Strong Arming Health Care

Ahh, politics.  Darned people, they don’t understand what we’re doing is good for them, so we’ll just have to show them.  What?  We’ve got a Senator holding it up…well, it’s gonna get bad for him then.  I’m telling you, this is my moment and you people better pass this….

Here’s hoping his moment goes down in flames…way to go Joe!

from the Politico…

Obama: ‘Last chance’ for health reform
By: Carrie Budoff Brown and Mike Allen
December 14, 2009 08:26 PM EST

In a provocative argument designed to rescue his foundering health care plan, President Barack Obama will warn Senate Democrats in a White House meeting Tuesday that this is the “last chance” to pass comprehensive reform.

Obama will contend that if it fails now, no other president will attempt it, aides said.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told POLITICO: “If President Obama doesn’t pass health reform, it’s hard to imagine another president ever taking on this Herculean task. For those whose life’s work is reforming health care, this may be the last train leaving the station.”

Previewing the message, Vice President Joe Biden said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”: “If health care does not pass in this Congress … it’s going to be kicked back for a generation.”

The new argument comes as the Senate races to pass the measure by Christmas, in the face of a costly setback this week. Senate Democrats say they are prepared to drop a plan to expand Medicare coverage after Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he could not support it.

That could keep the bill alive but would infuriate the party’s liberals, who feel the moderate Lieberman has thwarted them once again.

Biden said on MSNBC: “”Say it ain’t so. … Joe is a great guy. … I think Joe’s judgment is wrong on this.”

Senate strategists say the current impasse will have to be resolved in the next couple of days in order to allow passage by year’s end.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declined to say whether the Medicare expansion would be dropped and was waiting for congressional scorekeepers to put a price tag on the plan before making a final decision.

But several senators — including Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) — said it appeared Democrats faced with the reality of needing Lieberman’s vote to get to the 60 needed for passage, would drop the Medicare expansion.

“The general consensus was, we shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good,” Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said after leaving a caucus meeting. “And if in order to get all the insurance reforms accomplished, a number of the other good things in the bill, dropping the Medicare expansion was necessary, then that’s what should be done. And it appeared that would be necessary to get the 60 votes.”

Asked if Reid explicitly dropped the Medicare plan, Bayh said, “That’s what it sounded like to me.”

For his part, Lieberman said he had not received a promise that the Medicare buy-in idea would be dropped from the bill. “Not an explicit assurance, no,” Lieberman said.

“This is a classic case where you have to bring 60 people together. There are more than me that had concerns about different parts of this bill, but I think we’re making progress,” he said. “I think we’re in the reach of a very significant accomplishment. … It will change the lives of people forever.”

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) also said it appeared Democrats were moving toward a bill without the Medicare option. “It looks that way,” Harkin said.

Added Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), a big supporter of the public option and the Medicare idea, “Things are not moving in the right direction.”

The move came after two days of high drama over health care, with Lieberman saying he’d fight the Medicare plan and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel urging Reid to cut a deal with Lieberman on reform, according to a source close to the negotiations.

Reid has no margin for error and needs Lieberman’s support to get the 60 votes needed to pass reform. So Democrats, after a late-afternoon caucus meeting, sounded resigned to giving up on the idea of allowing Americans ages 55 to 64 to buy into the popular insurance plan for seniors — which Lieberman and other moderates worried was too much like the “public option” that they had long opposed.

But talk of dropping the Medicare expansion angered the party’s liberals, who can’t believe a senator who no longer considers himself a Democrat is in the position of effectively vetoing a key part of the health reform bill. Liberals supported the Medicare expansion as a way to cover more of the uninsured in a government plan.Already, there was talk of retaliating against Lieberman, much as some Democrats sought to strip him of his Senate Homeland Security Committee chairmanship after he campaigned for Republican Sen. John McCain for president in 2008.

“The anger toward him right now is white hot,” said one senior Democratic aide.

President Barack Obama has called the Democratic Caucus to the White House for a meeting Tuesday.

Lieberman threw health care reform into doubt Sunday when he told Reid that he would join a filibuster of the bill if it allowed older Americans to purchase coverage in Medicare. That came just days after Reid had announced “broad agreement” on a bill that included the Medicare buy-in and plans to create a national health plan with private insurers.

