Harry Reid, Barack Obama & Nancy Pelosi
Everyday, when I wake up, put on the news, get my coffee I-V ready, I can always rely on our messionic President to have a particular issue in the news. This healthcare forum is going to be a circus. It will not accomplish a thing, except a democrat photo opportunity for Barry. One thing I've noticed about Obama is he always implements policies and makes decisions prematurely. Remember when he cancelled the Missile Defense Shield? He did it too soon and he had nothing to bargain with the Russians. Foolish! Now, he dons his rediculous healthcare bill before the healthcare summit with the republicans. Ironically, the CBO said they didn't have enough information to score this plan written on cocktail napkins. Can you imagine a small business owner going to a bank and asking for a huge loan without a busines plan? They would be thrown out of the bank as fast as possible. I think we should throw Obama out to? At least Reid and Pelosi had thousands of pages of bureaucracy. This is 1/6th of our economy. We do not need or want this healthcare takeover. I believe this plan would not deter rising healthcare cost and impede long term economic growth, aka, JOB KILLER! I heard many conservatives today state that this plan will raise taxes significantly, slash medicare benefits, cut jobs and drive up premiums. If you ask me, that sounds like a real winner. Republicans most likely will not support this plan, nor debate it. I will say it again today, I think this is a huge mistake for the republicans to attend this meeting. This reminds me of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The American people have voiced their opinions. The democrats know if they pass this, they also could possibly lose the senate. Deep down, I think the democrats are bluffing on reconciliation. I don't believe Speaker of the House, Nancy (SanFranGranNan) Pelosi can muster up the votes in the House. Vulnerable democrats up for re-election in November are avoiding this debate like the H1N1 Swine Flu. I know it is obvious that I am a political junkie. I follow this stuff religiously, and I apologize, but I feel Obamessiah is systemically defiling our great nation. But I digressed. The democrats are touting the mantra they have a mandate from the American people. I've been to quite a few rallies and tea parties since the 912 rally in DC. My observations show the American people do not want or would except any of the proposals on the table to date. Political pundit after political pundit has said that the administration and Congress should concentrate on the economy and the Afghanistan war. This is what the American people want and that is who they (the elites) work for and supposedly represent. It takes a person with impeccable values and morals to admit that they are wrong. Obama has neither. I heard a radio talk show host call Obama the "Lying King." I don't think they meant the Disney movie. Getting back to the healthcare forum, Mitch McConnell should demand the six hour program be divided into two-three hour segments (3 hrs. Dems, 3 hrs. GOP). Otherwise, the republicans should boycott and have their own forum utilizing their ideas on healthcare. I guarantee the republicans are more in tune with the American people. As I've "predigen" in so many past blog postings, please exercise your god-given rights (that's right, I said GOD-GIVEN) and call, email and/or visit your representatives and express your opinions. They haven't taken away our first amendment yet.
Dr. Obama's healthcare song:
Obie's dream. You be the judge:
Mindless Observations:
Watching state run media-they said we were out of the recession?
Today's Headlines from Drudge:
- Mass layoffs edge up
- FDIC reports 27% jump in problem banks
- Harvard's Rugoff sees bunch of "Sovereign" defaults
- Consumer confidence hits 27 year low
- NY Transit to lay off 1,000 employees
- San Francisco to lay off 1,000 school employees
- Nearly 20% of employees under employed
- ABC News expected to offer "hundreds" of buyouts tomorrow
Does anyone need a razor blade? Maybe the politicians should focus on the economy?
Daft statement of the day:
'Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive'
Senate Majority Leader, Harry (Dr. Smith) Reid, the dimwit
Tea party challenges Keith Olbermann
Smackdown with Olberdork
By ANDY BARR
2/22/10 5:22 PM EST
A tea party group is criticizing Keith Olbermann for suggesting the conservative grassroots organizations lack diversity, challenging the MSNBC host to attend an anti-tax rally on Saturday.
A 90-second web video posted on Monday by the Dallas Tea Party rebuts the liberal “Countdown” host’s attacks on the groups during his show.
“Let me ask all of you who attend these things, how many black faces do you see at these events?” Olbermann says during a clip highlighted in the video.
“Well, Keith, we see a whole lot more at our events than we see at MSNBC,” a narrator responds, as the video cuts to an image of the network’s mostly white lineup.
The video highlights the same lineup after Olbermann asks later, “Why are you surrounded by largest crowd you will ever again see in your life that consists of nothing but people who look exactly like you?”
One tea party activist in the video then tells Olbermann, “Something tells me you’ve never been to a tea party. We think you need to get out of your bubble.”
“So, now you’ve been invited to the one-year anniversary of the tea party movement at Dallas City Hall Feb. 27 from noon to 2 o’clock,” another activist follows up, going on to impersonate the colorful host. “If you don’t show, have you no shame sir?”
(On Tuesday, Olbermann declined. "I appreciate their invitation," he e-mailed POLITICO, "but with my dad still in intensive care all this time, I have been only able to leave New York one night in the last six months.")
