Hello Racists!

High Priest (and major profiteer) of global warming Al Gore says that global warming skeptics "are this generation's racists" and must be marginalized just as racists were during the civil rights movement. "My generation asked old people 'Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?' And when they really couldn't answer that question with integrity, the change really started."

"Answer the question with integrity." This lies at the heart of the matter.  PRO-manmade (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW) activists such as Gore have been caught time after time cheating, misrepresenting, and deceiving in order to score points in the "conversation."

• Gore admitted pushing subsidies for corn-based ethanol, despite evidence showing lack of results, simply to score political points in Iowa.
• The Climategate e-mails show that scientists privately conspired to punish editors of peer-reviewed journals for publishing studies that disputed AGW, while publicly deriding any research that was not published in those same journals.
• Hysterical claims -- inevitably followed by calls for more government funding --  have been shown to be based on a single author's words, discredited data, or sloppy research.
• Claims of horrendous consequences have been "adjusted" when reality fails to match earlier predictions.  

The lack of integrity in the methods shown by the pro-AGW side, combined with their religious fervor in attacking anyone who dares to even question them -- Gore's "marginalization" process -- is enough to make a reasonable person question their conclusions.

A-J Headline Editor Abuse

Apparently, they're putting headlines in alphabetical order at the A-J.  A story about "Avery and the Calico Hearts" had a secondary headline about A&M's attempts to join the SEC.  Let's see how long it stays up. (I'm guessing until just a little after Bill Kerns wakes up.)

(Edit, 11:30 a.m. -- Now we know what time Kerns goes to work.)

Reflections on Wisconsin

Several months ago, Wisconsin teachers and their union supporters protested a budget proposed by Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. They staged walkouts from their classes, encouraged students to join them in the protests, closed schools, and occupied the state capitol building. The fight, fueled by union and Democrat activists, was angry and bitter. The protests were against particular provisions of the budget – some public employees (including school teachers) would lose collective bargaining rights, they would have to contribute to their own retirement funds, and they would have to pay a higher percentage of their health insurance premiums.

Democrats, ever-loyal supporters of unions, screamed that Walker’s budget would be disastrous for the state. But in at least one case, a school district turned a $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. That’s great in and of itself, but the reasons for the turnaround are revealing.

In the past, teachers and staff of the Kaukauna School District paid nothing toward their pensions; it was all paid by the state. Now they will have to contribute 5.8% to their pensions. They also paid only 10% of their health insurance premiums. They will now have to pay 12.6%, less than employees in the private sector pay on average. Obviously, getting public employees to pay part of their own insurance and pension saves money.

What’s interesting is that the total cost of their insurance coverage, as a result of Walker’s budget, went down. Here’s why.

As part of the teachers union collective bargaining agreement that had been in place, the school district was required to buy health insurance from a company set up by the Wisconsin teachers union. The district was forbidden to negotiate with anyone else. This company, the WEA Trust, charged rates higher than the competition, and had informed the district that there would be a “significant increase” in premiums this year.

With the implementation of Walker’s budget, and the end of collective bargaining, the school district was able to shop around for the best deal. Lo and behold, the WEA Trust notified the district that it would match the lowest rate.

There is much more to the story, which can be found here. What this illustrates is that in direct contrast to what Democrats and union activists claimed would happen, in at least one case Wisconsin taxpayers have benefited greatly, along with the students in the classrooms. The union had negotiated conditions that worked against taxpayers, and which were designed to line the union’s pocket with inflated prices. The union's demands were like a festering wound that was killing the patient. Heal that wound, and the patient immediately returned to health.

Because sometimes it's just fun to remind people

That's what we tried to tell you

From an opinion piece titled "What Happened to Obama?" by devoted Liberal and Democrat Drew Westin in the New York Times:

"... [Obama] is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues."


Well, this distinguished professor of psychology finally got the message -- thirty-three months and four trillion dollars too late.


(Note: When I looked at the web address for Professor Westin's piece, it reads "What happened to Obama's passion?" Apparently his original title was too harsh for them.)

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too - Part XXXIII

Yep, a twofer.


From a Peter Wehner column in Commentary magazine:

Standard & Poor’s downgrade of America’s credit rating is a crushing political blow to President Obama. It reinforces, perhaps like nothing else has, the impression Obama is overseeing, and in some respects engineering, the decline of the American republic.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too - Part XXXII

From a "Random Thoughts" column by Thomas Sowell:

Three little words -- "We the people," the opening words of the Constitution of the United States -- are the biggest obstacle to achieving the political goals of the left. For that, they must move decisions away from "We the people" -- from individuals to government; from elected officials to unelected judges; and from national institutions to international institutions like the United Nations -- all safely remote and insulated from "We the people."

"Attention millionaires and billionaires"

Last December, Barack Obama blasted the Bush tax cuts as being for "millionaires and billionaires." Several days ago, he blasted Republicans, particularly the Tea Party, for refusing to increase taxes, for only wanting to benefit "millionaires and billionaires" (especially those who have corporate jets.)

Today is Obama's 50th birthday.  The birthday boy attended a party for himself last night in Chicago.  A thousand people were expected to attend -- at a cost of up to $35,000 per couple.  For those who really wanted to wish him well, another party was planned for afterward, limited to only 80 or 100 people.  You know, VIPs.

Hmmm....what kind of people could afford to attend such celebrations in Obama's honor?

What's this "compromise" thing?

