Headline: "Obama Nominates Daschle for HHS [Tom Daschle as Secretary of Health and Human Services.]"
Wikipedia entry on Tom Daschle: "[Daschle] signed on as a Senior Policy Advisor with the K Street law firm Alston & Bird. Health care interests, including CVS Caremark, the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, Abbott Laboratories and HealthSouth, are among the firm's lobbying clients."
In other words, Obama's new HHS Secretary was a lobbyist. Ahem.
A quote from a November 5 report -- that's the day after Obama was elected -- from KHQA's Carol Sowers:
"Now that Barack Obama will be moving to the White House, his seat in the U.S. Senate representing Illinois will have to be filled. That's one of Obama's first priorities today. He's meeting with Governor Rod Blagojevich this afternoon in Chicago to discuss it."
As Democrats gloat over their successes in getting Obama elected, and having won majorities in both houses of Congress, yesterday's stories about the arrest of Democrat Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich reminded me of other "successes" the Democrats have had in 2008:
Representative Charlie Rangel (D-New York): 1) Paid his son $80,000 to design websites that should have cost less than $100; 2) used Congressional letterhead to solicit donations for a center bearing his name (often called Rangel's "Monument to Me",) using earmarks to start the financial ball rolling, then obtaining tax breaks for donors; 3) claimed five primary residences to receive tax breaks, 4) failed to claim $75,000 in income from his ownership of a Dominican resort. Charlie Rangel is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Representative William Jefferson (D-Louisiana): Loses his re-election bid for his seat in November. Jefferson has been under indictment for bribery, laundering money and misusing his congressional office since 2006.
Democrat Mayor of Detroit Kwame Kilpatrick: Charged in March with official misconduct, perjury and obstruction of justice; went to jail in October for lying during a civil trial to conceal an extramarital affair. (Why does that last point sound familiar?)
Massachusetts State Senator Dianne Wilkerson (Democrat, Sulfolk): Arrested in October on public corruption charges. This followed her arrest in 1997 for federal tax evasion, fines in 2001 and 2005 for ethics violations and a 2005 charge of perjury.
Pennsylvania State Representative and Democrat Whip Mike Veonand 11 other members of the Democrat caucus: Charged by prosecutors in July with theft and conflict of interest for running a massive political campaign machine out of government offices.
Florida Representative Tim Mahoney (D-Florida): Defeated for re-election in November. Mahoney won his seat in 2006 after the incumbent, Mark Foley (name sound familiar?) resigned after a sex scandal. In October, Mahoney was revealed to have agreed to a $121,000 payment to a former mistress who worked on his staff and was threatening to sue him.
Ohio State Representative Matthew H. Barrett (D-Amherst): Forced to resign after a photo of a topless woman popped up during his lecture to a high school civics class.
Former US Senator (D-North Carolina) and former Democrat candidate for President John Edwards: Admitted in a statement and interview in August that he had an adulterous affair with former campaign worker Rielle Hunter, but denied he was the father of her child. A campaign aide, Andrew Young, claims that he, not Edwards, is the child's father. NBC reports that Edwards' former campaign consultant and many others raise the possibility of Young covering for Edwards.
Former Democrat mayor of Newark Sharpe James: Indicted on 33 counts of corruption in July.
Former Democrat Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer: Forced to resign in March after the New York Times revealed that Spitzer had spent as much as $80,000 on prostitutes. Spitzer is still under investigation over wrongdoing in his handling of travel records and for his involvement in the prostitution ring.
California State Senator Carole Midgen (Democrat, San Francisco): In March, Midgen was assessed the largest fine in the history of the California Political Fair Practices Commission -- $350,000 -- for 89 violations of the state’s campaign financing laws.
I'm stopping here simply out of exhaustion. Maybe sometime I can do "Year of the Democrat, Pt. 2." But 2008 was certainly a great year for Democrats, wasn't it?Let's see if Nancy Pelosi can get that "culture of corruption" slogan up and running again.