Olbermann recently defended MSNBC against the charge that there’s not enough diversity in the network’s lineup, pointing out during a lengthy special comment on “Countdown” that while the current lineup is mostly white, a number of minority hosts have had shows on MSNBC and frequently contribute.
Keith - Get a clue, you tool:
Green Piece:
New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge
By Ed Barnes
- FOXNews.com
Thomas Karl, the head of Obama's new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.
Thomas Karl, the newly appointed head of the National Climatic Data Center.
The scientist who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department's new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject.
Thomas Karl, 58, was appointed to oversee the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, an ambitious new office that will collect climate change data and disseminate it to businesses and communities.
According to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, the office will "help tackle head-on the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change. In the process, we'll discover new technologies, build new businesses and create new jobs."
Karl, who has played a pivotal role in key climate decisions over the past decade, has kept a low profile as director of National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) since 1998, and he has led all of the NOAA climate services since 2009. His name surfaced numerous times in leaked "climate-gate" e-mails from the University of East Anglia, but there was little in the e-mails that tied him to playing politics with climate data. Mostly, the e-mails show he was in the center of the politics of climate change decisions
According to a school biography published by Northern Illinois University, Karl shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and other leading scientists based on his work at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and he was "one of the 10 most influential researchers of the 1990s who have formed or changed the course of research in a given area."
His appointment was hailed by both the Sierra Club and Duke Energy Company of North Carolina. Sierra Club President Carl Pope said, "As polluters and their allies continue to try to muddy the waters around climate science, the Climate Service will provide easy, direct access to the valuable scientific research undertaken by government scientists and others." And Duke Energy CEO Jin Rogers said the new office, under Karl, will "spark the consensus we need to move forward."
But Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who has crossed horns with Karl in the past, says his appointment was a mistake. He accused Karl of suppressing data he submitted for the IPCC's most recent report on climate change and having a very narrow view of its causes.
The IPCC is charged with reviewing scientific data on climate change and providing policy makers and others with an assessment of current knowledge.
Pielke said he agrees that global warming is happening and that man plays a significant role in it, but he said there are many factors in addition to the release of carbon into the atmosphere that need to be studied to fully understand the phenomenon. He said he resigned from the IPCC in August 2005 because his data, and the work of numerous other scientists, were not included in its most recent report.
In his resignation letter, Pielke wrote that he had completed the assessment of current knowledge for his chapter of the report, when Karl abruptly took control of the final draft. He said the chapter he had nearly completed was then rewritten with a too-narrow focus.
One of the key areas of dispute, he said, was in describing "recent regional trends in surface and tropospheric temperatures," and the impact of land use on temperatures. It is the interpretation of this data on which the intellectual basis of the idea of global warming hangs.
In an interview, Pielke reiterated that Karl "has actively opposed views different from his own." And on his Web site last week, he said Karl's appointment "assures that policy makers will continue to receive an inappropriately narrow view of our actual knowledge with respect to climate science."
He said the people who run the agencies in charge of climate monitoring are too narrowly focused, and he worries that the creation of the new office "would give the same small group of people the chance to speak on the issue and exclude others" whose views might diverge from theirs.
Responding to the criticism, Karl told the Washington Post, "the literature doesn't show [Pielke's] ideas about the importance of land use are correct."
Calls to The Commerce Department and to Karl's office went unanswered.
The IPCC in recent weeks has come under severe criticism after e-mails, hacked from a prestigious climate center, revealed some of the political infighting that occurred as its assessments were being put together and called into question its impartiality.
Climate change skeptics, meanwhile, say Karl's appointment was unnecessary and pulls scarce resources from more pressing needs.
"The unconstitutional global warming office and its new Web site climate.gov would be charged with propagandizing Americans with eco-alarmism," wrote Alex Newman of the Liberty Sentinel of Gainesville, Fla.
On the popular skeptic site "Watts Up With That," Anthony Watts called the climate.gov site a "waste of more taxpayer money" and charged that it is nothing more than a "fast track press release service." He wrote that putting Karl in charge was an issue, because he had fabricated photos of "floods that didn't happen" in an earlier NOAA report.
KindaFunne: By Pat Bagley/Salt Lake Tribune
Quote du jour:
"The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope."
Karl Marx
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, December 18, 1787.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
THE necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union, is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
This inquiry will naturally divide itself into three branches the objects to be provided for by the federal government, the quantity of power necessary to the accomplishment of those objects, the persons upon whom that power ought to operate. Its distribution and organization will more properly claim our attention under the succeeding head.
The principal purposes to be answered by union are these the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.
The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE OR DEFINE THE EXTENT AND VARIETY OF NATIONAL EXIGENCIES, OR THE CORRESPONDENT EXTENT AND VARIETY OF THE MEANS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO SATISFY THEM. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense.
This is one of those truths which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind, carries its own evidence along with it; and may be obscured, but cannot be made plainer by argument or reasoning. It rests upon axioms as simple as they are universal; the MEANS ought to be proportioned to the END; the persons, from whose agency the attainment of any END is expected, ought to possess the MEANS by which it is to be attained.
