Posts
Open Thread
4 hours ago
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Good News for Boeing In SC - Nikki Haley Facebook Post
Nikki Haley
Great win for Boeing and the employees of Boeing. The Machinist's union has asked the NLRB to lift their complaint. This proves what we said this entire fight...the unions run the NLRB and Pres. Obama is in their back pocket. If the NLRB attacks any company in South Carolina, we will fight and we will win! Thank you to Boeing for their strength and the people of this country for their support!!!
Great win for Boeing and the employees of Boeing. The Machinist's union has asked the NLRB to lift their complaint. This proves what we said this entire fight...the unions run the NLRB and Pres. Obama is in their back pocket. If the NLRB attacks any company in South Carolina, we will fight and we will win! Thank you to Boeing for their strength and the people of this country for their support!!!
The Chevy Volt Disaster Keeps Getting Worse
Not only does the battery have stability problems, it also has a short life. The GM warranty for the battery is for 8 years with a replacement cost of $10,000. Comments on an article I read were discussing the resale value of an 8 year old Volt. Zip, nada. The government has come up with a real gem this time, an electric hybrid that goes only 30 to 40 miles on a charge (if the weather isn't below freezing), that uses electricity that is generated by plants that are over 80% fueled by coal, whose economic life span is 8 years, that costs more than conventional hybrids and is subsidized by the taxpayer at $8,000 per car.
By the way, guess who makes the batteries. You guessed it, GE and Jeffrey Immelt, the company that pays no income tax due to their "environmental" tax credits, and the President's favorite CEO and political supporter. I guess we should also mention the President's giveaway of the GM stock to the auto union and his political vested interest in keeping GM's workers busy at any cost, as long it is cost to the taxpayer.
Excerpt: People who have looked into the history of automobiles have noted that while electric cars have never managed to rival internal combustion cars for their performance, comfort, reliability, or customer-attractiveness, they persist in inspiring a small segment of the public. And would-be social engineers have always loved them.
As Robert Bryce points out in his book Power Hungry, electric cars are the "Next Big Thing. And they always will be." Bryce observes that EV-boosters have been flogging electric cars since 1911, when the New York Times declared that "the electric car "has long been recognized as the ideal solution" because it "is cleaner and quieter" and "much more economical." Of course, that all depends on how you define "ideal" and "economical."
Let's talk economics first. Electric and hybrid-electric vehicles are more expensive to make and bring in less profit than other cars. They cost more to finance, more to repair, and more to insure. Their sales depend heavily on tax incentives, which means that selling more of them will require more taxpayer dollars. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that plug-in hybrid vehicles cost $3,000 to $7,000 more than regular hybrids, even though the performance differences between the two models are slight, and the really fuel-efficient hybrids cost $12,000 to $18,000 more than the conventional brand. Consider the GM Volt. When it was first announced, the price estimate from General Motors (GM) was $30,000. That soon jumped to $35,000. Today, they sell for nearly $40,000.
Hybrids are also more expensive to insure, which has been known for some time. Back in 2008, online insurance broker Insure.com showed that it cost $1,374 to insure a Honda Civic but $1,427 to insure a Honda Civic Hybrid. Similarly, it cost $1,304 to insure a Toyota Camry but $1,628 to insure a Toyota Camry Hybrid. According to State Farm, hybrids cost more to insure because their parts are more expensive and repairing them requires specialized labor, thus boosting the after-accident payout.
And that, of course, presumes they don't burst into flames, which brings us to today's not-so-"ideal" headlines. Several crash tests have suggested that the plug-in hybrid Volt, the flagship vehicle at Government Motors, has a bit of a problem: when hit or badly disturbed in accident tests, the Volt's Lithium-Ion (Li-ion) battery packs have been seen to spark, or burst into flames afterward.
GM is a bit spooked by all this, and is offering Volt owners loaner-cars in case they're concerned about the prospects of their vehicle, well, exploding on them. GM denies any real risk of this, of course. But then, they didn't exactly emphasize the fire risk in their last electric car foray.
Read full article here.
By the way, guess who makes the batteries. You guessed it, GE and Jeffrey Immelt, the company that pays no income tax due to their "environmental" tax credits, and the President's favorite CEO and political supporter. I guess we should also mention the President's giveaway of the GM stock to the auto union and his political vested interest in keeping GM's workers busy at any cost, as long it is cost to the taxpayer.
Excerpt: People who have looked into the history of automobiles have noted that while electric cars have never managed to rival internal combustion cars for their performance, comfort, reliability, or customer-attractiveness, they persist in inspiring a small segment of the public. And would-be social engineers have always loved them.
As Robert Bryce points out in his book Power Hungry, electric cars are the "Next Big Thing. And they always will be." Bryce observes that EV-boosters have been flogging electric cars since 1911, when the New York Times declared that "the electric car "has long been recognized as the ideal solution" because it "is cleaner and quieter" and "much more economical." Of course, that all depends on how you define "ideal" and "economical."
Let's talk economics first. Electric and hybrid-electric vehicles are more expensive to make and bring in less profit than other cars. They cost more to finance, more to repair, and more to insure. Their sales depend heavily on tax incentives, which means that selling more of them will require more taxpayer dollars. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that plug-in hybrid vehicles cost $3,000 to $7,000 more than regular hybrids, even though the performance differences between the two models are slight, and the really fuel-efficient hybrids cost $12,000 to $18,000 more than the conventional brand. Consider the GM Volt. When it was first announced, the price estimate from General Motors (GM) was $30,000. That soon jumped to $35,000. Today, they sell for nearly $40,000.
Hybrids are also more expensive to insure, which has been known for some time. Back in 2008, online insurance broker Insure.com showed that it cost $1,374 to insure a Honda Civic but $1,427 to insure a Honda Civic Hybrid. Similarly, it cost $1,304 to insure a Toyota Camry but $1,628 to insure a Toyota Camry Hybrid. According to State Farm, hybrids cost more to insure because their parts are more expensive and repairing them requires specialized labor, thus boosting the after-accident payout.
And that, of course, presumes they don't burst into flames, which brings us to today's not-so-"ideal" headlines. Several crash tests have suggested that the plug-in hybrid Volt, the flagship vehicle at Government Motors, has a bit of a problem: when hit or badly disturbed in accident tests, the Volt's Lithium-Ion (Li-ion) battery packs have been seen to spark, or burst into flames afterward.
GM is a bit spooked by all this, and is offering Volt owners loaner-cars in case they're concerned about the prospects of their vehicle, well, exploding on them. GM denies any real risk of this, of course. But then, they didn't exactly emphasize the fire risk in their last electric car foray.
Read full article here.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Obama's Accomplishments?
I read an article in the NYTimes about Obama's "accomplishments" written by, you guessed it, an Obama liberal. If you can stomach it, read the article here. As a conservative and after reading the many supportive comments by the NYTimes' liberal following, I felt obligated to be one of the few dissenting voices.
My Comment: Have to disagree with Kristof on many of his assertions. Not much of what Obama has done would suit even a RINO, let alone the Republican base. Even many of the Democrats are running from his far left agenda. Using the old mantra that Obama inherited a major economic problem is true. The only problem is that it was of the Democrats making with their promotion of sub-prime mortgages and \"everyone should own a home\" whether or not able to pay. In addition, the support that Frank and Dodd gave to Fannie and Freddie was almost criminal and then the two were put in charge of passing legislation to rein in the banking industry, but conveniently exempting Fannie and Freddie from the bill.
All Obama has done is to extend our joblessness and economic miseries through his failed stimulus and business bashing, along with his EPA regulations that have brought our capitalist system to its knees.
Four more years of this and the US will become a second rate nation on its way to becoming the next Greece.
My Comment: Have to disagree with Kristof on many of his assertions. Not much of what Obama has done would suit even a RINO, let alone the Republican base. Even many of the Democrats are running from his far left agenda. Using the old mantra that Obama inherited a major economic problem is true. The only problem is that it was of the Democrats making with their promotion of sub-prime mortgages and \"everyone should own a home\" whether or not able to pay. In addition, the support that Frank and Dodd gave to Fannie and Freddie was almost criminal and then the two were put in charge of passing legislation to rein in the banking industry, but conveniently exempting Fannie and Freddie from the bill.
All Obama has done is to extend our joblessness and economic miseries through his failed stimulus and business bashing, along with his EPA regulations that have brought our capitalist system to its knees.
Four more years of this and the US will become a second rate nation on its way to becoming the next Greece.
Newt Gingrich Answers The Attacks
Went to his answers site and found many responses that you will not find in the emails circulating around. For the most part, the answers have helped to convince me that I could vote for him. I did make the following comment on his site.
You are proud of your support for ethanol, most likely because of its effect on farmers income, but you fail to address the resultant effect the increase in corn prices has on the prices of a great number of food products. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, corn is a food product and should be used to feed the masses. Ethanol from sources other than food sources are OK.
Now that our campaign to rebuild the America we love is gaining momentum, those who want to see us fail are on the attack, digging through Newt's past to try and stop us.
Newt, Callista and our campaign welcome the opportunity to tell the truth about Newt and set the record straight about Newt's positions on the issues as well as his record in public life and as a private citizen.
We've set up this page to arm you with answers to the attacks.
See an attack that is not answered? Let us know. This page will grow as we receive more feedback to help you answer the attacks.
Ryan Medicare Plan – Health Insurance Mandate – Ethanol – Fairness Doctrine – Global Warming/Cap and Trade – Immigration/DREAM Act – Agriculture Subsidies - TARP - Zero-Based Budgeting in Foreign Aid/Inclusion of Israel - Libya - Vote for Department of Education - Consistent Pro-Life Record - Second Amendment - Dede Scozzafava Endorsement – Government Shutdown – Ethics Investigation - Lobbying –Relationship with Freddie Mac - Personal Life
Newt is the only candidate in the race for the Republican nomination who has led a national movement to elect a Republican majority and then actually achieved substantial conservative reforms of the federal government, including welfare reform, balanced budgets, and tax cuts.