That plan was itself a compromise from Reid’s original bill, which included a public health insurance option with a chance for states to opt out of the plan. Reid dropped that measure because of objections from moderates, including Lieberman, who threatened to filibuster that plan too.

Earlier Monday, Reid was described as so frustrated with Lieberman that he was not ready to sacrifice a key element of the health care bill and first wanted to see the Congressional Budget Office cost analysis of the Medicare buy-in. The analysis is expected early this week.

Democrats shared the majority leader’s frustration. In interviews with POLITICO, senior Democratic aides and senators laid out a range of emotions toward Lieberman — from outrage over what they believed was Lieberman’s blatant attempt to kill the bill to surprise over Lieberman’s apparent reversal on the Medicare buy-in, which he has supported in the past.

“It was a surprise to us because we felt that he was favorably inclined toward the package that came out of the negotiations, and we were working from that premise,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

On whether punishment should be levied, Durbin said: “That has not been discussed, and it won’t be. We’re going to get this bill passed.”

Among liberal activists, the anger grew as well. Adam Green, spokesman for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said going through the budget reconciliation process is the way to make Lieberman “irrelevant. … Taking away Lieberman’s chairmanship is the way to teach a lesson to others.”

And some of Lieberman’s moderate colleagues seemed perplexed as well.

“Sen. Lieberman, it’s my understanding, proposed a similar measure [a] few years ago,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) . “So I’m not sure why he’s having a hard time with it today.”

Lieberman comments against the Medicare plan Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” set off a series of private meetings between the Senate leadership and top White House aides, including Emanuel, who recommended that Reid cut a deal, the official close to the negotiations said.

The White House issued a statement saying it is on the same page as Reid, working with him to find the best way to move forward with reform — not pushing him to do something he doesn’t want to do.

“The White House is not pushing Sen. Reid in any direction,” Pfeiffer said in a statement. “We are working hand in hand with the Senate leadership to work through the various issues and pass health reform as soon as possible.”

Democrats had only limited options to move a bill ahead:

• Reach an agreement with Lieberman, which would mean stripping out the provisions that have kept progressives on board. This would very likely cause problems on the left — maybe even defections — unless the White House steps in to persuade senators such as Feingold and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

• Win over Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), but she has also voiced serious reservations about the Medicare expansion and has resisted Democratic pressure to speed up the bill.

• Use reconciliation, a procedural maneuver to get around a filibuster and the need for Lieberman’s vote. It remains on the table, but it’s not a viable option at the moment, the official said.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a liberal who voted to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship after the 2008 election, when Lieberman supported McCain, said he’s not “giving up” on wooing Lieberman. “I don’t want to make threats [against] anybody; it’s not my place to make them,” he said.

But Sen. Kent Conrad, a fellow centrist, said Lieberman has “every right” to take that position, should “absolutely not” be punished and wasn’t the only one worried about the Medicare buy-in. “It’s very clear — he vocalized concerns many were having,” Conrad said.

Still, within top offices of the Senate, there was clear concern that Lieberman seemed to be moving the goal posts. Lieberman has voiced support for a Medicare buy-in in previous campaigns, as well as in September, when he told the Connecticut Post that he supported the idea of expanding the entitlement program to people age 50 and older.

Marshall Wittmann, a Lieberman spokesman, said the senator voiced support for the Medicare buy-in before the Finance Committee approved a bill with subsidies for people across the board, including those ages 55 to 64. “The buy-in is completely unnecessary because of the strong subsidies in the core legislation,” Wittmann said.

hahaha…I love this one…do they thing there’s not enough ammo already?

What Democrats are particularly concerned about is waiting until next year to pass a bill, fearing that a laundry list of unfinished items will continue to pile up and give opponents ammunition to paint Reid and the Democratic leadership as having had an ineffectual year.

They’re Coming to America…Illinois to be Specific

Well, the folks in Illinois should be really proud of their hometown boy now…

US to transfer Guantanamo detainees to Illinois

from Breitbart.com

Detainees at the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will be transferred to a prison the federal government will acquire in the state of Illinois, an administration official said on Tuesday.”Today, the administration will announce that the President has directed that the federal government proceed with the acquisition of the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Illinois to house federal inmates and a limited number of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,” the official said.

“Closing the detention center at Guantanamo is essential to protecting our national security and helping our troops by removing a deadly recruiting tool from the hands of al Qaeda,” the same official added, noting: “Today’s announcement is an important step forward as we work to achieve our national security objectives.”

