Thursday, April 30, 2009

Team Obama's Katrina Moment?

It's kind of ironic that I was on here just the other day reflecting on the polio epidemic of the early 1960's. Those vaccines on sugar cubes were a common visual on the news. We've become used to not having to dodge what used to be common childhood diseases. Measles, mumps, whooping cough, diptheria, cholera, and more were avoided by entire generations by the invention of vaccines. But now we have two groups who avoid getting vaccines. One group is educated, but misinformed. They have been led to believe, despite numerous studies to the contrary, that autism is caused by vaccinations. This has been disproved, but the folks in the organic crowd still embrace this dangerous outdated notion. The other group are illegal aliens and their children. There are plenty of free clinics that give shots to kids NO QUESTIONS ASKED. But truthfully, if you can buy a forged birth certificate, social security card and more, what makes you think that these kids have valid and current medical records and vaccinations? It's not a big secret that this virus is showing up largely in the Hispanic community. And that is because THIS THING STARTED IN MEXICO!!!

Back when I had measles when I was a kid, I was kept in a dark room for two weeks. When I had chicken pox when I was in first grade, I stayed home for two weeks (I waved over the fence to the kids who had to go to school that second week). We've forgotten the need to keep infected people, especially children, away from others because we have become so complacent in regards to health and healing. My mother remembers two siblings between her and her little brother who died of cholera in the early part of the 1900's. It hasn't been that long in historic terms since we have had sweeping viral infections such as this. But this time around, the people who should be taking charge and isolating those infected, are instead refusing to act. Why are the borders still open? Believe me, if Mexico were next to Canada, those gates would come down and there would be Mounties on every road. If Mexico was next to France, they would call in the Foreign Legion to man the barricades. So why is it that the United States of America has to leave our borders open to allow undocumented, infected people to come here and cost us more in money and lives via this illness?

Is this Team Obama's "Katrina Moment?" I think so. As I have said before, we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11, attacked by Global Economists last year, and now I think we are under attack by Third World adventurers who see us as the Golden Goose. We already have unemployement and downsizing. What good will closing schools and forcing parents to stay home do? At what point do we say ENOUGH?

Monday, April 27, 2009

TOTUS1.png - myFOX DFW Community Photo - KDFW FOX 4 viewer submitted news, photos, video and more.

TOTUS1.png - myFOX DFW Community Photo - KDFW FOX 4 viewer submitted news, photos, video and more.

Texas Aims To Take Art Out

While many of the performing and visual arts teachers are
aware of this action, others may not be. Let me make a plea
here, fine arts are the fabric that holds together our
society. While we need engineers and doctors and lawyers,
there is not one thing you wear, drive or live in that
didn't have a designer plan it out. Divergent thinking is a
higher order skill. As fine art educators, we deal with them
every day. So please consider contacting your state
representatives. It may just be art now, but what will it be
two years, five years or ten years down the road?

If you believe fine arts should continue to be required for
graduation because it is important to the overall education
of Texas schoolchildren and you believe that if the
legislature doesn’t require fine arts they will be sending
school districts the wrong message about its importance, you
need to call your Senator’s and Representative’s capitol
offices. Ask them to vote no on SB3 and HB3 unless fine arts
is kept as a graduation requirement (as is required in the
current Recommended Program). This notification is urgent as
Senate Bill 3 is expected on the floor Wednesday, April 29.

Find your Senator’s and Representative’s Capitol Office Numbers


* The current one-credit fine arts graduation
requirement will be eliminated if the Senate and House pass
their current committee substitutes for Senate Bill 3 and
House Bill 3 (the new accountability bills).
* Senate Bill 3 is expected to go to the floor on
Wednesday, April 29.
* The bills include revisions to the Recommended Program
for graduation. The revised program (commonly referred to as
the 4x4+2) will require a student to take four years each of
math, science, English Language Arts, and Social Studies
plus two years of foreign language. The other eight credits
in the 26-credit plan will be academic electives. After more
than twenty years, there will be no fine arts credit
requirement for graduation from Texas public high schools.
* Without a fine arts requirement, many students will
never experience rigorous, meaningful instruction in the arts.