These historic reforms liberated the American people to create 11 million new jobs in just four years. Read more about the remarkable Newt Gingrich record here.
No candidate in the race can match Newt Gingrich’s 35-year career as a public figure advocating, explaining and achieving conservative reforms in government.
With this vast amount of experience, however, comes over 7,000 votes, over 1,500 speeches, thousands of television and radio appearances, thousands of articles and opeds and 24 books to scrutinize.
Go to Newt's site here.
You are proud of your support for ethanol, most likely because of its effect on farmers income, but you fail to address the resultant effect the increase in corn prices has on the prices of a great number of food products. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, corn is a food product and should be used to feed the masses. Ethanol from sources other than food sources are OK.
Excerpt: Setting the Record Straight:
Newt's Positions on the Issues and His Record
Now that our campaign to rebuild the America we love is gaining momentum, those who want to see us fail are on the attack, digging through Newt's past to try and stop us.
Newt, Callista and our campaign welcome the opportunity to tell the truth about Newt and set the record straight about Newt's positions on the issues as well as his record in public life and as a private citizen.
We've set up this page to arm you with answers to the attacks.
See an attack that is not answered? Let us know. This page will grow as we receive more feedback to help you answer the attacks.
Menu
Ryan Medicare Plan – Health Insurance Mandate – Ethanol – Fairness Doctrine – Global Warming/Cap and Trade – Immigration/DREAM Act – Agriculture Subsidies - TARP - Zero-Based Budgeting in Foreign Aid/Inclusion of Israel - Libya - Vote for Department of Education - Consistent Pro-Life Record - Second Amendment - Dede Scozzafava Endorsement – Government Shutdown – Ethics Investigation - Lobbying –Relationship with Freddie Mac - Personal Life
Newt is the only candidate in the race for the Republican nomination who has led a national movement to elect a Republican majority and then actually achieved substantial conservative reforms of the federal government, including welfare reform, balanced budgets, and tax cuts.
These historic reforms liberated the American people to create 11 million new jobs in just four years. Read more about the remarkable Newt Gingrich record here.
No candidate in the race can match Newt Gingrich’s 35-year career as a public figure advocating, explaining and achieving conservative reforms in government.
With this vast amount of experience, however, comes over 7,000 votes, over 1,500 speeches, thousands of television and radio appearances, thousands of articles and opeds and 24 books to scrutinize.
Go to Newt's site here.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Democrats' Blame Game On Taxes - Ann Coulter
It will be so difficult for Republicans to get the word out on just how diabolical the Democrats can be in their "negotiations". Ann Coulter's article shows what hypocrites the Democrats can be. But who will see it. The MSM is in the Democrat's pockets and will never reveal the facts to the American public. It is time for the Tea Party to go "viral" on the issues and spread the word throughout the internet, not just to the believers, but to the opposition also. Who knows, there may be some open minds there also, who are willing to absorb the facts.
Excerpt: At Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes.
Terrorism can wait — first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes.
Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan’s statement in his autobiography, “An American Life,” that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted — implying that today’s Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they’d refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts.
Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes “in return for (the Democrats’) agreement to cut spending by $280 billion,” but, Reagan continues, “the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.”
Maybe that’s why Republicans won’t agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.
For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats’ history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans’ opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That’s why Republicans need to remind them.
From the moment President Reagan succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 — which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats’ subsequent caterwauling — he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats.
You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today.
So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes — though not income taxes — in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: “The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts.”
But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion — only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire.
Meanwhile, Reagan’s tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years — as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.
If Democrats had lied only a little and merely held spending at the same level, Reagan could have smashed the Russkies, produced the largest peacetime expansion in U.S. history with his tax cuts and produced a $235 billion budget surplus. (Jobs created in September 1983: 1.1 million; jobs created in September 2011: 150,000.)
But the Democrats not only refused to implement any budget cuts, they hiked government spending. To the untrained eye, that appears to be the exact opposite of cutting the budget.
Apparently, Republicans can read the Democrats’ record, too. They know that Democrats will promise to cut spending in exchange for tax increases and then screw Republicans on the spending cuts.
It’s been 20 years since they pulled that scam, so Democrats figure it’s time to make Republicans break a tax pledge again. As long as no one knows the history of these “deals,” the media can carry on, blithely portraying Republicans as obstructionist nuts for refusing the third kick of a mule.
Read full Ann Coulter article here.
Excerpt: At Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes.
Terrorism can wait — first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes.
Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan’s statement in his autobiography, “An American Life,” that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted — implying that today’s Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they’d refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts.
Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes “in return for (the Democrats’) agreement to cut spending by $280 billion,” but, Reagan continues, “the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.”
Maybe that’s why Republicans won’t agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.
For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats’ history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans’ opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That’s why Republicans need to remind them.
From the moment President Reagan succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 — which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats’ subsequent caterwauling — he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats.
You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today.
So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes — though not income taxes — in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: “The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts.”
But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion — only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire.
Meanwhile, Reagan’s tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years — as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.
If Democrats had lied only a little and merely held spending at the same level, Reagan could have smashed the Russkies, produced the largest peacetime expansion in U.S. history with his tax cuts and produced a $235 billion budget surplus. (Jobs created in September 1983: 1.1 million; jobs created in September 2011: 150,000.)
But the Democrats not only refused to implement any budget cuts, they hiked government spending. To the untrained eye, that appears to be the exact opposite of cutting the budget.
Apparently, Republicans can read the Democrats’ record, too. They know that Democrats will promise to cut spending in exchange for tax increases and then screw Republicans on the spending cuts.
It’s been 20 years since they pulled that scam, so Democrats figure it’s time to make Republicans break a tax pledge again. As long as no one knows the history of these “deals,” the media can carry on, blithely portraying Republicans as obstructionist nuts for refusing the third kick of a mule.
Read full Ann Coulter article here.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
John F Kennedy last WARNING speech to the WORLD
It appears that we have let some of the people John Kennedy warned us about into the highest places in our government. If he were alive today, he would most likely be a RINO.
Newt Gingrich's 10 Step Immigration Plan
Newt raised a slight stir in last evening's CNN debate when he advocated legal residency status for those illegal families who have been here for decades, pay their taxes, are church members and obey the US laws. I went to his site and read the full text of his proposal and found that it is well thought out, addresses each facet of the problem and is entirely reasonable. There is no reason why any logical caring human being should adhere to the policy of "deport all". It just can't be done.
Newt's plan addresses this in a common sense way.
I have included below the 10 steps without the detailed discussion that he has on his site. The details are well worth reading.
Excerpt: America must be a nation of laws.
Everyone in the United States should be here legally.
America also is a land of immigrants, and our lives, economy, and history have been enriched by immigration.
There has to be a robust and attractive program of legal immigration. There are major positive economic and social benefits to streamlining and simplifying our convoluted, broken visa process.
At the core of being American is a thorough understanding of American exceptionalism. We are a nation not defined by place or ethnic heritage, but by the collective understanding that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is precisely these rights, freedoms and opportunities that have drawn ambitious, risk-seeking immigrants to our shores for four centuries.
It is essential that every native-born American and every immigrant learn about this exceptional heritage and our exceptional history.
Three Principles
1. No “comprehensive” plan can work. President Bush could not pass one during six years with a Republican Congress. President Obama could not pass one with a Democratic Congress. Immigration reform can be outlined as a complete proposal but has to be passed in a series of steps, with each one understood and passed on its own merits.
2. Under no circumstance can a path to citizenship be created which would allow those who have broken the law to receive precedence over those who patiently waited to become residents and citizens via the legal process. Those who adhered to our immigration law cannot be usurped by those who violated it.
3. We must reconcile the goal of legality with the reality that there are millions of immigrants currently here outside the law, some with a long set of family and community ties, and some with no ties. A system has to be established that establishes legality but no citizenship for those with deep ties, repatriates those with no family or community ties in a dignified way, and quickly sends home those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts.
SOLUTIONS
1. Control the border.
2. Create a 21st Century Visa Program.
3. “In-source” the best brains in the world.
4. Allow foreigners who want to spend money, invest and create jobs in America to do so.
5. There has to be a legal guest worker program, but its management must be outsourced to a sophisticated manager of anti-fraud systems, such as American Express, Visa, or Mastercard.
6. Create a path to earned legality for some of the millions of people who are here outside the law.
7. Deportation of criminals and gang members should be efficient and fast.
8. Ensure that every new citizen and every young American learn American history and the key principles of American Exceptionalism.
9. English must be the official language of government.
10. Young non-citizens who came to the United States outside the law should have the same right to join the military and earn citizenship.
CONCLUSION
If we embrace these ten steps, America will have created a truly efficient and fair system that embraces the rule of law, while acknowledging and celebrating the valuable economic, cultural and social contributions that both existing and future visitors and immigrants have to offer our country.
Read full 10 step plan here.
Newt's plan addresses this in a common sense way.
I have included below the 10 steps without the detailed discussion that he has on his site. The details are well worth reading.
Excerpt: America must be a nation of laws.
Everyone in the United States should be here legally.
America also is a land of immigrants, and our lives, economy, and history have been enriched by immigration.
There has to be a robust and attractive program of legal immigration. There are major positive economic and social benefits to streamlining and simplifying our convoluted, broken visa process.
At the core of being American is a thorough understanding of American exceptionalism. We are a nation not defined by place or ethnic heritage, but by the collective understanding that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is precisely these rights, freedoms and opportunities that have drawn ambitious, risk-seeking immigrants to our shores for four centuries.
It is essential that every native-born American and every immigrant learn about this exceptional heritage and our exceptional history.
Three Principles
1. No “comprehensive” plan can work. President Bush could not pass one during six years with a Republican Congress. President Obama could not pass one with a Democratic Congress. Immigration reform can be outlined as a complete proposal but has to be passed in a series of steps, with each one understood and passed on its own merits.