Whether there ought to be a federal government intrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the FORMATION, DIRECTION, or SUPPORT of the NATIONAL FORCES.
Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the "common defense and general welfare." It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.
The experiment has, however, demonstrated that this expectation was ill-founded and illusory; and the observations, made under the last head, will, I imagine, have sufficed to convince the impartial and discerning, that there is an absolute necessity for an entire change in the first principles of the system; that if we are in earnest about giving the Union energy and duration, we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon the States in their collective capacities; we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America; we must discard the fallacious scheme of quotas and requisitions, as equally impracticable and unjust. The result from all this is that the Union ought to be invested with full power to levy troops; to build and equip fleets; and to raise the revenues which will be required for the formation and support of an army and navy, in the customary and ordinary modes practiced in other governments.
If the circumstances of our country are such as to demand a compound instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a sole, government, the essential point which will remain to be adjusted will be to discriminate the OBJECTS, as far as it can be done, which shall appertain to the different provinces or departments of power; allowing to each the most ample authority for fulfilling the objects committed to its charge. Shall the Union be constituted the guardian of the common safety? Are fleets and armies and revenues necessary to this purpose? The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. The same must be the case in respect to commerce, and to every other matter to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend. Is the administration of justice between the citizens of the same State the proper department of the local governments? These must possess all the authorities which are connected with this object, and with every other that may be allotted to their particular cognizance and direction. Not to confer in each case a degree of power commensurate to the end, would be to violate the most obvious rules of prudence and propriety, and improvidently to trust the great interests of the nation to hands which are disabled from managing them with vigor and success.
Who is likely to make suitable provisions for the public defense, as that body to which the guardianship of the public safety is confided; which, as the centre of information, will best understand the extent and urgency of the dangers that threaten; as the representative of the WHOLE, will feel itself most deeply interested in the preservation of every part; which, from the responsibility implied in the duty assigned to it, will be most sensibly impressed with the necessity of proper exertions; and which, by the extension of its authority throughout the States, can alone establish uniformity and concert in the plans and measures by which the common safety is to be secured? Is there not a manifest inconsistency in devolving upon the federal government the care of the general defense, and leaving in the State governments the EFFECTIVE powers by which it is to be provided for? Is not a want of co-operation the infallible consequence of such a system? And will not weakness, disorder, an undue distribution of the burdens and calamities of war, an unnecessary and intolerable increase of expense, be its natural and inevitable concomitants? Have we not had unequivocal experience of its effects in the course of the revolution which we have just accomplished?
Every view we may take of the subject, as candid inquirers after truth, will serve to convince us, that it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects which are intrusted to its management. It will indeed deserve the most vigilant and careful attention of the people, to see that it be modeled in such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with the requisite powers. If any plan which has been, or may be, offered to our consideration, should not, upon a dispassionate inspection, be found to answer this description, it ought to be rejected. A government, the constitution of which renders it unfit to be trusted with all the powers which a free people OUGHT TO DELEGATE TO ANY GOVERNMENT, would be an unsafe and improper depositary of the NATIONAL INTERESTS. Wherever THESE can with propriety be confided, the coincident powers may safely accompany them. This is the true result of all just reasoning upon the subject. And the adversaries of the plan promulgated by the convention ought to have confined themselves to showing, that the internal structure of the proposed government was such as to render it unworthy of the confidence of the people. They ought not to have wandered into inflammatory declamations and unmeaning cavils about the extent of the powers. The POWERS are not too extensive for the OBJECTS of federal administration, or, in other words, for the management of our NATIONAL INTERESTS; nor can any satisfactory argument be framed to show that they are chargeable with such an excess. If it be true, as has been insinuated by some of the writers on the other side, that the difficulty arises from the nature of the thing, and that the extent of the country will not permit us to form a government in which such ample powers can safely be reposed, it would prove that we ought to contract our views, and resort to the expedient of separate confederacies, which will move within more practicable spheres. For the absurdity must continually stare us in the face of confiding to a government the direction of the most essential national interests, without daring to trust it to the authorities which are indispensible to their proper and efficient management. Let us not attempt to reconcile contradictions, but firmly embrace a rational alternative.
I trust, however, that the impracticability of one general system cannot be shown. I am greatly mistaken, if any thing of weight has yet been advanced of this tendency; and I flatter myself, that the observations which have been made in the course of these papers have served to place the reverse of that position in as clear a light as any matter still in the womb of time and experience can be susceptible of. This, at all events, must be evident, that the very difficulty itself, drawn from the extent of the country, is the strongest argument in favor of an energetic government; for any other can certainly never preserve the Union of so large an empire. If we embrace the tenets of those who oppose the adoption of the proposed Constitution, as the standard of our political creed, we cannot fail to verify the gloomy doctrines which predict the impracticability of a national system pervading entire limits of the present Confederacy.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www..politico.com/
http://www.biggovernment.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.newsbusters.com/
Business Week
http://www.wsj.com/
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
Andy Barr
Ed Barnes
http://www.quotationspage.com/
Pat Bagley/Salt Lake Tribune (Cartoon)
No comments:
Post a Comment