A Green Pope Now?

OK, enough.  While I’m not a Catholic, I have friends who are.  The Pope is now going green and supporting global warming?  Please, don’t be political in religion.  This Pope is now cultivating aliens too.  The Catholic church has it’s share of problems like the rest of organized religion, and the concern needs to be saving souls, not more materialism.  That’s just my two cents….

Rich nations must assume environmental duties: pope

By Philip Pullella, Reuters UK

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Industrialized nations must recognize their responsibility for the environmental crisis, shed their consumerism and embrace more sober lifestyles, Pope Benedict said on Tuesday.

The pope’s call for more environmental commitments came in his message for the Roman Catholic Church’s annual World Day of Peace, to be marked on Jan 1 and whose theme is “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation.”

The message is traditionally sent to heads of state, government and international organizations and its importance this year is more significant because its release coincided with the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen.

“It is important to acknowledge that among the causes of the present ecological crisis is the historical responsibility of the industrialized countries,” he said in the message.

While saying that developing countries “are not exempt from their own responsibilities with regard to creation,” and had a duty to gradually adopt effective environmental measures, the bulk of his criticism was aimed at rich nations.

Speaking of the need for all nations to address the issue of energy resources, he said:

“This means that technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency.”

He said no nation or people can remain indifferent to problems such as climate change, desertification, pollution, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions.

Environmental concerns too often took a back seat to what he called “myopic economic interests,” adding the international community and governments had a moral duty to “send the right signals” to effectively combat misuse of the environment.

“Humanity needs a profound cultural renewal; it needs to rediscover those values which can serve as the solid basis for building a brighter future for all,” he said.

“Our present crises — be they economic, food-related, environmental or social — are ultimately also moral crises, and all of them are interrelated.”

He called on all people to “move beyond a purely consumerist mentality” so that they could “rethink the path which we are traveling together” and adapt “a lifestyle marked by sobriety and solidarity” between the haves and the have nots.

Environmental issues deserved the attention of the world community because the were human rights issues that could influence the right to life, food, health and development.

“Sad to say, it is all too evident that large numbers of people in different countries and areas of our planet are experiencing increased hardship because of the negligence or refusal of many others to exercise responsible stewardship over the over the environment,” he said.

Crap, That Was Inconvienient!

Hahahaha…don’t ya love it.  When stupidity unraveled…

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don’t add up

Al Gore’s office admitted that the percentage he quoted in his speech was from an old, ballpark figure.

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

// However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.

World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.

Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened.

Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning that the date could be deferred. An international monitoring system to identify illegal logging is now described in the text as optional, where before it was compulsory. Negotiators are also unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions.

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

Copenhagen…the Solution Revealed.

Here it is, in the words of the Wall Street Journal.  What’s the cure? (Highlighted in Red) Please don’t give me the smack on maybe, possibility, could be, woulda, coulda, shoulda….

Developing Countries Briefly Walk Out of U.N. Climate Talks

By ALESSANDRO TORELLO and SPENCER SWARTZ

COPENHAGEN — Tensions flared Monday at the United Nations climate summit, as representatives from a group of poor nations briefly walked out of the conference to protest the slow pace of negotiations, and European Union officials expressed exasperation with the U.S. and China.

Environmental reporter Jeffrey Ball reports from Copenhagen, where political clashes are taking place outside and delegates are staging walkouts inside the COP15 Climate Conference.

The Group of 77, which represents developing countries as well as large emerging economies such as Brazil, India and China, walked out of the negotiations in the morning, a Brazilian diplomat said. The delegates returned to the conference later Monday, but the underlying issues remained unsolved, Swedish Minister Andreas Carlgren said. Sweden represents the European Union, as it holds the six-month rotating presidency of the 27-country bloc until the end of the year.

The turbulence inside the Copenhagen conference was matched by disturbances and disorganization outside, as hundreds of people waited in line for hours in chilly weather to gain access to the conference center. Meanwhile, Danish police arrested and detained more than 1,000 protestors who staged demonstrations outside the climate conference Saturday and Sunday. Danish lawmakers passed new legislation ahead of the climate conference allowing preventative detention, under which people can be held by police for up to 12 hours.

Getty ImagesParticipants at the conference walked past a globe on Thursday, when a walkout by developing countries stalled negotiations.