2. Under no circumstance can a path to citizenship be created which would allow those who have broken the law to receive precedence over those who patiently waited to become residents and citizens via the legal process. Those who adhered to our immigration law cannot be usurped by those who violated it.
3. We must reconcile the goal of legality with the reality that there are millions of immigrants currently here outside the law, some with a long set of family and community ties, and some with no ties. A system has to be established that establishes legality but no citizenship for those with deep ties, repatriates those with no family or community ties in a dignified way, and quickly sends home those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts.
SOLUTIONS
1. Control the border.
2. Create a 21st Century Visa Program.
3. “In-source” the best brains in the world.
4. Allow foreigners who want to spend money, invest and create jobs in America to do so.
5. There has to be a legal guest worker program, but its management must be outsourced to a sophisticated manager of anti-fraud systems, such as American Express, Visa, or Mastercard.
6. Create a path to earned legality for some of the millions of people who are here outside the law.
7. Deportation of criminals and gang members should be efficient and fast.
8. Ensure that every new citizen and every young American learn American history and the key principles of American Exceptionalism.
9. English must be the official language of government.
10. Young non-citizens who came to the United States outside the law should have the same right to join the military and earn citizenship.
CONCLUSION
If we embrace these ten steps, America will have created a truly efficient and fair system that embraces the rule of law, while acknowledging and celebrating the valuable economic, cultural and social contributions that both existing and future visitors and immigrants have to offer our country.
Read full 10 step plan here.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Electoral College In Danger - Wake Up America - Progressives Are Half Way To Eliminating Electoral College
I had heard about this but was unaware that a number of states had already passed it and other states were well along. Also, as dense as I am, I did not realize that all the progressives would have to do was get the states with 270 electoral votes to pass this and it would not matter if the rest of the states rejected it.
My guess is that it is unconstitutional, but if Obama is able to stack the courts, it will be a foregone conclusion.
The result of this would be that the most liberal, big city states, with the most government dependent, least productive citizens would forever chose the next President of the United States. Say goodbye to conservatism and the Constitution.
Excerpt: While the lamestream media holds public attention on GOP candidate rivalries, a “progressive” strategy is underway to eliminate the role of the states in electing a U.S. President. By transferring electoral votes to a “national popular vote” this “Compact” would usurp the role of the states as safeguarded by our Constitution. In doing so, it could also neutralize Obama’s critics — totally.
Plan for 2012 (& Permanent) White House control by progressives happening now
Called the “National Popular Vote Compact” this movement has been in the works nationwide – without public attention – on a state-by-state level since at least 2008.
Like other surreptitious actions against the U.S. Constitution, the NPVC “movement” has several promotional websites claiming to represent “true democracy.”
The NPVC is a bill now moving state-by-state to make the popular vote winner President by bypassing normal requirements to amend the Constitution. Tts outcome would ensure the Presidency would be declared by giving all the required 270 Electoral Votes needed for a “winner” to the candidate who wins the largest number of popular votes nationally – no matter how small the win margin and no difference how many states voted to oppose him.
Here’s how it works:
Once enough states have passed the NPVC bill into law to reach the requisite 270 Electoral Votes (by totaling the EV’s of those states which pass this bill) the NPVC goes into immediate effect in the next – and all subsequent – Presidential elections. It doesn’t matter how strongly other states oppose this. We’d all have to go along, if even a minority of states pass it! • Currently, this bill has passed enough state houses to reach more than 160 EV’s – so they are well over half way to their goal right now.
According to most up-to-date information this National Popular Vote Pact has already passed 1 of the 2 required chambers in more than 30 other states- without public attention.
If their magic number of 270 EV totaling states is reached, it won’t matter how the rest of the states vote on this; nor whether other states never take up the bill; not even if other states vehemently object and oppose this action. It would be the Law of the Land!
This sneaky scheme to upend Constitutional rights and protections of all states and their residents in selecting the nation’s leader is underway as an explicit attempt to defeat the careful Constitutional amendment process with no public knowledge, no voter input, no public referendums and no input from states which object to this measure. All NPVC takes is a portion of current state houses to make it law for all of us – always!
Why would progressives want to switch to a National Popular Vote POTUS?
Do the math: The electoral vote system protects voting rights by giving every individual state a number of electoral votes representing the level of population. In this way, all states in the Union have a proportionate and representative say in who becomes President. It doesn’t matter if the state has more land mass than populace, or if more of the people live in rural areas, etc.
Here is what would happen with an NPVC that hands all the needed 270 Electoral Votes to the national popular vote winner: Those states with larger populations – especially those with heavily populated big cities will pick the President. Period. The politically savvy know that big city voters trend “Democratic” – and that controlling big city vote results (by buying votes, duplicating votes, “fixing” vote count machines on a large scale basis – these are all “Democratic” party specialties!
Take Illinois as a case in point. No matter the notorious corruption in politics there. Year after year, all the suburban and rural vote populations together can’t get their voices heard to change who runs the state. Why not? Because the votes of the city of Chicago always outnumber the total combined votes in the entire rest of the state. Is that what we want to happen to the White House?
The state houses of Illinois, California, New York and New Jersey – with their large combined Electoral Votes – are among those that have already passed the NPVC into law. A list of states which have passed this treacherous law is given below. Do you think the voters in those states (of which you may be one) have an idea this has happened? Of course not – as with all Progressive take-over tactics, this one is being arranged as quietly and quickly as possible, before the actual voters there even find out!
So, if you’ve wondered why Obama isn’t more worried about his “re-election” – despite growing public dissatisfaction – now you know. Just pass the NPVC in a handful more states. Then, put the usual paid workers out in the precincts with lies and pockets full of bribes for votes; send out more union propaganda enflaming and threatening union members into support; continue using state paid staff to bring in the votes of the infirm and institutionalized; doctor up more absentee vote records; alter the vote totals of machines in key areas. And voila – Obama gets even the tiniest combined margin of the “popular” vote (by hook or crook) – and he stays in office!
ELECTORAL THEFT LAW ALREADY PASSED IN: CA, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, VT, RI, D.C., and most recently NY
AR, CT, DE, MI, NV, NM, NC, OR, VT (& according to NPV site CO has now passed it in both chambers and sent it to the Governor for signing.)
Read full article here.
My guess is that it is unconstitutional, but if Obama is able to stack the courts, it will be a foregone conclusion.
The result of this would be that the most liberal, big city states, with the most government dependent, least productive citizens would forever chose the next President of the United States. Say goodbye to conservatism and the Constitution.
Excerpt: While the lamestream media holds public attention on GOP candidate rivalries, a “progressive” strategy is underway to eliminate the role of the states in electing a U.S. President. By transferring electoral votes to a “national popular vote” this “Compact” would usurp the role of the states as safeguarded by our Constitution. In doing so, it could also neutralize Obama’s critics — totally.
Plan for 2012 (& Permanent) White House control by progressives happening now
Called the “National Popular Vote Compact” this movement has been in the works nationwide – without public attention – on a state-by-state level since at least 2008.
Like other surreptitious actions against the U.S. Constitution, the NPVC “movement” has several promotional websites claiming to represent “true democracy.”
The NPVC is a bill now moving state-by-state to make the popular vote winner President by bypassing normal requirements to amend the Constitution. Tts outcome would ensure the Presidency would be declared by giving all the required 270 Electoral Votes needed for a “winner” to the candidate who wins the largest number of popular votes nationally – no matter how small the win margin and no difference how many states voted to oppose him.
Here’s how it works:
Once enough states have passed the NPVC bill into law to reach the requisite 270 Electoral Votes (by totaling the EV’s of those states which pass this bill) the NPVC goes into immediate effect in the next – and all subsequent – Presidential elections. It doesn’t matter how strongly other states oppose this. We’d all have to go along, if even a minority of states pass it! • Currently, this bill has passed enough state houses to reach more than 160 EV’s – so they are well over half way to their goal right now.
According to most up-to-date information this National Popular Vote Pact has already passed 1 of the 2 required chambers in more than 30 other states- without public attention.
If their magic number of 270 EV totaling states is reached, it won’t matter how the rest of the states vote on this; nor whether other states never take up the bill; not even if other states vehemently object and oppose this action. It would be the Law of the Land!
This sneaky scheme to upend Constitutional rights and protections of all states and their residents in selecting the nation’s leader is underway as an explicit attempt to defeat the careful Constitutional amendment process with no public knowledge, no voter input, no public referendums and no input from states which object to this measure. All NPVC takes is a portion of current state houses to make it law for all of us – always!
Why would progressives want to switch to a National Popular Vote POTUS?
Do the math: The electoral vote system protects voting rights by giving every individual state a number of electoral votes representing the level of population. In this way, all states in the Union have a proportionate and representative say in who becomes President. It doesn’t matter if the state has more land mass than populace, or if more of the people live in rural areas, etc.
Here is what would happen with an NPVC that hands all the needed 270 Electoral Votes to the national popular vote winner: Those states with larger populations – especially those with heavily populated big cities will pick the President. Period. The politically savvy know that big city voters trend “Democratic” – and that controlling big city vote results (by buying votes, duplicating votes, “fixing” vote count machines on a large scale basis – these are all “Democratic” party specialties!
Take Illinois as a case in point. No matter the notorious corruption in politics there. Year after year, all the suburban and rural vote populations together can’t get their voices heard to change who runs the state. Why not? Because the votes of the city of Chicago always outnumber the total combined votes in the entire rest of the state. Is that what we want to happen to the White House?
The state houses of Illinois, California, New York and New Jersey – with their large combined Electoral Votes – are among those that have already passed the NPVC into law. A list of states which have passed this treacherous law is given below. Do you think the voters in those states (of which you may be one) have an idea this has happened? Of course not – as with all Progressive take-over tactics, this one is being arranged as quietly and quickly as possible, before the actual voters there even find out!