You may select from the following talking points for why a
fine arts requirement is important as well as add your own:

1. Supports Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
(THECB) Fine Arts Graduation Requirement: Currently, the
THECB requires three credits of fine arts for a student to
graduate with a baccalaureate degree from a Texas
institution. To not include a fine arts requirement in high
school is philosophically counter to this requirement. With
no high school requirement, there would be no fine arts
required for students in public school after grade five. A
4x4+2 plan does not support a seamless K-16 education for
Texas students.
2. Supports Leading Business and Technology Author Dan
Pink’s Philosophy of 21st Century Workforce Training:
Twenty-first century work skill development should be the
driving force behind our education system moving forward in
Texas. As Pink details in his best-selling book, A Whole New
Mind-Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future, while
“left-brain” abilities are absolutely necessary, that
dominance is gone and the workforce of the future belongs to
a different kind of person with a different kind of mind -
creative and empathetic “right-brain” thinkers. Rigorous
instruction in fine arts is a major component of this
workforce development.
3. Impact on Minority and Low Socioeconomic Students:
There is a genuine concern that these students, with no
required exposure to fine arts in middle school or high
school, will simply be channeled into courses focused on
TAKS or end-of-course performance and not clearly given
their options to explore fine arts, an area of study that
may keep them in school and encourage successful academic
performance in other subjects.
4. Aligns Texas Requirements with Federal Legislation:
The current core academic subjects defined in No Child Left
Behind include mathematics, science, English language arts,
social studies, languages other than English, and fine arts.
Requiring a fine arts credit aligns Texas with NCLB as well
as the core subjects of P21 - The Partnership for 21st
Century Skills.
5. Aligns with the College Board Publication, "Academic
Preparation for College - What Students Need To Know And Be
Able to Do": This College Board document defines the basic
academic subjects as English language arts, fine arts,
mathematics, science, social studies, and foreign language.
6. Creates Flexibility: Even with a fine arts credit
requirement, the Recommended Program will provide for seven
academic electives from the foundation and enrichment
subject areas versus the 3.5 elective options in the current
Recommended Program.
7. Offers Broad-Based Academic Experiences: Fine arts is
a subject area offering students the opportunity to explore
a variety of academic disciplines through state approved
courses in music, art, theater and dance. The arts options
are expansive and diverse unlike the other current required
enrichment subjects such as communications applications and
physical education which are singular or limited course
offerings. One ISD includes over forty TEKS-based fine arts
courses in its course catalogue.
8. Supports Texas Education Code (TEC) Objectives: Adding
a fine arts credit requirement supports a “well balanced and
appropriate education” as called for in Objective 4 of
Section 4.001 of the TEC.
9. Supports Student Success: Based on a TMEA study of TEA
data, students who participate in fine arts courses
demonstrate higher achievement in other academic areas,
better attendance records, and lower drop-out rates than
students who do not participate in fine arts.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Swine Flu: Just a Dry Run?

Remember 9/11? Of course you do. Pearl Harbor? Sure.

But there are other types of attacks that can be used to bring a nation to its knees.

You can damage it economically by manipulating the markets.

You can flood the country with people that cannot be identified who can do things under the invisibility of anonymity.

You can allow sick people to fly from one nation to another and spread disease.

For those of you that don't remember, we no longer regularly have outbreaks of diseases like measles and cholera and diptheria here in the United States because we require our kids to be inoculated. Yet every year, there are flare ups. And most of those cases are in communities with large immigrant populations. We similarly see many food borne diseases spread by workers that are not well educated in the necessary hygiene to avoid contamination. And now we have a swine flu outbreak that seems to have originated in Mexico City and come north to San Antonio. I don't think that is a coincidence. SA, Houston and Dallas have all become destination cities for traveling immigrants from Mexico. That they come here and spread disease is just another disturbing trend. If you will read back to the days of Ellis Island, incoming immigrants would sometimes be quarantined for a period to make sure that they didn't carry any dangerous germs into the population. We still do that with many animals, as do many other countries. With all that is going on today, shouldn't the CDC ask the INS to take more care investigating those people who come in via plane, train or auto and outstay visas? Maybe they are just trying to mix in, but it could be that they are sick and spreading serious diseases to other people. I remember the polio outbreak in west Texas when I was young. People died. Instead of worrying about some terrorist that got his feelings hurt by wearing underpants on his head, maybe we should look to our food safety and our health safety. All it takes is one guy infected with small pox or plague and we have a real problem on our hands. And who says this isn't a dry run for a bigger event?