The official proceedings of the climate conference are heading into their second week. World leaders, including President Barack Obama, are expected to arrive late this week ostensibly to clinch a deal to curb worldwide greenhouse gas emissions and establish new mechanisms for subsidizing efforts by poor countries to adopt low-carbon energy technology or adapt to the effects of rising global temperatures. Among the more high profile groups demanding action are representatives of island nations who have warned their low-lying countries could be swamped if melting polar ice caps raise ocean levels.

At the heart of the disputes in Copenhagen are sharp disagreements over money, which came to the fore again Monday.

Mamadou Honadia, who is part of the negotiating team for the African nation of Burkina Faso, said the G-77 had resumed talks with rich-nations, but was still unhappy that industrialized countries weren’t giving longer-term financial commitments to poorer states.

“We need to see developed nations give us a plan of what (financial) transfers will come in five years, 10 years and how much over the years ahead, and we aren’t seeing that,” he said.

The EU has pledged €7.2 billion ($10.5 billion) in financing between next year and 2012 to jump-start the fight against climate change in developing countries.

A Nigerian delegation official said earlier Monday that a key reason for the walkout was under funding from rich nations. He said the E.U. offer for just over €7 billion in short-term funding was “pathetic.”

At a press conference late Monday, European officials expressed indignation that some developing countries had criticized the EU’s offer.

“We are the only part of the world that has put money on the table, and we’re criticized for it,” said Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner.

Another official — Jo Leinen, a member of the European Parliament from Germany — called on the U.S. and China to set more aggressive targets for controlling their emissions, saying the two countries’ offers aren’t sufficient to stabilize the climate.

“There is a lot of mistrust between the countries — you could see that it was a frozen atmosphere outside [the Bella Center] and a frozen atmosphere inside,” Mr. Leinen said. Referring to China and the U.S., he added, “It would be helpful if two of the main stakeholders could come out of their very reserved and defensive positions.”

The Copenhagen summit seeks to find a new agreement on international rules to limit global warming after 2012. Developing countries want to keep the structure of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol –which mandates rich nations, but not poorer countries nor the U.S.–to cut greenhouse gas emissions, with a new document to supplement it.

A member of the Chinese delegation said the country stands by the position that provisions under the Kyoto Protocol must be respected in any new pact. But U.S. negotiators have said they won’t support subsidies for China. The U.S. also never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, in part because U.S. lawmakers objected to the proposal that rich nations should accept steady cuts in their use of fossil fuels, while China, India and other developing nations wouldn’t face such restrictions and could, in theory, continue to expand their manufacturing at the expense of U.S. rivals.

Another sensitive issue in the Copenhagen talks surfaced Monday as China lashed out at the U.N. office in charge of approving carbon credits after it rejected 10 Chinese wind farm projects earlier this month and accused China of fudging the numbers to make them eligible for international subsidies.

“If you reject wind power, what else is there?” said Sun Cuihua, an official at the National Reform and Development Commission which overseas the U.N.-sanctioned clean development mechanism that creates carbon credits.

Under the CDM mechanism, rich countries can invest in carbon-abatement projects in poor countries and get carbon credits that can be traded.

“They say that we made up the electricity prices; that is not a responsible thing to say,” Ms. Sun told reporters at a meeting where Chinese windfarm owners and developers issued a statement protesting the U.N. decision.

Even the G-77 isn’t in total harmony as it heads into the final stretch of this meeting.

Saudi Arabia and Brazil sparred Monday over carbon capture and sequestration, something the kingdom is pushing to shore up its own emission-reduction efforts, according to an official from a G-77 nation familiar with the matter.

Brazil is concerned that CCS could dent its biofuels industry, as nations opt to burn more fossil fuels and bury emissions underground, rather than burn clean-burning biofuels such as ethanol, of which Brazil is a leader.

Can We Save this Country?

Here’s a great article that my friend Carl sent me…is this country doomed?  It is if we sit and do nothing…I encourage you to join the fight to get these idiots out of Washington…no longer are the Republicans and Democrats relevant…they all need to go…they’re much too comfortable there.

Our Goose Is Cooked

Neal Ross

In my last article I commented that I thought I may have subconsciously known the cause of all our nation’s problems all along. Allow me to expand upon that for a few moments.