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested today. on charges of corruption connected to filling the vacated Senate seat of Barack Obama. With political agility which has become second-nature to him, Obama raced to distance himself from the governor:
"I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening" [concerning any possible dealing about Blagojevich's appointment of a successor.] said Obama.
However, Obama's top advisor, David Axelrod, said this on Fox News Chicago on November 23: "I know he's talked to the governor, and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."
Obama's people said that Axelrod misspoke. However, Axelrod's words seem pretty clear and precise to me.
Don't be surprised if a whole bunch of Chicago-style chicanery suddenly turns up on Obama's docket. He's been neck-deep in Chicago politics for years, and the press let it go before the election. The primary process is supposed to weed out candidates that have issues like this. Let's see how the press handles a scandal-ridden President in his first year in office.
In celebration of the season, I'm focusing today on the best food in the world -- bacon. If you are still looking for a present for that special someone, read on. . In pursuing the subject in my usual manner, I conducted extensive research. First of all, bacon was not named for the 16th-century philosopher and scientist Sir Francis Bacon. . There are several blogs devoted to bacon exclusively. One of the best I've found is Bacon Unwrapped. There you can find all the latest news and developments in the world of bacon.
. There are hundreds of recipes listed around the internet that feature bacon. My favorite bacon-oriented dish, however, is my wife's bacon-wrapped jalapeno poppers. Cream cheese inside, jalapeno, and bacon on the outside. What's not to like? Of course, the world has always had visionaries, and the world of bacon is no different. From the same people who brought you Bacon Salt, there is now Baconnaise, a bacon-flavored condiment to go with everything. (Not to be confused with my previously featured condiment, chili dog-flavored mustard.)
.
Here is a picture of what would be my perfect food:
And, to make sure we embrace the actual spirit of Christmas, here is a song that will warm your heart throughout the holidays.
.
Note: Due to the abilities of the skilled lawyers at Warner Brothers, we must identify the artist on this record as Seymour Swine, not Porky Pig. (Actual recording made in 1982 by Denny Brownlee, an aspiring DJ who worked on the John Boy and Billy radio show.)
Don't ask questions. Take seven minutes and watch this video.
And that, my children, is how it's done. This guy interviews politicians the way all reporters should. Besides Pelosi, Jan Heldfeld has evsicerated Harry Reid, Pete Stark, George Stephanapoulus and others. Go to his website to see more.
Al Franken -- incredibly -- may yet steal the election for the US Senate seat in Minnesota. According to the rules apparently in place, the decision of whether the Democrat or the Republican won the election may go to the Democrat-controlled US Senate. Even though Republican Norm Coleman has the majority of votes from Minnesotans, Franken could join "Washington's most exclusive club."
This is one of those parts of the American political system that don't make sense. If we can't change stupid rules like this, then there's only one other thing to do. As Hugh Hewitt put it in his appropriately-titled 2004 book: "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It."
Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss won his run-off for the US Senate, preventing Democrats in Washington from achieving a filibuster-proof majority. Good news, but not the point of this post.
Deep in the heart of the AP story on Chambliss's victory comes this paragraph: "Chambliss came to the Senate in 2002 after defeating Democratic Sen. Max Cleland in a campaign that infuriated Democrats. Chambliss ran a TV ad that questioned Cleland's commitment to national security and flashed a photo of Osama bin Laden. Cleland is a triple amputee wounded in the Vietnam War." (Italics added.)
A few points here: 1) Max Cleland served America honorably in the military, and his wounds are tragic and regrettable. 2) The sentence about Cleland has nothing at all to do with Chambliss winning re-election. 3) Max Cleland's wounds were self-inflicted.