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Newspaper Bailouts?!!!!!

Here's the deal. We have a free press. Because they are part of the free enterprise system, they produce a product without interference or direction of any government local, state or federal. The idea is that this freedom from interference gives the media a chance to offer unbiased and independent observations on the job that our elected officials are doing. Or at least that used to be the plan.

With the advent of the narrowing of the news pipeline, as major newspapers fire staff writers and simply copy and paste whatever McLatchey, CNN, AP or other news sources produce, there are some glaring disconnects coming into view. First of all, with less eyes on the situation, it's easier for shady or outright illegal acts to be committed. There are fewer folks to pay off, fewer people to fool. And that's dangerous when you are dealing with powerful people. Secondly, this narrowing of the pipeline has also reduced the diversity of thought editorially and the independence of writing in both editorial and newstory content. The result is that while some readers readily embrace the newspapers even when what the publish is misleading or out and out lies, many of the reading public simply avoid reading newspapers and seek out sources that offer far more balanced and timely reporting.

The final issue has to do with the theme for this week. Every ad, every announcement, every public proclamation has some Earth Week trumped up tie in. So if we have electronic media, which is more instantaneous and has more penetration into the reading market, why are we wasting trees printing daily newspapers? And if this is such an "ungreen" enterprise, why is the government now seeking to subsidize these newspapers for the duration?

This also gets into a "biting the hand that feeds you" scenario. Will publishers and writers dare to call foul on any government enterprise or action if that same government is stabilizing their right to exist? I'm sorry, but I don't think having an American version of Pravda with all the mindless synchophancy that implies is the answer to what the Founding Father meant when they championed a free press and the right to free speech that are supposed to be part of what makes American great.

Excerpt from the column linked in the headline:

Influential Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks has hung up her journalistic hat and joined the Obama administration, but not before penning a public proposal calling for some radical ideas to help bail out the failing news industry.

Brooks, who has taken up a post as an adviser at the Pentagon, advocated upping "direct government support for public media" and creating licenses to govern news operations.

"Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off," she wrote in her parting column on April 9.

Brooks said this would help rescue the industry from a "death spiral" and left the government unaccountable to the journalists who must keep it honest. "[I] can't imagine anything more dangerous than a society in which the news industry has more or less collapsed," she wrote...."

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Concerned About the EPA's Power Grab?

Here's where YOU CAN COMMENT.
  • Email:
  • Fax: 202.566.1741
  • Snail mail:
    Environmental Protection Agency
    EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC)
    Mailcode 6102T
    Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171
    1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC, 20460
  • In person:
    EPA Docket Center’s Public Reading Room
    EPA West Building, Room 3334
    1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20004

This Pretty Much Says It All

For those of you who don't remember, the 1970's were the period of our "malaise" so entitled by President Jimmy Carter. As the purple haze of the 1960's cleared, the 70's brought about a series of self-righteous political leftists who gained power in the face of an economic catastrophe. That crisis was engendered by the failure to support an existing monarchy in Iran, which created an oil shortage in the United States. There was odd/even rationing. There were lines. And there were political meltdowns that resonate even up until today.

In spite of the dire warnings from the Left, American did recover and move past the deer in the headlights inactivity of the liberal agenda. At that time scientists were warning of the impending new Ice Age. They also said it was immoral to marry and have children, which in turn led to a generation of DINK's whose only needs were to spend money on themselves. This type of economic navel gazing is what created the Entitled Generation that feels it is owed the good things in life just because it exists. Do you not wonder why so many Boomer generation celebrities eschewed marriage which in turn created a fashionable acceptance of living together over marriage as an institution?

At any rate, do read this column. It is very wise. and I am sure the writer will be on an enemies list soon and forbidden to write such things.

Environmental Power Grab: When Is a Tax Not a Tax?

"...Many business leaders argue - as did President Bush - that the Clean Air Act is ill suited to deal with climate change and that regulating carbon dioxide would hamstring economic growth...

"It will require a huge cascade of (new clean air) permits" and halt a wide array of projects, from building coal plants to highway construction, including many at the heart of President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan, said Bill Kovacs, a vice president for environmental and technology issues at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. . . .

An internal EPA planning document that surfaced recently suggests the agency would like to have a final endangerment finding by mid-April. But officials have made clear actual regulations are unlikely to come immediately and involve a lengthy process with public comment.