As I would read through the various blogs and articles the general consensus was that all our nation’s problems can be attributed to our elected officials in Washington D.C.

I got the impression that people felt that if we could just get those crooks out of office, that things would be just fine in America again. It’s a nice dream, but that’s all it is, a dream.

You see, the problem is that we put these crooks there to begin with. We sat back and did nothing when they passed all these unconstitutional laws. And we sat back while they took aim upon our individual rights.

So, whenever I heard people say that, there was this little voice in the back of my head which would ask, “What good is that going to do, seriously? There are over 300 million people living in this country. Say ten percent of them have actually read and understand the Constitution. That leaves roughly 270 million people who don’t.

These are the people who continually believe the promises, fall for the lies, or stand behind their political party, no matter what. Even if we did manage to get rid of every single incumbent, the people would soon be crying for their government subsidies and entitlements.

Far too many people have come to rely upon government programs because they are incapable, or unwilling to fend for themselves. They would soon be asking the government to regulate their lives because they do not want to accept the consequences that come when people are held responsible for their own actions.

So, once the government gave them what they wanted, they would be fat, dumb, happy, and apathetic again, and government would quickly be back to where it is now.“

Americans are like cattle on a large ranch, free to roam about, within limits, but still fenced in. Have you heard about what happens when a caged animal is released in the wild? They usually do not survive. That is America, we would not know how to act without our governments guidance and assistance. Most people living in America today would not recognize freedom if it came up and introduced itself to them.

It was these thoughts that kept nagging at me. I admit, I was just as guilty as the rest in believing that if I could just educate enough people about the Constitution, that maybe we could turn things around. I no longer feel that way. Not that I would not fight to preserve what few rights I still have, but I do not think that anything I, or anyone else does, will make a bit of difference until the people in this country understand where all our rights come from.

America is no longer the republic which Ben Franklin spoke of as he left the Philadelphia Convention. I find it fitting that the Constitution is currently housed in the National Archives, like some sort of historical relic. Because actually, that’s all the Constitution is, a relic. It has been a very long time since it has been upheld by anyone who has sworn an oath to support and defend it.

One has only to read the preamble to the Constitution to understand its intent, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.“

The founders knew that rights were not something that were granted us by any form of government, they were something that were ours from birth. They held to the principles espoused by John Locke concerning natural law.

The theory of natural law declares that rights, and any laws concerning them, are set by nature, and therefore trump any man made, (positive law) put into effect by society, particularly governments.

From Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 4 we read, “THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.“

He continues by saying, “Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, A. 55. a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.“

Now, if you consider yourself a religious person, allow me to ask of you a simple question. Who created nature? Does not the Bible say that God created the heavens and the earth, and all things in them?

Our founders believed that. Prior to any talk of drafting a Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson states, “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them…” (emphasis added)

Jefferson continued by saying, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…“

Notice Jefferson did not use the word grant these rights, he said secure. It is the purpose of government to ensure that no one infringed upon our rights. Yet that is exactly what they have been doing, and we have allowed the to do it without hardly a whimper.

Yet did not Jefferson also say, “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.“

He tells us that “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.“

Upon leaving his second term as President, George Washington delivered a farewell address that should be required reading for all Americans. To quote a portion of that address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.“

For our country to continue to exist as was envisioned by our founders the people would have to hold true to the principles upon which it was founded, which included the belief that was shared by Jefferson, who said, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.“

Just as we claim to be citizens of this great nation without knowing the principles upon which it was founded, many claim to be Christian without knowing what it is that God asks of them.

There are those who have never cracked open a Bible, yet claim to be Christian. We have TV Idols, like Oprah Winfrey, who when asked by someone in her audience about Jesus, and a person being able to enter into heaven, “What about Jesus? There couldn’t possibly be one way.” However John 14:6 says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Then we have the mega-Churches whose sole purpose, it seems, is to draw in the gullible to fill their coffers with donations. I had always had doubts about these mega-Churches, and televangelists, going back to the PTL Club with Jim and Tammy Bakker.

Now we have the likes of Rick Warren and Joel Osteens. Their feel good, do as you wish Churches pervert the Scriptures, and millions flock to hear them because they feel they are absolved of all responsibility for their actions. Yet how many of these organizations have been rocked by scandals that exposed their fraud?