The short version of the story is this: Cleland picked up an American grenade on a routine noncombat mission and the grenade exploded. Cleland himself said: "I didn't see any heroism in all that. It wasn't an act of heroism. I didn't know the grenade was live. It was an act of fate." That is why Clelanddidn't win a Purple Heart, which is given to those wounded in combat. That Cleland had been wounded in battle was clearly what the AP reporters were trying -- falsely -- to imply. Presumably, that would have meant that he should be immune from a tough campaign.
Even in a story that reports a positive result for Republicans, the AP reporters -- Greg Bluestein, Kate Brumback and Errin Haines -- felt compelled to put in a misleading and irrelevant passage to dilute one of the few bright spots for the Republican party.
When you read news stories from the "Associated Press," remember that those stories are written by reporters, the same ones that have shown such anti-Republican, anti-Conservative bias over the last several years. Read (and watch) the news with a jaundiced eye.
Two knockout versions of an old standard that will bring tears to your eyes.
First a mashup by a boys choir on BBC Two:
Next, the "international" version from the documentary "Playing For Change." I'm not sure that music will bring peace to the planet, but listening to this song sure makes you wish it would:
A writer for one of my favorite websites/magazines, Mental Floss, in an article about how much television Americans watch -- and the harm that befalls them because of it -- commented that he didn't watch much TV, "mainly The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and sometimes I'll watch a bit of Olbermann."
Any bets on where the writer gets most of his political information? He probably believes that he's knowledgable about politics. And as a writer for Mental Floss, he's supposedly one of the more intelligent people.
If you want to find out what people want in dishwashing liquid, bath soap, toilet paper or deodorant, marketing research is the tool to use. Personal preference in items we use in our daily lives is part of our culture. We know what we like.
The same principle applied to politics is a disaster. I've made no secret of my disdain for polls and how the media use them to generate the stories that they want to promote. A recent study revealed the fruitlessness of polling Americans to ask them their opinion on political matters.
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) conducted a survey of 2500 Americans, quizzing them about American civics. The average score of all respondents was 49%. College educators did a bit better, at 55%. Something that may or may not surprise you: political officeholders scored 44% -- lower than the average person surveyed. (Take the quiz yourself here.)
I'm not criticizing anyone who doesn't score high on the quiz -- we each have our own strengths and interests. But the ignorance of Americans that the survey revealed illustrates the worthlessness of polls that ask Americans their "opinion" about something going on in politics. As we saw from the survey of Obama voters, most opinions are based on ignorance.
Pollsters should stick to soap. Everyone else should ignore polls.
(For those who are curious, I scored 93.4% on the quiz.)
New York City just told church-sponsored shelters that provide beds for the homeless that they must stay open at least five days a week or not at all.
Temperatures in NYC are below freezing. Last year four homeless people froze to death.
What this means -- assuming the church shelters can't or won't agree to stay open -- is that if homeless people want a bed they have to turn to the city's government shelters, effectively replacing privately funded charitable work with taxpayer funded "entitlements." City officials are willing to risk homeless people dying in order to increase their power.
Never doubt how far government will go to impose its will.
Headline from a CBS story: "Obama Advisers to Public: Temper Expectations"
Now the words of wisdom from Obama's transition officer, Robert Reich: "We all have to be very careful about the expectations that we are putting on this man...."
Advice that could (and should) have been given prior to the election.
Zogby International conducted a multiple-choice poll of Obama supporters after the election to determine their level of knowledge about the candidates and the campaigns. What the poll revealed will be surprising to many people (mainly Obama supporters.)
(First, I know that the song is in your head now, so here's a link so you can listen to it.)
Two things really caught my attention recently. There's the story that my friend Keith told me about his encounter with an Obama supporter in an airport. She was an older lady, and while they were both waiting for their flights they struck up a conversation. Unbidden, she asked him his thoughts on the election. Keith, ever the gentleman, said words to the effect of, "Things didn't go quite the way I would have liked."
The lady began to rhapsodize about how happy she was that Obama won, that America needed a change, etc.etc. Having stood all he could take, Keith asked the lady how she felt about Americans having to pay a tax to the United Nations. The Obama supporter looked confused and said, "I wouldn't like that."