So, if you’ve wondered why Obama isn’t more worried about his “re-election” – despite growing public dissatisfaction – now you know. Just pass the NPVC in a handful more states. Then, put the usual paid workers out in the precincts with lies and pockets full of bribes for votes; send out more union propaganda enflaming and threatening union members into support; continue using state paid staff to bring in the votes of the infirm and institutionalized; doctor up more absentee vote records; alter the vote totals of machines in key areas. And voila – Obama gets even the tiniest combined margin of the “popular” vote (by hook or crook) – and he stays in office!
ELECTORAL THEFT LAW ALREADY PASSED IN: CA, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, VT, RI, D.C., and most recently NY
AR, CT, DE, MI, NV, NM, NC, OR, VT (& according to NPV site CO has now passed it in both chambers and sent it to the Governor for signing.)
Read full article here.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Obama USDA Delays Shale Drilling, 200,000 Jobs Delayed Or Lost
This is just a delaying tactic by the Obama administration. If it isn't the EPA, then another Obama agency gets involved to spread the exposure around. There have been so many studies of refracting with their resulting governmental safety regulations put in place, that further studies can only be viewed as a means to extent the Obama policy of NO DRILLING and continue our reliance on Arab (Muslim) oil and also George Soros oil from his fields in Brazil and Columbia.
In the meantime, these 200,000 jobs along with the 200,000 jobs for the now Obama delayed Canadian pipeline, are being lost to our economy here in the USA.
Excerpt: President Obama's United States Department of Agriculture has delayed shale gas drilling in Ohio for up to six months by cancelling a mineral lease auction for Wayne National Forest (WNF). The move was taken in deference to environmentalists, on the pretext of studying the effects of hydraulic fracturing.
“Conditions have changed since the 2006 Forest Plan was developed," announced WNF Supervisor Anne Carey on Tuesday. "The technology used in the Utica & Marcellus Shale formations need to be studied to see if potential effects to the surface are significantly different than those identified in the Forest Plan." The study will take up to six months to complete. The WNF study reportedly "will focus solely on how it could affect forest land," the significance of hydraulic fracturing to united proponents of the delay, "and not how it could affect groundwater."
Speaking of the WNF gas drilling, one environmentalist group spokesman suggested that moving forward with drilling "could turn the Ohio Valley into Ozone Alley," even though Wayne National Forest already has nearly 1300 oil and gas wells in operation.
The Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP) recently estimated that drilling in the Utica shale, which is affected by the suspension of the mineral lease auctions, would produce up 204,500 jobs by 2015.
"The President’s plan is to simply say ‘no’ to new energy production," House Natural Resources Committee chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash, said to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar during a hearing pertaining to hydraulic fracturing. "It’s a plan that is sending American jobs overseas, forfeiting new revenue, and denying access to American energy that would lessen our dependence on hostile Middle Eastern oil."
Read full Washington Examiner article here.
In the meantime, these 200,000 jobs along with the 200,000 jobs for the now Obama delayed Canadian pipeline, are being lost to our economy here in the USA.
Excerpt: President Obama's United States Department of Agriculture has delayed shale gas drilling in Ohio for up to six months by cancelling a mineral lease auction for Wayne National Forest (WNF). The move was taken in deference to environmentalists, on the pretext of studying the effects of hydraulic fracturing.
“Conditions have changed since the 2006 Forest Plan was developed," announced WNF Supervisor Anne Carey on Tuesday. "The technology used in the Utica & Marcellus Shale formations need to be studied to see if potential effects to the surface are significantly different than those identified in the Forest Plan." The study will take up to six months to complete. The WNF study reportedly "will focus solely on how it could affect forest land," the significance of hydraulic fracturing to united proponents of the delay, "and not how it could affect groundwater."
Speaking of the WNF gas drilling, one environmentalist group spokesman suggested that moving forward with drilling "could turn the Ohio Valley into Ozone Alley," even though Wayne National Forest already has nearly 1300 oil and gas wells in operation.
The Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP) recently estimated that drilling in the Utica shale, which is affected by the suspension of the mineral lease auctions, would produce up 204,500 jobs by 2015.
"The President’s plan is to simply say ‘no’ to new energy production," House Natural Resources Committee chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash, said to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar during a hearing pertaining to hydraulic fracturing. "It’s a plan that is sending American jobs overseas, forfeiting new revenue, and denying access to American energy that would lessen our dependence on hostile Middle Eastern oil."
Read full Washington Examiner article here.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Reasons To Support Newt Gingrich
Ran across this blog post and found that I mostly agree with it. I do not see the perfect candidate out their, but if perfect were mandatory, Barack Obama would not have gotten to the Illinois State legislature. At this point, I believe that Newt has the best chance of all the Republican candidates to unseat Obama in 2012.
Excerpt: The Case for Newt is Strong
It is not enough to have a “not” candidate. There is a positive case for Newt.
As to Newt’s conservatism, one needs to view his almost 35 years in the public eye as a whole. There are few politicians who have fought as hard over so sustained a period against the false narrative in which an ever-expanding central state is seen as necessary and the decline of the United States is deemed inevitable.
While any of the Republican candidates running can argue against a particular policy or piece of legislation, only Newt has shown the ability to see the historical forest for the trees, to argue for American exceptionalism and greatness founded in history and constitutional principles, not sound bites. This description by Melanie Phillips seems most fitting:
Faced with the apparently overwhelming power of the left-wing media and intelligentsia, weaponised through their Orwellian hijacking of the language of the centre ground and their career-ending bullying and intimidation of all who dare to disagree, many conservatives have succumbed to the cultural mind-bending without even realising they have been in effect captured by the enemy.
The reason why Newt Gingrich is striking such a chord is principally because he does realise all this very well, and so delivers a very clear message and the hope of a return to reality. He gives expression, in other words, to an authentic conservative voice. Gingrich is very smart, a serious thinker and a good communicator. He is also extremely tough and resilient. He is without doubt a Big Beast in the political jungle — beside whom Mitt Romney, his chief rival, seems a diminished figure….
Desperate times like these need a Big Beast not just to defeat Obama but to defend the free world.
Newt is uniquely capable of communicating a winning conservative vision in a persuasive and forceful manner, as the positive reaction to his debate performances demonstrates. Obama versus Newt on stage before an audience of tens of millions of voters could lead to a catastrophic defeat for Obama, while Obama versus any other current candidate could have the opposite effect.
Newt has a political history which fits very well with the current political and economic conditions. While Newt was a combative Speaker of the House, he also was someone who fought successfully to balance the budget, reform welfare, and implement an economic growth agenda with a Democratic President in office. An electorate sick and tired of Washington politics and deficits will welcome this narrative.
The Case Against Newt is Weak
Many of the personal criticisms of Newt are fair game and well-known, and we would be foolish to discount them completely. But Americans are a forgiving people on personal matters, and Newt has atoned for his real and perceived sins. Variations on “when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible,” still work.
Newt has made some policy mistakes, but that is to be expected from someone who has been so forthcoming with ideas and solutions, not just polled talking points. Some of those positions have been distorted and misrepresented, but some of the criticisms are fair, as Newt would acknowledge.
We never get a perfect candidate. We choose among those who are running. So don’t tell me about all Newt’s supposed heresies unless you are prepared to make the case why one of the other current candidates stacks up better. Among those who are running, no other candidate measures up to Newt
Read full article here.
Excerpt: The Case for Newt is Strong
It is not enough to have a “not” candidate. There is a positive case for Newt.
As to Newt’s conservatism, one needs to view his almost 35 years in the public eye as a whole. There are few politicians who have fought as hard over so sustained a period against the false narrative in which an ever-expanding central state is seen as necessary and the decline of the United States is deemed inevitable.
While any of the Republican candidates running can argue against a particular policy or piece of legislation, only Newt has shown the ability to see the historical forest for the trees, to argue for American exceptionalism and greatness founded in history and constitutional principles, not sound bites. This description by Melanie Phillips seems most fitting:
Faced with the apparently overwhelming power of the left-wing media and intelligentsia, weaponised through their Orwellian hijacking of the language of the centre ground and their career-ending bullying and intimidation of all who dare to disagree, many conservatives have succumbed to the cultural mind-bending without even realising they have been in effect captured by the enemy.
The reason why Newt Gingrich is striking such a chord is principally because he does realise all this very well, and so delivers a very clear message and the hope of a return to reality. He gives expression, in other words, to an authentic conservative voice. Gingrich is very smart, a serious thinker and a good communicator. He is also extremely tough and resilient. He is without doubt a Big Beast in the political jungle — beside whom Mitt Romney, his chief rival, seems a diminished figure….
Desperate times like these need a Big Beast not just to defeat Obama but to defend the free world.
Newt is uniquely capable of communicating a winning conservative vision in a persuasive and forceful manner, as the positive reaction to his debate performances demonstrates. Obama versus Newt on stage before an audience of tens of millions of voters could lead to a catastrophic defeat for Obama, while Obama versus any other current candidate could have the opposite effect.
Newt has a political history which fits very well with the current political and economic conditions. While Newt was a combative Speaker of the House, he also was someone who fought successfully to balance the budget, reform welfare, and implement an economic growth agenda with a Democratic President in office. An electorate sick and tired of Washington politics and deficits will welcome this narrative.
The Case Against Newt is Weak
Many of the personal criticisms of Newt are fair game and well-known, and we would be foolish to discount them completely. But Americans are a forgiving people on personal matters, and Newt has atoned for his real and perceived sins. Variations on “when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible,” still work.
Newt has made some policy mistakes, but that is to be expected from someone who has been so forthcoming with ideas and solutions, not just polled talking points. Some of those positions have been distorted and misrepresented, but some of the criticisms are fair, as Newt would acknowledge.
We never get a perfect candidate. We choose among those who are running. So don’t tell me about all Newt’s supposed heresies unless you are prepared to make the case why one of the other current candidates stacks up better. Among those who are running, no other candidate measures up to Newt
Read full article here.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Ben Stein On Christmas and Religion
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday MorningCommentary.