Also, ever since I was a kid I have always had my questions about organized religion but I could never pinpoint why. Now that I am older I understand why. I am of the belief that Thomas Jefferson was right when he said, “Nothing can be more exactly and seriously true than what is there [the very words only of Jesus] stated; that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind .”

America is a completely different country than the one that existed at the time of our founders. Over time, people have come to take for granted the things that make this land so special. They have also neglected their duties as citizens of this great land to hold to the principles that made it great in the first place.

Getting back to his farewell address, Washington said, “With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”

That is no longer the case. Our nation is divided, no more noticeably than along the lines of race. We have cultures existing within this land whose beliefs are far different than those upon which our nation was founded.

In that case we are very similar to Rome at the end of their existence as an empire. Historian Victor Hanson wrote the following, “The difference over six centuries, the dissimilarity that led to the end, was a result not of imperial overstretch on the outside but something happening within that was not unlike what we ourselves are now witnessing. Earlier Romans knew what it was to be Roman, why it was at least better than the alternative, and why their culture had to be defended. Later in ignorance they forgot what they knew, in pride mocked who they were, and in consequence disappeared.“

Americans today seek all their answers to their countries problems from the very people who created them, their government. However, Scripture tells us what we should be doing in 2 Chronicles, 7, “If my people, which are called by my name shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

However, that idea does not seem to go over too well, as stated by a reader of my last article, who said, Good lord. you’re about as stupid and narrow minded as all those bigots that wrote their word and called it Gods way back when. While I don’t doubt we’re in a battle for the soul of the nation — it’s a battle to take it way from the arrogant, deluded, s**t-for-brains people, like you, who take some hand me down religion as their truth and use it to kill or condem those that don’t fit their idea God’s choosen.”

With people like that running around in this country, all I can say is that our goose is cooked. So long America, it’s been nice while it lasted.

The Goracle Has Spoken!

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record

<!–0 Trackbacks | –>

Andrew Bolt

Wednesday, December 09, 2009 at 06:54pm

Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.

And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

In fact, thrice denied:

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.

In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 – just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.

How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?

They’re not listening

Democrats reach deal on health plan

John Whitesides and Donna Smith

WASHINGTON

Tue Dec 8, 2009 9:26pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Democratic negotiators said they had reached agreement on Tuesday on a compromise on a scaled-back public insurance plan in a broad healthcare overhaul and would seek cost estimates on the deal.

“We have a broad agreement,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid told reporters, refusing to give details on the proposals that will be sent to the Congressional Budget Office.

???????????????????

The government-run plan, along with the issue of abortion, was one of the two biggest hurdles remaining for the overhaul, which is President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

A team of 10 Senate Democrats — five liberals and five moderates — had been working for days on a substitute to the government-run plan included in the Senate bill, which has dismayed some moderates.

Democratic Senate sources said the substitute proposal would create a non-profit plan operated by private insurers but administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which supervises health coverage for federal workers.

The sources said negotiators also sought cost estimates on an expansion of the Medicare health program for the elderly, which is now available at age 65, to Americans as young as 55 who could “buy-in” to the coverage.

“Insurance companies will certainly have more competition,” Reid said of the deal. “The American people will certainly have more choices.”

The other potential hurdle to the healthcare overhaul was abortion, and the Senate on Tuesday rejected an attempt to tighten restrictions on abortion coverage — a vote that could threaten a crucial Democrat’s support for passage of the final bill.

Democratic Senator Ben Nelson’s amendment to tighten the bill’s restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortions, identical to a provision approved by the House of Representatives last month, was killed on a 54-45 vote.

Without the abortion language, Nelson had threatened he would not back the final healthcare bill when it came to a vote. If he followed through, Democrats would be one vote short of the 60 they need to pass the measure.

But after his amendment failed, Nelson softened his stance slightly. “It makes it harder to be supportive. We’ll see what happens,” he told reporters.

Spend Mo Money!

Can you believe this clown?  Spend our way out of debt? No holds barred?  I guess he’s going to start pulling money out of his butt now. My comments in RED.

New Obama plans: ’spend our way out’ of downturn

Dec 8 12:35 PM US/Eastern
By PHILIP ELLIOTT
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama outlined new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals Tuesday, saying the nation must continue to “spend our way out of this recession” until more Americans are back at work.  ***NO SUCH LUCK BO, THE MORE YOU SPEND, THE MORE CAPITALISM DIES***

Without giving a price tag, Obama proposed a package of new spending for highway, bridge and other infrastructure projects, deeper tax breaks for small businesses and tax incentives to encourage people to make their homes more energy efficient.