Recently the news stories covering the debt ceiling situation in Washington have zeroed in on Republican freshmen in the House of Representatives.  Many of them were elected with Tea Party support, with a mandate to reduce the size of government and its role in our lives.  Taxation being a major part of that philosophy, the Tea Party has influenced negotiations.  To wit – no new taxes.

This “ideological rigidity” (as Obama characterized it) has been accused of being the major reason no deal can be reached.  Words such as compromise, bipartisanship, and a “balanced approach” (definition: more taxes) are seen as necessary so that the U.S. government, its reputation, and the world economy don’t come crashing down.  Republicans must agree to increased revenue (definition: more taxes.)  

The current debt is (supposedly) capped at $14.2 trillion. 

In January of 2009, two days after Obama had been sworn into office, in response to a Republican Senator’s objection to increased taxes in the upcoming stimulus plan, Obama killed all dissenting voices by responding, “I won.”

In February of 2009, Obama signed the Democrat stimulus bill into law. The bill was written by Democrat leaders and their staffs, behind closed doors, with no Republican input at all.  The actual legislation was posted on the Congressional website late the night before the vote was scheduled.  The vote was taken before the wording was finalized – additional points were handwritten on the pages – meaning that no one knew what was actually in the legislation when they voted on it, because no one could have read it.  Contribution of the Democrat stimulus bill to the federal debt:  $1.2 trillion.

In December of 2009, the Democrat Congress passed Obamacare, again without any Republican input.  Again, the legislation was crafted by Democrat leaders behind closed doors.  Contribution of Obamacare to the federal debt:  Over $2 trillion.

Transition to today.  Everyone is up in arms because America’s credit rating is about to be downgraded, Social Security checks are threatened, and the nation’s financial status is about to be destroyed – all because (if you read the papers) Tea Party-influenced Republicans refuse to be “fiscally responsible” and compromise on a bipartisan balanced approach.

Who's the ideologue?

ideologue - one who zealously advocates an ideology.
ideology - the body of doctrine or belief that guides an individual.


In discussing the Republican position in negotiations about the federal debt ceiling and spending, Barack Obama said this: "If a party or a politician is constantly taking the position my-way-or-the-highway, constantly being locked into ideologically rigid positions, that we're going to remember at the polls."


One of the major obstacles in negotiations is the Democrat insistence that taxes have to be raised.  The euphemism of choice is "increased revenues," but revenues come from taxpayers, so ....


The Democrat position is political and ideological, not practical.  They use taxation as a way to create, exacerbate and exploit class envy, and to show constituents how they are punishing the enemy; i.e., selected segments such as the "rich" and "big business."  Obama and the Democrats are so insistent on this ideology, that they will do it even if it means decreasing the amount of revenues the government receives: 





So when Obama talks about those who are "locked into ideologically rigid positions," he's really talking about himself. (Again.)  And follow his advice -- remember at the polls.

Surprise! (Not.) Chrysler's going to cost taxpayers

Word's out today that with the federal government unloading its (our) shares of Chrysler, taxpayers are likely to lose up to $1.3 billion.  Fiat will own more than 58% of the company after the dust settles, and the Democrat-friendly auto workers union will own the rest.  As for those shareholders and bondholders who were left with nothing because of the Obama-brokered deal?  Obama and Democrats have one word:  Tough.

"Leading on reporters at press conferences is not leadership"

Republican Paul Ryan doing it again.

Obama supporters, the poster

Translation: "How do I vote for Obama?"

(Actual meaning may be lost in the translation.)

Our solar-powered front porch

The rising sun puts out some heat in the mornings.

How's that re-election coming along, Mr. President?

From the most recent Gallup poll:

Obama loses to (any) Republican candidate by eight points!

The "Anybody But Obama" ticket's looking pretty strong.

Washington and the Debt Limit

Barack Obama, Senate Democrats and House Republicans are negotiating raising the federal debt ceiling.  The Democrats are insistent on raising taxes.  (Politics dominate: In 2009, Obama said "The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession.") The Democrats have offered a combination of spending cuts along with the tax increases.


In 1982 Reagan agreed to a deal with Congressional Democrats -- $3 in spending cuts for every $1 it raised in tax increases.  He later called this deal the biggest mistake of his Presidency. Democrats imposed the tax increases they wanted, but broke their promise and failed to implement the spending cuts.  Reagan remarked, “I’m still waiting on those $3 of spending cuts I was promised by Congress.”

Other than the obvious fact that Democrats are untrustworthy, there is another point.  The federal government is notoriously and brutally efficient when it comes to legislating, imposing and collecting taxes from us. (The IRS, with an annual budget of more than $13 billion, is a government agency solely created for this purpose.) How efficient do any of the Democrats appear when it comes to lessening the amount of our money that they spend?  The old saying goes that there are only two sure things in life, and neither one of them is federal spending cuts.

Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue

Pay special attention to the reactions of the troops in this video.  See how American soldiers feel about America.

About media bias

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too - Part XXXI

From Lurita Doan's recent column, "The New Desperation of Team Obama."

"Any but the most die-hard sycophants now realize that Obama's ideological policies have been failures"

You can't say you weren't warned.

An ad from the Cato Institute run in January 2009, before the trillion-dollar Democrat stimulus bill was passed.  That month's unemployment rate was the lowest it's been since Obama's been in office.  Obama told us millions of jobs were "shovel ready," then after the legislation was passed and the jobs failed to materialize, he said "shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected." You can't say you weren't warned.