The other story that caught my attention was this news story detailing how, although Obama promised "change," he is choosing longtime political insiders for key posts. There's a saying about leopards changing their spots, and it's not a stretch to assume that these career politicians won't be doing anything different from the way they've always done it.
.
I'd say that Obama used the old "bait and switch" to win the election. Are the ones who voted for him smart enough to recognize when they've been bamboozled? Or is the fact that they voted for Obama in the first place all you need to know to answer that question?
With the trillion dollar government bailout for lenders that made bad investments, the roller coaster of the stock market, and the unknown future of the cost for fuel (although we're now paying under $1.80 a gallon,) it's hard for most people to have any idea of what to do financially. Expert economists don't know what the effects of all this will be on our personal finances, so what's a regular person to do? Here are some strategies that will work in any economy:
1. Get out of debt. A few observations -- the less debt you have, the more of your own cash you get to keep. The less debt, the more flexibility you have in what you do with your money. The less debt, the less risk you have if a financial catastrophe strikes -- you lose your job, you have a medical emergency, etc. PLUS if you've saved your money because you have less debt, you have cash to handle the emergency.
2. Earn as much as you can. This might sound like a no-brainer, but we get complacent when we think we are making "enough" money. You may have heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. These are usually classified as motivators, or pressures to fulfill a need. After a need is met, though, it is no longer considered a motivator. If you're making "enough" money, there's no real pressure to earn more. In the next few years there's probably a 99.9% chance that our income taxes will go up. Democrats control the government. (Regardless of Obama's "promises," Democrats can't change their nature.) Somehow the bailouts have to be paid for. And the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 if they're not renewed...and see my previous comments about Democrats and their nature. Tax revenue is their money. You can't avoid paying income tax (legally,) but you can try to outearn its effects. Extra jobs, overtime, selling stuff -- extra cash will always be handy. Consult a tax adviser to see what you can do to minimize the amount of taxes you owe.
3. Shop wisely. In a down economy, bargains show up. If you have extra cash, the appetite to buy things can overwhelm you. Resist the urge to buy the first shiny thing that you see. Buy quality. Establish the items that you want the most, and look for the best bargains in those.
4. Buy guns. Related to #3, this point concerns buying items that increase in value, a personal finance variation on the "guns and butter" model in economics. Americans typically are consumers -- that is, they buy lots of "butter." Think of the items that you use once and then have to replace. Those who purchase items that will increase in value -- "guns" -- also increase their net worth, their wealth. One thing about income taxes - they only tax your income, not your wealth. As Andrew Tobias wrote, "A penny saved is worth two pennies earned." Take advantage of financial situations, and use the opportunity to increase your non-taxable wealth. When the dust settles, you want to be in a better position financially than you were before.
Notice that I didn't say anything about investing. If the experts don't know whether to invest in stocks, bonds, real estate or, say, subprime mortgages, then I surely don't know. But if you follow the advice above, you'll be ahead of 99% of Americans.
Check out the media coverage surrounding the "new" afterword terrorist William Ayers wrote for his book "Fugitive Days." A quote from Ayers:
“We had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends...."
So Obama's "guy from my neighborhood" comment was an outright lie. Somehow "I told you so" seems a little inadequate.Not much coverage of the Obama-Ayers connection pre-election, other than to ridicule Palin for mentioning it.How can anyone anywhere dispute that the media were in the tank for Obama? The media selected the President of the United States.
University of Oxford researchers recently compiled a list of the "Top 10 Most Irritating Phrases in the English Language." Luckily, I manage to avoid using most of them, except for #6 when I'm trying to sound like Rocky Balboa.
1 - At the end of the day 2 - Fairly unique 3 - I personally 4 - At this moment in time 5 - With all due respect 6 - Absolutely 7 - It's a nightmare 8 - Shouldn't of 9 - 24/7 10 - It's not rocket science
Plan on announcements of Obama’s victory to start at about noon.