//

//

“We avoided the depression many feared,” Obama said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. But, he added, “Our work is far from done.”

For the third time in a week, Obama sought to focus on job creation, noting that the unemployment rate was still at 10 percent in November, though down slightly from its 10.2 percent peak. He said “a staggering” 7 million Americans have lost jobs since the recession began two years ago. ***AND THAT’S NOT COUNTING THOSE WHO ARE OUT OF FUNDS THAT AREN’T REPORTING****

While his proposal did not include the kind of direct federal public works jobs that were created in the 1930s, he said government could set the stage for more job creation by private businesses.

A major part of his package is new incentives for small businesses, which account for two-thirds of the nation’s work force. He proposed a new tax cut for small businesses that hire in 2010 and an elimination for one year of the capital gains tax on profits from small-business investments. ***BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CRAP CHARGES FOR HEALTH CARE, THE INCREASE TO BUSINESS FOR THE RAISE IN MINIMUM WAGE, THE NEW FULL TIME AT 30 HOUR PROVISION, ETC…MAYBE IT WOULD HELP IF THOSE WERE CUT FIRST***

Obama also proposed an elimination of fees on loans to small businesses, coupled with federal guarantees of those loans through the end of next year. ***AND THEN ANOTHER CRASH OF THE FINANCIAL SECTOR BECAUSE THE LENDERS AREN’T MAKING ANYTHING ON THOSE LOANS?***

He called for more government spending on infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and water projects and for new tax breaks for consumers who invest in energy-efficient retrofits in their homes. This could be what some administration officials have called a “Cash for Caulkers” program modeled on the now-expired Cash for Clunkers program of tax rebates for people who turned in old cars for more fuel-efficient models.

The administration also is eyeing ways to get money still not spent in the $787 billion stimulus bill passed last winter into projects more quickly.

Obama did not characterize his new proposals as another stimulus program like that mammoth measure, but Republican critics have called it just that and have said it will increase a federal deficit that is already at a record level.

Obama included sharp criticism for Republicans in his speech, accusing them of opposing economic stimulus efforts and his health care overhaul while supporting tax cuts and spending that have ballooned the deficit. ***EXCUSE ME, WHO HAS SPENT MORE MONEY THAN ALL THE PRESIDENT’S COMBINED?***

He said that soon after taking office, he and congressional Democrats took “a series of difficult steps” to try to stabilize the financial system and pull the economy out of a deep recession.

“And we were forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it to others to solve.”

Obama did not say how much his proposals would cost, although congressional Democrats are eyeing a $70 billion package to help create jobs and to provide aid to hard-pressed state and local governments. Administration aides suggested that the part of the package dealing with roads, bridges and other infrastructure could total about $50 billion.

While acknowledging increasing concerns in Congress and among the public over the nation’s growing debt, Obama said critics present a “false choice” between paying down deficits and investing in job creation and economic growth. ***AIN’T THAT THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK?***

To pay for the new programs, the administration is citing the Treasury Department’s report on Monday that it expects to get back $200 billion in taxpayer-approved bank bailout funds faster than expected.

Obama suggested this windfall would both help the government spend money on job creation while also paying down the nation’s debt, which now totals $12 trillion.

Obama called the bank bailout, under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), “galling.”

“There has rarely been a less loved—or more necessary—emergency program,” Obama said. The program is expected to go out of business at the end of this year unless extended by Congress.

Since the program is costing taxpayers at least $200 billion less than expected, Obama said, “This gives us a chance to pay down the deficit faster than we thought possible and to shift funds that would have gone to help the banks on Wall Street to help create jobs on Main Street.”

But Republicans continued to insist that the leftover and repaid TARP money must be used exclusively for deficit reduction and not for a new jobs program.

“The president’s announcement is further proof that TARP has morphed from an emergency injection of liquidity to thaw frozen credit markets into a $700 billion revolving slush fund to promote the Democrats’ political, social and economic agenda,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.

Obama said he is backing the measures he outlined because they “will generate the greatest number of jobs while generating the greatest value for our economy.”

“These targeted initiatives are right, and they are needed,” he said.