My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina).. Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit.
If not, then just discard it.... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina).. Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit.
If not, then just discard it.... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
Canadian prime minister tells Obama that Canada will sell oil to Asia as US delays pipeline
If you believe that Obama has the best interest of the US citizens and our economy at heart, think again. This is just another example in a long list of destructive decisions that are dooming our economy. I guess the fictitious "global warming" will not be affected as much if the oil is burned in China rather than in the USA. Where is that energy separation from the Arab world that we have been searching for? It certainly isn't coming from increased domestic production since Obama has also put the breaks on its development.
Not to mention the loss of jobs.
Excerpt: TORONTO — Canada has stepped up its lobbying after the Obama administration delayed a decision on an oil pipeline critical to the country’s economic future.
Canada’s prime minister said he made it clear in a weekend meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama that Canada will step up its efforts to sell oil to Asia since the Obama administration delayed a decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
Meanwhile, Alberta Premier Alison Redford, the leader of the Canadian province that has the world’s third-largest reserves of oil, visited Washington on Monday and said she’ll meet with U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner and other officials to discuss the pipeline’s future.
Last week, the U.S. State Department ordered that the pipeline be rerouted and subject to further environmental review, delaying a decision until 2013.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who met Obama on the sidelines of the APEC summit, said Canada will continue to push the U.S. to approve TransCanada’s $7 billion Keystone XL project to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The pipeline is critical to Canada which must have pipelines in place to export its growing oil sands production from northern Alberta, which has more than 170 billion barrels of proven reserves. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to increase to 3.7 million in 2025. Only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have more reserves.
The Obama administration’s announcement to put off a decision went over badly in Canada where it is being viewed as a signal that the country must diversify its oil exports away from the United States and toward Asia.
Read full Washington Post article here.
Not to mention the loss of jobs.
Excerpt: TORONTO — Canada has stepped up its lobbying after the Obama administration delayed a decision on an oil pipeline critical to the country’s economic future.
Canada’s prime minister said he made it clear in a weekend meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama that Canada will step up its efforts to sell oil to Asia since the Obama administration delayed a decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
Meanwhile, Alberta Premier Alison Redford, the leader of the Canadian province that has the world’s third-largest reserves of oil, visited Washington on Monday and said she’ll meet with U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner and other officials to discuss the pipeline’s future.
Last week, the U.S. State Department ordered that the pipeline be rerouted and subject to further environmental review, delaying a decision until 2013.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who met Obama on the sidelines of the APEC summit, said Canada will continue to push the U.S. to approve TransCanada’s $7 billion Keystone XL project to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The pipeline is critical to Canada which must have pipelines in place to export its growing oil sands production from northern Alberta, which has more than 170 billion barrels of proven reserves. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to increase to 3.7 million in 2025. Only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have more reserves.
The Obama administration’s announcement to put off a decision went over badly in Canada where it is being viewed as a signal that the country must diversify its oil exports away from the United States and toward Asia.
Read full Washington Post article here.
Fact: Plastic Bag BANS Are Bad for the Environment
An example of how the environmental nutcases are helping to destroy our economy, with the unintended consequences of also helping to destroy our environment.
Excerpt: lawmakers should never ban products for arbitrary or political reasons. They should have clear and convincing evidence that such bans are the only means for protecting the public—a situation that rarely exists. It is obvious to see that plastics industry workers can lose jobs as markets shift to supposedly “environmentally better” products, and consumers lose convenience from such bans. Less obvious is the fact that these anti-plastics policies are not the slam-dunk for Mother Nature that supporters claim.
Energy and Economically Efficient. First consider why plastic products have prevailed in the marketplace. In addition to being very convenient for carrying groceries (plastic bags) and carrying food (foam cups keep our coffee hot and food warm), these products are highly energy and water efficient as well as sanitary. That also makes them very inexpensive to produce and transport. Numerous life-cycle studies, which track a product‟s cradle-to-grave environmental impact, demonstrate this fact. For example, a review of several life-cycle assessments produced for a group called Use Less Stuff found that plastic bags:
Generate 39 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than regular paper bags;
Require 6 percent of the water necessary to make paper bags;
Consume 71 percent less energy during production than paper bags; and
Produce one-fifth the amount of solid waste compared to paper bags.
Despite these findings, Use Less Stuff suggests that people use reusable bags or recycle, but neither option is without its own trade-offs.
Reusable bags require far more energy and other resources to make. It is not clear they save resources unless they are used many, many times over. For example, a study produced for the Environment Agency in the United Kingdom found that cotton bags would have to be used 103 times before they yielded environmental benefits. But the government study estimated that cotton bags are only used 51 times, making them worse for the environment than plastic. This study did not even consider the energy and water use associated with washing the bags, which increases their environmental impacts and costs.
In addition, such washing is important to control another drawback associated with reusable bags—the development of bacteria. A study conducted by researchers at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University measured bacteria in a sample of reusable bags, finding many containing dangerous bacteria, such as coliform (found in half the bags) and E. coli (found in 12 percent of bags).10 They also noted that consumers reported that they rarely wash the bags in an attempt to control the development of such pathogens.
Foam plastic products are similarly energy efficient. Foam cups are even more energy efficient than reusable ceramic cups in many cases. One of the “classic” life cycle studies was conducted.
back in the 1990s by University of Victoria chemistry professor Martin B. Hocking.11 It measured energy-use requirements for foam, paper, and ceramic cups throughout each product‟s lifecycle—including production, disposal, and washing (for the ceramic cups). Foam cups were far more energy efficient than paper cups and even more energy efficient than ceramic cups that were used less than 1,006 times.
In February 2011, the research group Franklin Associates released findings from its life-cycle assessment of polystyrene packaging and alternative paper products. It found that the average 16-ounce polystyrene cup uses a third less energy, produces 50 percent less solid waste by volume, and releases a third less of greenhouse gases than does a 16-ounce paper cup with a sleeve.13 Over their life cycles, polystyrene packaging products require 20 to 30 percent less water than do paper alternatives.
Read full report here.
Excerpt: lawmakers should never ban products for arbitrary or political reasons. They should have clear and convincing evidence that such bans are the only means for protecting the public—a situation that rarely exists. It is obvious to see that plastics industry workers can lose jobs as markets shift to supposedly “environmentally better” products, and consumers lose convenience from such bans. Less obvious is the fact that these anti-plastics policies are not the slam-dunk for Mother Nature that supporters claim.
Energy and Economically Efficient. First consider why plastic products have prevailed in the marketplace. In addition to being very convenient for carrying groceries (plastic bags) and carrying food (foam cups keep our coffee hot and food warm), these products are highly energy and water efficient as well as sanitary. That also makes them very inexpensive to produce and transport. Numerous life-cycle studies, which track a product‟s cradle-to-grave environmental impact, demonstrate this fact. For example, a review of several life-cycle assessments produced for a group called Use Less Stuff found that plastic bags:
Generate 39 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than regular paper bags;
Require 6 percent of the water necessary to make paper bags;
Consume 71 percent less energy during production than paper bags; and
Produce one-fifth the amount of solid waste compared to paper bags.
Despite these findings, Use Less Stuff suggests that people use reusable bags or recycle, but neither option is without its own trade-offs.
Reusable bags require far more energy and other resources to make. It is not clear they save resources unless they are used many, many times over. For example, a study produced for the Environment Agency in the United Kingdom found that cotton bags would have to be used 103 times before they yielded environmental benefits. But the government study estimated that cotton bags are only used 51 times, making them worse for the environment than plastic. This study did not even consider the energy and water use associated with washing the bags, which increases their environmental impacts and costs.
In addition, such washing is important to control another drawback associated with reusable bags—the development of bacteria. A study conducted by researchers at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University measured bacteria in a sample of reusable bags, finding many containing dangerous bacteria, such as coliform (found in half the bags) and E. coli (found in 12 percent of bags).10 They also noted that consumers reported that they rarely wash the bags in an attempt to control the development of such pathogens.
Foam plastic products are similarly energy efficient. Foam cups are even more energy efficient than reusable ceramic cups in many cases. One of the “classic” life cycle studies was conducted.
back in the 1990s by University of Victoria chemistry professor Martin B. Hocking.11 It measured energy-use requirements for foam, paper, and ceramic cups throughout each product‟s lifecycle—including production, disposal, and washing (for the ceramic cups). Foam cups were far more energy efficient than paper cups and even more energy efficient than ceramic cups that were used less than 1,006 times.
In February 2011, the research group Franklin Associates released findings from its life-cycle assessment of polystyrene packaging and alternative paper products. It found that the average 16-ounce polystyrene cup uses a third less energy, produces 50 percent less solid waste by volume, and releases a third less of greenhouse gases than does a 16-ounce paper cup with a sleeve.13 Over their life cycles, polystyrene packaging products require 20 to 30 percent less water than do paper alternatives.
Read full report here.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Obama: The Affirmative Action President
Received this in email form today. Quite interesting!
By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?
By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?
Saturday, November 12, 2011
GOP defections stall attempt to thwart Obama EPA agenda
Rand Paul is working to restrict the damage done by Obama's legislative overreach. A number of RINO Senators are standing in his way. We rejoiced when Mark Kirk of Illinois and Scott Brown of Massachusetts won election in heavily Democrat areas. Perhaps we elected wolves in sheep's clothing.
Excerpt: On Thursday the Senate failed to pass a resolution that would have invalidated a major new environmental regulation governing interstate emissions. Passage of the resolution would have been a major setback for the Obama administration, and at least a symbolic victory for those who argue EPA has run amok.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) had spearheaded efforts to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which is currently set to go into effect January 1, 2012. “I think we can have a clean environment and jobs, but not if we let this administration continue to pass job-killing regulations,” Paul said prior to Thursday’s vote. “If this president is serious about job creation, he needs to cease and desist from adding new job-killing regulations.”