So much has been written about the campaign over the last two years that pretty much anything I add is redundant. It’s clear that McCain is not the best candidate Republicans could have chosen. When we look back at the early primaries we can see the beginning of the trend – Democrats crossing over like crazy to vote for McCain in states where it was allowed, and the media repeating over and over that McCain was the Republicans’ best chance at winning the presidency. I previously posted. how the New York Times endorsed McCain, primarily because of all the Republican candidates he was the closest to Hillary Clinton on the issues. Now, of course, McCain is criticized by Obama for voting with Bush “90% of the time.” Obama.
I’ve followed politics for over thirty years, and I have never seen someone snake through the process like Obama has. Bill Clinton in 1992 is the closest, but he’s not even close to what Barack Obama has done. No charge, no scandal, no misstep, no gaffe, nothing has come close to sticking to Obama, and there have been plenty of them.
Obama has spoken offhandedly about the “typical white person,” about how poor people cling to their guns and religion, about how he’ll bankrupt the coal industry, about visiting “fifty-seven states,” and yet there have been absolutely no repercussions. The media downplays or completely ignores these statements.
The biggest surprise is the hostility the media had toward the Clintons. Two years ago I thought the Clintons were Democrat royalty, but when it came down to the wire, their friends abandoned them. (Think Bill Richardson.) The Clintons must have been pretty heavy-handed in their roles as leaders of the Democrat party, because the moment they were vulnerable, everyone left them behind.
***
Obama has made no secret of his plans. Historically he has been a collectivist/socialist, and in his speeches he has bragged about how he’ll raise taxes, and how he’ll spread the wealth around, a/k/a “buy votes.” There are Obama supporters who honestly believe that they will no longer have to pay their car payments or mortgage payments, because of him. (There is a reasonable argument to be made against universal suffrage.)
Obama has been against the 2nd Amendment – the right to bear arms – from the beginning. This ...politician... has proclaimed that he “supports” the 2nd Amendment, but that government should be allowed to ignore it. It’s not a big step to believe that he will press for a complete gun ban, and with a Liberal Democrat Congress it would likely pass.
***
The biggest loser this year is the media. They have lost all semblance of credibility or ethical standards. The one-sided support for Obama from the beginning has been chilling. Unquestioning, biased promotion of one candidate has made the media an extension of the Democrat party. And the probable introduction of the "Fairness Doctrine" in Congress to silence talk radio will add to the influence the mainstream media has on the country.
When did the decline of the media begin? When they started using polls as news. Poll numbers can be manipulated any way the polling body wants, and they are. The media reports nothing but bad news on the economy for weeks on end, then asks Americans how they "feel" about the economy. The predictable results are then published as evidence that Americans have lost faith in the President. In the same way, Obama's lead in the polls has been overplayed. Do you remember when McCain was leading in the polls, after he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate? No? It's because the media didn't want to report it. In one poll McCain led by as much as ten points, yet that was never a headline.
The media is the enemy. They wrap themselves in the Constitution just as other criminals do. And they are just as guilty of crimes against America.
***
With a likely Obama victory, what are Conservatives to do? Obviously, today you go out and vote, early and often. But for a long-term strategy, find and support the most conservative candidates locally, and at every level. Look for the ones who believe in smaller government. If they get into office and then become “big government” politicians, vote them out. Pressure every single representative to vote for smaller government. And you have to start at the local level.
Obama's election, if it happens, doesn't mean the end of the world. It can, however, mean a drastic change toward European-style governance (socialism) in the next few years. As Ben Stein put it, though, who occupies the White House is not as important as what happens in your house. Go out, earn as much money as you can, pay cash for eveything you can, and live the best life you can. The Democrats haven't taken those things away from you yet.
Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming. Schmitt contends that the facade of a "consensus" exists because scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that global warming is manmade.