Yet Another Pelosism – Does This Woman Have a Brain?

From CNS News:

Pelosi Endorses ‘Global’ Tax on Stocks, Bonds, and other Financial Transactions
Monday, December 07, 2009
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrive for a press conference after House passage of the health care reform bill at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009. (AP Photo/J. David Ake)

(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea of a “global” tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, saying the estimated $150 billion in annual revenue from such a tax could be used to help fund more stimulus spending.

At her weekly press briefing on Thursday, Pelosi said the financial transactions tax (HR4191) currently before Congress would have to be made “global” to keep U.S. investors from taking their business overseas and out of taxable reach.

The House speaker said that a transaction tax could be imposed in conjunction with congressional efforts to divert funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), with funds from both going to fund a second stimulus spending package. (The first stimulus bill, $789-billion, was signed into law by President Barack Obama on Feb. 13, 2009.)

“I believe that the transaction tax still has a great deal of merit,” Pelosi told reporters. “The concern that many of us or others have had is that it will send, it will send transactions overseas.

“Well, let’s see, the fact is, what we are talking about is a global transaction [tax],” she said, “something that we would do in conjunction with other G nations, whether it is G8, G20, whatever the current G number is. Because it is really a source of revenue that has really minimal impact on the transaction, but a tremendous impact on helping us meet our needs.”

(?????????????????????????????????????? WHAT?)

Pelosi said she thought the idea might have currency among a public eager to see Wall Street firms “pitching in” to help the government grow the economy.

“I think there would be a market for it among the American people to say that we are all participating in the economic prosperity of our country, and we are all pitching in to continue that prosperity,” said Pelosi.

The tax idea, the brainchild of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, would mean that all major financial centers – Asia, the EU, U.S., and U.K. – would all have to pass a similar transaction tax to avoid disadvantaging one country’s stock exchange. This would ensure that no matter where a person wanted to buy stock, they would have to pay the new tax.

Brown originally proposed the idea on Nov. 7 at a meeting of G20 finance ministers in St. Andrews, Scotland.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.)

The American version, H.R. 4191, introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), would levy a separate tax on all stock trades, futures contracts, swaps, credit default swaps, and stock options in an effort to tap the trillions of dollars of such transactions.

Seeking to circumvent concerns about further deficit spending on stimulus programs, the bill attempts to raise approximately $150 billion every year.

“The jobless recovery suggests that the Federal Government must continue to prime the economy, but the record deficit is a real obstacle,” the bill reads.

“To restore Main Street America, a small securities tax on Wall Street should be invested in job creation for Main Street,” says the bill. “This transfer tax would be assessed on the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stocks, options, and futures. A quarter percent (0.25 percent) tax on financial instruments could raise approximately $150,000,000,000 a year.”

The transaction tax proposal was met with opposition from some House Democrats, who signed a “Dear Colleague” letter outlining their opposition to the tax and urging other members of Congress to join them.

“A $150 billion tax on financial transactions will fall on millions of hardworking Americans who are saving for their future through their 401k plans, mutual funds, pensions and other savings vehicles,” wrote Reps. Michael McMahon (D-N.Y.), Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), and Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.) in the letter, which is still being circulated on Capitol Hill, a copy of which was obtained by CNSNews.com.

“Supporters of the proposal promote it as a way to make Wall Street pay for economic stimulus, because it would apply only to stocks, futures, forwards and derivatives,” the letter states.

“In reality, it would be a tax on all investment and savings vehicles because mutual funds and money market fund transactions are, by definition, purchases and sales of securities and bonds,” it added.

The three Democrats said that the American version of the proposal would not exempt middle class Americans, as it claims to do, because while the tax would be paid by major stock brokers, those brokers would pass the cost down to everyday investors, pension, and retirement funds.

“Proponents of a transaction tax argue that a small 0.25 percent tax on stocks would be paid for by the highly paid financial traders and would not affect most Americans,” reads the letter. “This is simply not true. A tax on stock transactions would affect every single person who owns and invests in stocks from small business owners to senior citizens.”

“Americans saving for their retirement, to pay for college or ‘a rainy day fund’ to meet future emergencies will be subjected to a tax that will reduce the value of their savings at a time when they are just starting to recover the losses they incurred at the height of the financial crisis,” the letter states.

Pelosi’s office did not return calls for comment on this story.