The Cross-State Rule is only the latest installment in an unprecedented series of costly new EPA rules with speculative environmental benefits and a dubious legal basis. Under the new regulation, utilities in 27 states and the District of Columbia will be required to slash emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by more than half by 2014. EPA defends the regulation based on computer models suggesting that emissions from these states may drift downwind into other states, preventing them from meeting their pollution control targets under the Clean Air Act. But according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, enforcing the new rules could imperil basic electricity reliability, causing rolling blackouts during hot summer months. And industry groups warn that plant closures resulting from the new emissions controls could cost 183,000 jobs per year until 2020.
Had Paul’s resolution succeeded in the Senate, it would have likely passed in the House as well. This threat was significant enough that on Tuesday the White House issued a statement threatening to veto the resolution should it reach the president’s desk.
Ultimately, however, Senate Republicans were not able to muster the 51 votes necessary for passage, with the resolution failing 41-56. While Democratic Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joe Manchin of West Virginia voted for the resolution, moderate Republicans Mark Kirk (R-IL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Scott Brown (R-MA), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) sided with the Obama administration.
While EPA has scaled back the rule slightly in response to public outcry, it continues to promise higher electricity prices and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs if it goes into effect.
EPA’s aggressive new push for more regulation comes at the worst possible time. With unemployment at 9%, and many analysts raising the possibility of a double-dip recession, the last thing America needs is to deal a crippling blow to the sector of the economy that keeps the lights from going out.
Read the full Daily Caller article here.
Excerpt: On Thursday the Senate failed to pass a resolution that would have invalidated a major new environmental regulation governing interstate emissions. Passage of the resolution would have been a major setback for the Obama administration, and at least a symbolic victory for those who argue EPA has run amok.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) had spearheaded efforts to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which is currently set to go into effect January 1, 2012. “I think we can have a clean environment and jobs, but not if we let this administration continue to pass job-killing regulations,” Paul said prior to Thursday’s vote. “If this president is serious about job creation, he needs to cease and desist from adding new job-killing regulations.”
The Cross-State Rule is only the latest installment in an unprecedented series of costly new EPA rules with speculative environmental benefits and a dubious legal basis. Under the new regulation, utilities in 27 states and the District of Columbia will be required to slash emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by more than half by 2014. EPA defends the regulation based on computer models suggesting that emissions from these states may drift downwind into other states, preventing them from meeting their pollution control targets under the Clean Air Act. But according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, enforcing the new rules could imperil basic electricity reliability, causing rolling blackouts during hot summer months. And industry groups warn that plant closures resulting from the new emissions controls could cost 183,000 jobs per year until 2020.
Had Paul’s resolution succeeded in the Senate, it would have likely passed in the House as well. This threat was significant enough that on Tuesday the White House issued a statement threatening to veto the resolution should it reach the president’s desk.
Ultimately, however, Senate Republicans were not able to muster the 51 votes necessary for passage, with the resolution failing 41-56. While Democratic Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joe Manchin of West Virginia voted for the resolution, moderate Republicans Mark Kirk (R-IL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Scott Brown (R-MA), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) sided with the Obama administration.
While EPA has scaled back the rule slightly in response to public outcry, it continues to promise higher electricity prices and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs if it goes into effect.
EPA’s aggressive new push for more regulation comes at the worst possible time. With unemployment at 9%, and many analysts raising the possibility of a double-dip recession, the last thing America needs is to deal a crippling blow to the sector of the economy that keeps the lights from going out.
Read the full Daily Caller article here.
NLRB Lawyer Re: Boeing: "We Screwed Up The US Economy"
Just more proof that the Obama administration is hell bent on destroying the US economy, freedom, and capitalism in favor of a socialistic state, with little or no regard for our Constitution, the separation of powers, or the rule of law.
Excerpt: New documents obtained by Judicial Watch show acting National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Lafe Solomon joking that the NLRB's suit against Boeing would kill jobs in South Carolina. Commenting on a Planet Labor article whose headline suggests Boeing might not be able to open its new plant in South Carolina because of "antiunion behavior," Solomon writes:
The article gave me a new idea. You go to geneva and I get a job with airbus. We screwed up the us economy and now we can tackle europe.
Solomon goes on to complain that Obama NLRB nominee Craig Becker may be getting the credit for the Boeing suit: "I didn't read all of the meltwater articles but some of the headlines tie boeing to craig. Unbelievable."
Solomon's colleague, outgoing NLRB Chairwoman Wlima Liebman, replies by soothing Soloman's bruised ego. "None of the articles tie craig to boeing. Just mention his recess appointment. No one is raining on your parade," Liebman wrote in reply.
Becker, who was once counsel to both the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), had his nomination to the NLRB blocked by the Senate. News of his recess appointment to the NLRB coincided with Solomon's suit against Boeing.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton says the tenor of the emails show the NLRB's case against Boeing isn't supported by the law. “These documents provide further evidence that the Obama administration’s attack on Boeing is irresponsible and politically motivated,” Fitton said. “NLRB attorneys come off as juvenile politicos rather than professionals interested in arbitrating a labor dispute. The utter contempt for congressional oversight shows that the NRLB thinks it is above the law. We hope these documents help educate the public about the ongoing abuse of power by this agency.”
Read full Washington Examiner article here.
Excerpt: New documents obtained by Judicial Watch show acting National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Lafe Solomon joking that the NLRB's suit against Boeing would kill jobs in South Carolina. Commenting on a Planet Labor article whose headline suggests Boeing might not be able to open its new plant in South Carolina because of "antiunion behavior," Solomon writes:
The article gave me a new idea. You go to geneva and I get a job with airbus. We screwed up the us economy and now we can tackle europe.
Solomon goes on to complain that Obama NLRB nominee Craig Becker may be getting the credit for the Boeing suit: "I didn't read all of the meltwater articles but some of the headlines tie boeing to craig. Unbelievable."
Solomon's colleague, outgoing NLRB Chairwoman Wlima Liebman, replies by soothing Soloman's bruised ego. "None of the articles tie craig to boeing. Just mention his recess appointment. No one is raining on your parade," Liebman wrote in reply.
Becker, who was once counsel to both the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), had his nomination to the NLRB blocked by the Senate. News of his recess appointment to the NLRB coincided with Solomon's suit against Boeing.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton says the tenor of the emails show the NLRB's case against Boeing isn't supported by the law. “These documents provide further evidence that the Obama administration’s attack on Boeing is irresponsible and politically motivated,” Fitton said. “NLRB attorneys come off as juvenile politicos rather than professionals interested in arbitrating a labor dispute. The utter contempt for congressional oversight shows that the NRLB thinks it is above the law. We hope these documents help educate the public about the ongoing abuse of power by this agency.”
Read full Washington Examiner article here.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Obama's Support for Union Thuggery - Romney Ad
This is a Romney ad about Obama and his support for unions. It will make your skin crawl.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Abramoff turns CBS's Lesley Stahl's stomach with extent of corruption in Washington
Abramoff's book may be the catalyst needed to spur the American electorate into action to clean up Washington, by getting rid of the career politicians and relying on citizen legislators to do their bidding. Two terms and out should be our motto.
Excerpt: Jack Abramoff, onetime power broker for the elite of Washington, D.C., is holding no punches in exposing corruption on Capitol Hill and warning it may run deeper and wider than most Americans can even imagine.
"People are under the impression that the corruption only involves somebody handing over a check and getting that favor, and that's not the case," Abramoff told CBS's Lesley Stahl. "The bribery, call it, because ultimately that's what it is, that's what the whole [lobbying] system is ... it is done every day, and it is still being done.
"The truth is there are very few members [of Congress] who I could even name or could think of who didn't at some level participate in that," he said.
At one time, Abramoff told Stahl, his lobbying firm had an estimated 100 members of Congress in its back pocket.
Abramoff influenced legislators by lavishing them with access to private jets and junkets to the world's greatest golf destinations, free meals and access to the best tickets to area sporting events. But the best way to peddle influence, Abramoff said, was to tell congressmen's staffers high-salaried jobs would be waiting after their stint on Capitol Hill.
The moment the job was offered, Abramoff explained, "That was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request from our clients, everything that we want, they're going to do."
"It was effective," Abramoff said. "Most congressmen don't feel they're being 'bought.' Most congressmen I think, can in their own mind justify the system."
Stahl was stunned and personally sickened by the revelations, summarizing, "I really think what you were doing was subverting the essence of our system."
"Absolutely right," Abramoff affirmed. "But our system is flawed and has to be fixed. Human beings populate our sytem. Human beings are weak."
"And you preyed on that," Stahl asserted.
"I did."
Read full WND article here.
Excerpt: Jack Abramoff, onetime power broker for the elite of Washington, D.C., is holding no punches in exposing corruption on Capitol Hill and warning it may run deeper and wider than most Americans can even imagine.
"People are under the impression that the corruption only involves somebody handing over a check and getting that favor, and that's not the case," Abramoff told CBS's Lesley Stahl. "The bribery, call it, because ultimately that's what it is, that's what the whole [lobbying] system is ... it is done every day, and it is still being done.
"The truth is there are very few members [of Congress] who I could even name or could think of who didn't at some level participate in that," he said.
At one time, Abramoff told Stahl, his lobbying firm had an estimated 100 members of Congress in its back pocket.
Abramoff influenced legislators by lavishing them with access to private jets and junkets to the world's greatest golf destinations, free meals and access to the best tickets to area sporting events. But the best way to peddle influence, Abramoff said, was to tell congressmen's staffers high-salaried jobs would be waiting after their stint on Capitol Hill.
The moment the job was offered, Abramoff explained, "That was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request from our clients, everything that we want, they're going to do."
"It was effective," Abramoff said. "Most congressmen don't feel they're being 'bought.' Most congressmen I think, can in their own mind justify the system."
Stahl was stunned and personally sickened by the revelations, summarizing, "I really think what you were doing was subverting the essence of our system."
