Something I need to keep in mind more often

Whatever is true,

Whatever is noble,

Whatever is right,

Whatever is pure,

Whatever is lovely,

Whatever is admirable —

If anything is excellent or praiseworthy —

Think about such things.

                          — Phillippians 4:8 (NIV)

Brought to mind by this story, which will both break and lift your heart.

About that "consensus" on manmade global warming....

Often global warming alarmists will argue as though the science on manmade global warming is settled, that a mere handful of kooks disagree with their conclusion, and that few, if any, reputable scientists disagree with it.  The editor of "Physics and Society," a publication of the American Physics Society, wrote these words:

There is a considerable presence in the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

Sigh...Lubbock hits the (questionable) big time....again

Now when somebody asks "Where you from?" and you answer "Lubbock, Texas," expect a few snickers.

Another Obamacare Revelation

Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas has written an Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner detailing a proposed rule request by HHS.  This rule would require insurers and healthcare providers to hand over patient information to the government.  The rule request is listed in the Federal Register. The pertinent section of this mind-numbing piece of literature is section 153.340, "Data collection under risk management."

Hmmm....I wonder what the government could do with everyone's individual medical records?  Maybe ration care?  Maybe determine who is healthy enough to approve medical treatment for, and who is not?

Nancy Pelosi said they had to pass Obamacare so we could find out what was in it.  Now we know.

Another take on "fair share"

I thought I'd take my last post and put it into a more visual medium.  Incidentally, these figures were compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

"Fair share" = "Wait, what?"

As Barack Obama pounds the bully pulpit to let us know that he thinks the "rich" should pay their "fair share," what almost no one outside of Washington knows is that the top income earners in the United States pay a higher percentage of taxes in relation to their income than those in any other industrialized nation in the world.  But Democrats in Washington sure know it.  

No "Present" vote for Obama this time

In direct defiance to a request by the United States, the Palestinian Authority has issued an official request to the United Nations for the UN to recognize a Palestinian state.  


This puts Barack Obama in a pickle. He has tried to play both sides of the Arab/Palestinian - Israeli conflict since taking office.  His sympathies lie naturally with the Muslim Palestinians, but Israel is a devoted ally and the Jewish vote is vital to the Democrat party.  With the move by the PA, Obama has two choices: veto the PA's request in the UN Security Council, or do nothing and allow the vote, which is almost sure to pass (with the Arab world united against Israel.)


One small sticking point: The Palestinian Authority's charter calls for the destruction of Israel. In a meeting with Palestinian leaders, Mahmoud Abbas, head of the PA, made it clear. "They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state,"


Obama has been careful his whole political career to avoid making decisions that might have a negative effect on his career.  He has been mocked for the number of "Present" votes he cast on controversial issues when he was a member of the Illinois legislature.  He has played both sides of the budget debate.  He really, really hates being nailed down.  


So Obama is forced to make a decision, and that decision will redound throughout the world, and will have a major impact on the 2012 elections. Obama would give anything to let this decision simmer until 2013 (like all the extra taxes that will be forced on Americans because of Obamacare,) but he may not have that choice. 

I'm finally excited about fashion

The Ohio University football team had been bugging their coaches about getting something a little more stylish than their traditional green or white jerseys. See what happens when their wishes come true. It's kind of cool to see a bunch of young guys get this excited about something relatively small.  This video helps me remember that very often it's the little things that count.


Here's the "reveal" video.

It's only fair (to Obama)

Big coverage of Obama’s plan to raise taxes on “the rich”  ($1.5 trillion in higher taxes is the number being quoted.) The stories portray this as his move to fight the budget deficit, which is on everyone’s mind right now. 

A few points:

Obama added at least $3 trillion to the deficit in two years (with his “stimulus” package and Obamacare,) 

He advocated higher taxes in his book The Audacity of Hope in 2006 (when the economy was still relatively good and no one was taking about the deficit.)

The math doesn’t work.  The government will spend about $3.8 trillion in 2011.  If you taxed the top 1% of taxpayers at 100% -- every single bit of their income – you’d collect about $1.7 trillion, or only enough to pay one year’s bills through about June 12th. Guess who will pay for the rest of the year? (And every year after that, as all those people leave the country.)

Is it not reasonable to assume that his push for higher taxes -- 

Has nothing to do with the budget deficit, and

Has nothing to do with the amount of revenues that would be collected, and

Has everything to do with exploiting class envy for political purposes?  

The Chicago Obama Way

Among the many advantages Barack Obama enjoys heading into the 2012 elections is the fact that he has so far managed to avoid any major political damage from scandals.  However, given that he was trained in the Chicago school of corrupt politics, the phrase “it’s just a matter of time” comes to mind.
It looks as though that time may be closer than you think.

Scandal #1.  First, there’s the matter of Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturing company that recently went bankrupt.  Solyndra received a taxpayer-guaranteed loan of $500 million in 2010.  Obama made a special appearance at their plant to tout the success of his “green” agenda.  A year later, taxpayers are on the hook for another half a billion dollars.

The Bush administration had previously rejected Solyndra’s loan application because of concerns over the company's finances.  Government accountants had warned the Obama White House about the company’s problems.  Despite those warnings, Obama & Co. approved the loan.  Why?  One of the major shareholders of Solyndra is also a major fundraiser for Obama.  This fundraiser made several visits to the White House in the months just before the Obama administration approved Solyndra’s loan.

The FBI and a House Committee are now investigating Solyndra, and the evidence is piling up.  The political backscrubbing has become so undeniable that even the major networks are covering it.




Scandal #2.  A four-star Air Force general said he was pressured by the Obama White House to alter histestimony to a House committee investigating the company Lightsquared.  Lightsquared is a satellite broadband company that has proposed a project for the military.  The Pentagon has expressed concerns over the company’s technology, and its effect on GPS systems.

General William Shelton was scheduled to present prepared testimony to the House committee. Such testimony is usually vetted to make sure of accuracy.  According to officials familiar with the situation, Shelton’s prepared testimony was leaked in advance to the company.  According to General Shelton, the White House asked him to alter his testimony to reflect more favorably on Lightsquared, its technology, and the project.  General Shelton was understandably miffed at this, both by the political interference (since when do we let the subject of an inquiry influence expert testimony?) and the prospect of compromising military effectiveness.

Lightsquared’s majority owner is an investment fund run by – you guessed it – a big Democrat donor.

Obama managed to avoid major political damage when he took Chrysler away from legitimate stockholders and gave it to his buddies in the autoworkers union.  We’ll see if his luck holds out against these two newest scandals.

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.