"Absolutely right," Abramoff affirmed. "But our system is flawed and has to be fixed. Human beings populate our sytem. Human beings are weak."
"And you preyed on that," Stahl asserted.
"I did."
Read full WND article here.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
American Eagle Named Challenger
“Challenger” is his name (in honor of the lost space shuttle crew). He is cared for by the non-profit American Eagle Foundation (AEF). He's a 'human-socialized' bird raised by the people who rescued him after he’d been blown from a wild Louisiana nest in a storm as a baby in the late 1980's. Declared “non-releasable”' by federal and state wildlife authorities, he was trained by the AEF to perform educational free-flight demonstrations at high profile public events.
He's the first Bald Eagle in U.S. History that learned to free-fly into stadiums, arenas and ballrooms during the singing and or playing of the “Star Spangled Banner.” The celebrity eagle has appeared at numerous major sporting events like the World Series, Pro-Bowl, All-Star game, BCS National Championship, Fiesta Bowl, Men's Final Four, etc.
This eagle has also flown before four U.S. Presidents and his life story is told in a children's storybook.
He's the first Bald Eagle in U.S. History that learned to free-fly into stadiums, arenas and ballrooms during the singing and or playing of the “Star Spangled Banner.” The celebrity eagle has appeared at numerous major sporting events like the World Series, Pro-Bowl, All-Star game, BCS National Championship, Fiesta Bowl, Men's Final Four, etc.
This eagle has also flown before four U.S. Presidents and his life story is told in a children's storybook.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Liberate Main Street
The Tea Party needs a slogan and this one is representative of the beliefs of the movement.
Excerpt: Well, not to worry. The occupation of Wall Street isn’t going to happen. But it’s somehow revealing that Occupy Wall Street is the banner under which the left marches. For the left, all politics is about occupation. One country, one class, or one group takes from another. Politics is a scene of national warfare, or class struggle, or one group grasping for advantages over some other.
There is of course some truth to this picture of politics. But it’s not the fundamental truth, and it’s not the fundamental truth to which American politics aspires. That’s why it was an inspired idea on the part of Montana congressman Denny Rehberg to respond last week to the Occupy Wall Street movement with a call to Liberate Main Street. “We're over-taxed in small business, over-regulated, and over-litigated, and you can pick and choose which ones you want to address, but the government should be trying to lessen the tax burden, lessen the regulatory burden, and get the litigation out of the way,” Rehberg said.
More broadly, Liberate Main Street provides a rubric for a conservative agenda that contrasts with Occupy Wall Street. It would be an agenda that works to foster opportunity, not envy; that seeks change through democratic processes, not mob pressure; that encourages enterprise, not resentment; that enlarges the sphere of personal and civic freedom, not big government; that liberates Americans’ energies, rather than pandering to their weaknesses; that acts to fix Wall Street’s problems, not to demonize American business.
President Obama and other Democrats have allied themselves with Occupy Wall Street. Might Republican leaders want to develop a Liberate Main Street agenda in response?
Read full William Kristol article here.
Excerpt: Well, not to worry. The occupation of Wall Street isn’t going to happen. But it’s somehow revealing that Occupy Wall Street is the banner under which the left marches. For the left, all politics is about occupation. One country, one class, or one group takes from another. Politics is a scene of national warfare, or class struggle, or one group grasping for advantages over some other.
There is of course some truth to this picture of politics. But it’s not the fundamental truth, and it’s not the fundamental truth to which American politics aspires. That’s why it was an inspired idea on the part of Montana congressman Denny Rehberg to respond last week to the Occupy Wall Street movement with a call to Liberate Main Street. “We're over-taxed in small business, over-regulated, and over-litigated, and you can pick and choose which ones you want to address, but the government should be trying to lessen the tax burden, lessen the regulatory burden, and get the litigation out of the way,” Rehberg said.
More broadly, Liberate Main Street provides a rubric for a conservative agenda that contrasts with Occupy Wall Street. It would be an agenda that works to foster opportunity, not envy; that seeks change through democratic processes, not mob pressure; that encourages enterprise, not resentment; that enlarges the sphere of personal and civic freedom, not big government; that liberates Americans’ energies, rather than pandering to their weaknesses; that acts to fix Wall Street’s problems, not to demonize American business.
President Obama and other Democrats have allied themselves with Occupy Wall Street. Might Republican leaders want to develop a Liberate Main Street agenda in response?
Read full William Kristol article here.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Wisconsin Schools Buck Union to Cut Health Costs - Teachers Benefit
Received this email today and thought it was too good to not pass on.
==========================
IF THIS doesn't make you BOIL… NOTHING will !!!!
Democrats and Liberals are keeping VERY quiet about this.
THIS is why Obama stayed away from Wisconsin on his latest campaign, though he was right next door.
Wisconsin is the last place where they want to talk about THIS situation.
Same in New Jersey !
Recall the violent and disgusting demonstrations over Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker doing away with collective bargaining for the Teacher's union.
Now The results are in.
Some school districts went from a $400,000 deficit to a $1,500,000 surplus!
They are hiring new teachers, not firing like the Liberals said would happen.
Why?
The insurance company that provided all the "so-called" benefits to the teachers was an insurance company owned and operated by the teacher's union! !
INCREDIBLE SCAM !!!
Since they were guaranteed to get the insurance business from the teachers, and the State had to pay for it (not the teachers) the insurance company was increasing annual costs every single year to become the most expensive insurance company in the state.
This fraudulent "insurance" company was donating millions to democrat politicians to fund the union's outrageous costs.
The insurance company was a "pass through" for Wisconsin taxpayer money directly to the democrat politicians.
This is a racket that is going on in every single State that allows collective bargaining.
No wonder the States are taking it away.
Wisconsin is NOW free to put the insurance contract out for bids.
They have now saved so much money, it has turned deficits into surplus amounts.
As a result, none of the teachers had to be laid off, everyone got a raise and the taxpayers of Wisconsin don't have to pay more taxes to fund the union's political ambitions.
If you weren't aware of the reasons Gov. Walker was fighting to take away collective bargaining,
it gives you an idea of the problem the Republican Party has.
Almost none of them speak up and explain CLEARLY what the REAL problem was!!
In how many other states is this scam still going on??
Excerpt of the original article in the Washington Examiner: The Hartland-Lakeside School District, about 30 miles west of Milwaukee in tiny Hartland, Wis., had a problem in its collective bargaining contract with the local teachers union.
The contract required the school district to purchase health insurance from a company called WEA Trust. The creation of Wisconsin's largest teachers union -- "WEA" stands for Wisconsin Education Association -- WEA Trust made money when union officials used collective bargaining agreements to steer profitable business its way.
The problem for Hartland-Lakeside was that WEA Trust was charging significantly higher rates than the school district could find on the open market. School officials knew that because they got a better deal from United HealthCare for coverage of nonunion employees. On more than one occasion, Superintendent Glenn Schilling asked WEA Trust why the rates were so high. "I could never get a definitive answer on that," says Schilling.
Changing to a different insurance company would save Hartland-Lakeside hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on key educational priorities -- especially important since the cash-strapped state government was cutting back on education funding. But teachers union officials wouldn't allow it; the WEA Trust requirement was in the contract, and union leaders refused to let Hartland-Lakeside off the hook.
That's where Wisconsin's new budget law came in. The law, bitterly opposed by organized labor in the state and across the nation, limits the collective bargaining powers of some public employees. And it just happens that the Hartland-Lakeside teachers' collective bargaining agreement expired on June 30. So now, freed from the expensive WEA Trust deal, the school district has changed insurers.
"It's going to save us about $690,000 in 2011-2012," says Schilling. Insurance costs that had been about $2.5 million a year will now be around $1.8 million. What union leaders said would be a catastrophe will in fact be a boon to teachers and students.
But the effect of weakening collective bargaining goes beyond money. It also has the potential to reshape the adversarial culture that often afflicts public education. In Hartland-Lakeside, there's been no war between union-busting bureaucrats on one side and impassioned teachers on the other; Schilling speaks with great collegiality toward the teachers and says with pride that they've been able to work together on big issues. But there has been a deep division between the school district and top union executives.
Read full Washington Examiner article here.
==========================
IF THIS doesn't make you BOIL… NOTHING will !!!!
Democrats and Liberals are keeping VERY quiet about this.
THIS is why Obama stayed away from Wisconsin on his latest campaign, though he was right next door.
Wisconsin is the last place where they want to talk about THIS situation.
Same in New Jersey !
Recall the violent and disgusting demonstrations over Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker doing away with collective bargaining for the Teacher's union.
Now The results are in.
Some school districts went from a $400,000 deficit to a $1,500,000 surplus!
They are hiring new teachers, not firing like the Liberals said would happen.
Why?
The insurance company that provided all the "so-called" benefits to the teachers was an insurance company owned and operated by the teacher's union! !
INCREDIBLE SCAM !!!
Since they were guaranteed to get the insurance business from the teachers, and the State had to pay for it (not the teachers) the insurance company was increasing annual costs every single year to become the most expensive insurance company in the state.
This fraudulent "insurance" company was donating millions to democrat politicians to fund the union's outrageous costs.
The insurance company was a "pass through" for Wisconsin taxpayer money directly to the democrat politicians.
This is a racket that is going on in every single State that allows collective bargaining.
No wonder the States are taking it away.
Wisconsin is NOW free to put the insurance contract out for bids.
They have now saved so much money, it has turned deficits into surplus amounts.
As a result, none of the teachers had to be laid off, everyone got a raise and the taxpayers of Wisconsin don't have to pay more taxes to fund the union's political ambitions.
If you weren't aware of the reasons Gov. Walker was fighting to take away collective bargaining,
it gives you an idea of the problem the Republican Party has.
Almost none of them speak up and explain CLEARLY what the REAL problem was!!
In how many other states is this scam still going on??
Excerpt of the original article in the Washington Examiner: The Hartland-Lakeside School District, about 30 miles west of Milwaukee in tiny Hartland, Wis., had a problem in its collective bargaining contract with the local teachers union.
The contract required the school district to purchase health insurance from a company called WEA Trust. The creation of Wisconsin's largest teachers union -- "WEA" stands for Wisconsin Education Association -- WEA Trust made money when union officials used collective bargaining agreements to steer profitable business its way.
The problem for Hartland-Lakeside was that WEA Trust was charging significantly higher rates than the school district could find on the open market. School officials knew that because they got a better deal from United HealthCare for coverage of nonunion employees. On more than one occasion, Superintendent Glenn Schilling asked WEA Trust why the rates were so high. "I could never get a definitive answer on that," says Schilling.
Changing to a different insurance company would save Hartland-Lakeside hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on key educational priorities -- especially important since the cash-strapped state government was cutting back on education funding. But teachers union officials wouldn't allow it; the WEA Trust requirement was in the contract, and union leaders refused to let Hartland-Lakeside off the hook.
That's where Wisconsin's new budget law came in. The law, bitterly opposed by organized labor in the state and across the nation, limits the collective bargaining powers of some public employees. And it just happens that the Hartland-Lakeside teachers' collective bargaining agreement expired on June 30. So now, freed from the expensive WEA Trust deal, the school district has changed insurers.
"It's going to save us about $690,000 in 2011-2012," says Schilling. Insurance costs that had been about $2.5 million a year will now be around $1.8 million. What union leaders said would be a catastrophe will in fact be a boon to teachers and students.
But the effect of weakening collective bargaining goes beyond money. It also has the potential to reshape the adversarial culture that often afflicts public education. In Hartland-Lakeside, there's been no war between union-busting bureaucrats on one side and impassioned teachers on the other; Schilling speaks with great collegiality toward the teachers and says with pride that they've been able to work together on big issues. But there has been a deep division between the school district and top union executives.
Read full Washington Examiner article here.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Occupy Wall Street - List of Supporters
The "change we believe in" is a change that we can ill afford if we intend to keep our Republic and freedom.
Excerpt: “Show me your friends and I’ll tell you who you are.”
That line is one of the famous “Mom-ilies” often heard in homes all around the country. Perhaps mothers have drawn this wisdom from the Bible and Proverbs 13:20:
“He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.”
Either way, The Blaze has presented details on the people inside the OWS movement as well as those believed to be supporting it with money, material goods (sleeping bags, non-perishable foods, etc.), organizational skills, and even storage space. We have named names from the White House to the American Nazi Party, we have shown connections to several unions (like SEIU, UFT, and TWU) and pointed out the organizers like the Working Families Party and ACORN.
This morning we ask you to consider the recently posted Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors, and sympathizers put together by intrepid blogger Zombie.
“Local” supporters:
Communist Party USA
The American Nazi Party
Revolutionary Communist Party
Black Panthers
Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan
CAIR
Some big names in the political world have also lent support to the cause:
President Barack Obama
Vice President Joe Biden
Nancy Pelosi
International Leaders and Governments:
Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei
Hugo Chavez
Revolutionary Guards of Iran
The Govt of North Korea
Communist Party of China
Hezbollah
Read full The Blaze article here.
Excerpt: “Show me your friends and I’ll tell you who you are.”
That line is one of the famous “Mom-ilies” often heard in homes all around the country. Perhaps mothers have drawn this wisdom from the Bible and Proverbs 13:20:
“He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.”
Either way, The Blaze has presented details on the people inside the OWS movement as well as those believed to be supporting it with money, material goods (sleeping bags, non-perishable foods, etc.), organizational skills, and even storage space. We have named names from the White House to the American Nazi Party, we have shown connections to several unions (like SEIU, UFT, and TWU) and pointed out the organizers like the Working Families Party and ACORN.
This morning we ask you to consider the recently posted Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors, and sympathizers put together by intrepid blogger Zombie.
“Local” supporters:
Communist Party USA
The American Nazi Party
Revolutionary Communist Party
Black Panthers
Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan
CAIR
Some big names in the political world have also lent support to the cause:
President Barack Obama
Vice President Joe Biden
Nancy Pelosi
International Leaders and Governments:
Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei
Hugo Chavez
Revolutionary Guards of Iran
The Govt of North Korea
Communist Party of China
Hezbollah
Read full The Blaze article here.
Colorado voters reject raising taxes to support education
Unions have destroyed the quality of education that we once had. Many teachers are intelligent, hard working, caring individuals that care for their students. Then there are the so-called teachers, that because of the unions work rules, cannot be ferreted out and thus remain as a drag, both intellectually and financially, on the whole system.
After Katrina, New Orleans had a chance to rebuild their school system. They chose to privatize a good portion of it and it appears to be working well. Maybe this is a lesson that is worth spreading nationwide. Colorado seems to have begun the process of enlightenment.
Excerpt: In what could be a harbinger of the 2012 election, Colorado voters Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a measure that would have raised nearly $3 billion for education by temporarily increasing state income, sales and use taxes.
With 59% of the projected vote counted, Proposition 103 was trailing 65% to 35%, the Associated Press reported.
The debate over the measure closely mirrored recent rancor in Washington over the question of whether more spending will revive a moribund economy or slow down a nascent recovery.
A likely swing state in 2012, Colorado is a particularly interesting place to see which argument voters cotton to. Its population is well-educated, with more than one-third of residents older than 25 holding at least a bachelor’s degree. But the state’s unemployment rate has been stuck around 8%, and a solid share of the electorate finds taxes distasteful, passing a major tax-limitation measure in 1992.
If Proposition 103 had passed, individual and corporate tax rates would have temporarily jumped from 4.63% to 5% and the sales and use tax rate from 2.9% to 3%, the Associated Press reported.
Read full LA Times article here.
After Katrina, New Orleans had a chance to rebuild their school system. They chose to privatize a good portion of it and it appears to be working well. Maybe this is a lesson that is worth spreading nationwide. Colorado seems to have begun the process of enlightenment.
Excerpt: In what could be a harbinger of the 2012 election, Colorado voters Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a measure that would have raised nearly $3 billion for education by temporarily increasing state income, sales and use taxes.
With 59% of the projected vote counted, Proposition 103 was trailing 65% to 35%, the Associated Press reported.
The debate over the measure closely mirrored recent rancor in Washington over the question of whether more spending will revive a moribund economy or slow down a nascent recovery.
A likely swing state in 2012, Colorado is a particularly interesting place to see which argument voters cotton to. Its population is well-educated, with more than one-third of residents older than 25 holding at least a bachelor’s degree. But the state’s unemployment rate has been stuck around 8%, and a solid share of the electorate finds taxes distasteful, passing a major tax-limitation measure in 1992.
If Proposition 103 had passed, individual and corporate tax rates would have temporarily jumped from 4.63% to 5% and the sales and use tax rate from 2.9% to 3%, the Associated Press reported.
Read full LA Times article here.
GLOBAL WARMING IS OVER, SAYS EXPERT
It appears that the experts are at it again, with the climate warming supporter neglecting to let the true findings find the light of day. Thirteen years without an increase in global temperatures, during a period when carbon dioxide in the air has significantly increased, should be enough for the "Gore (core) believers" to back up a bit in their wrong thinking.
An increase in carbon dioxide, which every human exhales, and most plants thrive on, together with no causative effect on global temperatures, seems to me to be a win win scenario.
It is time to relegate Al Gore to the garbage bin.
Excerpt: In a serious clash of scientific experts Prof Curry has accused Prof Muller of trying to “hide the decline in rates of global warming”.
She says that BEST’s research actually shows that there has been no increase in world temperatures for 13 years.
She has called Prof Muller’s comments “a huge mistake” and has said that she now plans to discuss her future on the project with him. “There is no scientific basis for saying that global warming hasn’t stopped,” she says.
“To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.” New research also seems to back up Prof Curry rather than Prof Muller.
A report published by the Global Warming Foundation, which is based on BEST’s findings, includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past 10 years and it is absolutely flat, suggesting that temperatures have remained constant.
This issue is crucial because the levels of carbon dioxide in the air have continued to rise rapidly over the last decade and if temperatures have remained constant during that period it would suggest there is no direct link between carbon gas emissions and global warming.
Previously carbon dioxide emissions – from the burning of fossil fuels and from deforestation – have been considered one of the biggest causes of climate change, the most damaging effects of which are thought to be the melting of the polar ice caps and the rise in sea levels as well as an increase in extreme weather events such as floods and droughts.
“Whatever it is that is going on here it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by carbon dioxide,” says Prof Curry.
Read full UK Express article here.
An increase in carbon dioxide, which every human exhales, and most plants thrive on, together with no causative effect on global temperatures, seems to me to be a win win scenario.
It is time to relegate Al Gore to the garbage bin.
Excerpt: In a serious clash of scientific experts Prof Curry has accused Prof Muller of trying to “hide the decline in rates of global warming”.
She says that BEST’s research actually shows that there has been no increase in world temperatures for 13 years.
She has called Prof Muller’s comments “a huge mistake” and has said that she now plans to discuss her future on the project with him. “There is no scientific basis for saying that global warming hasn’t stopped,” she says.
“To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.” New research also seems to back up Prof Curry rather than Prof Muller.
A report published by the Global Warming Foundation, which is based on BEST’s findings, includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past 10 years and it is absolutely flat, suggesting that temperatures have remained constant.
This issue is crucial because the levels of carbon dioxide in the air have continued to rise rapidly over the last decade and if temperatures have remained constant during that period it would suggest there is no direct link between carbon gas emissions and global warming.
Previously carbon dioxide emissions – from the burning of fossil fuels and from deforestation – have been considered one of the biggest causes of climate change, the most damaging effects of which are thought to be the melting of the polar ice caps and the rise in sea levels as well as an increase in extreme weather events such as floods and droughts.
“Whatever it is that is going on here it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by carbon dioxide,” says Prof Curry.
Read full UK Express article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