Gibbs, when asked about the EPA document Monday, emphasized that "the president has made quite clear" that he prefers to have the climate issue addressed by Congress as part of a broad, mandatory limit on heat-trapping emissions...."Full story here

On the surface the declaration by the EPA that CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas responsible for pollution seems like an innocuous statement. I mean we have heard it over and over and the debate has straggled on for years. But this time around, it has serious economic implications. By using this measure to control the production by factories or generating plant, the government through the EPA is putting us on notice that they intend to either exact payment in kind-which are basically more taxes, or that they will ration production through limiting supply to power. And this is just another clear case of the EPA trying to do political things through legislative fiat.

First of all, this will negatively impact manufacturing by adding surcharges or penalties for those entities seen as CO2 creators. That means that most gas and coal power generation facilities would see surcharges on top of those already levied by governments at the local, state and federal levels. Have you looked at your phone bill or energy bill lately? While you may pay a base rate for the actual service, there are charges upon charges added on to that final amount. So while it may not be an actual tax, it has the same effect of diminishing your ability to prosper in this American society.

Secondly, this will have serious impacts on the part of the nation that has extremely hot summers. Those regions naturally produce high CO2 amounts because of the heat. While those of us in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and other warm climates would love to control this, must of it has to do with weather-which despite the best efforts of environmental groups, we do not control. Likewise those of us along the border must also contend with Mexico. Traditional farmers annually burn off winter remains in the fields to create a more fertile field for spring planting. Clouds of smoke will cross into the United States and there is nothing we can do about it. But we deal with the smoke and the resulting higher ozone days. Those count against us with the EPA and bring down heavier sanctions and actions. Unless the feds are willing to tell Mexico to knock it off, how can we fall into compliance even under the best of circumstances?

Third, this is an economic power grab. Already this administration has shown that it is more than willing to grab control of industries. They have done so with banking, and have even shown umbrage that the banks that have managed to staunch their bleeding red ink want to pay back the TARP loans. They now virtually control two of the Big Three automakers going so far as to pick and choose who will lead them. And now they seek to control Big Oil. Please don't think that this isn't carefully planned. As I wrote earlier, economists realize that every economic downturn was the results of a precipitous rise in oil prices. At some point I think it behooves us to ask who is controlling the price and if they are doing so to effect economic havoc and to virtually control the political destiny of the United States.

If you look at this president and who has economically supported his candidacy, it's a very troubling scene. We have an outsider billionaire who has made money on the fall of Wall Street by betting against us. This same man is also the funding for and last year's winner in the election. While I am not much of a conspiracy nut, I know that all history is "cause and effect". So while the media has narrowed its message, I have to ask for what cause. Why is the media currently so obviously biased toward policies that are socialist? Why has the news pipeline narrowed to the point that some news which is non-news makes headlines and other more critical news is buried? When you looked at newspapers headlines on April 16th, why did some newspapers feature the Tea Party Rallies and why did other bury them in the business section? Is there a fear that more people are concerned about this administration's policies than the media wants to believe and therefore they are self-censoring any message contrary to the popular view? Isn't that in total opposition to the idea of a free press and free speech? And what of the "Fairness" bill wherein a sponsor is married to a man who is a producer for liberal radio talk shows? Why isn't the media talking about these things? What do they have to gain-or to lose?

If you find these trends troubling, you are not alone. That was the message of the Tax Day Tea Parties. The power grab cited above is but the tip of a very large menacing iceberg. It is going to require people getting out of the comfort zone and daring to talk to others about what is happening and why. The current president has said he won't raise taxes. But a surcharge, a fee, a penalty charge are all money coming out of your pockets and when the government takes money it doesn't always get spent where it needs to go. Instead of a PBS style liberalism, we are in the early stages of a major attempt to subvert the Constitution. There is something going on here, and I am not sure that it is for our own good.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

You Could Be a Global Warming Victim....

In yet another attempt to expand the list of victims from outside the norm sources, the Feds are now teaming up with the Greens to allow folks to press lawsuits against the federal government-yes, that our taxes at risk-if they see themselves as "victims" of Global Warming. So I guess if I get a really bad sunburn, or if my housepaint peels off or if my eyes water on an especially hot day, I can file. But here's a twist I just thought of, what if I claim to be a victim of Global Warming because the price of gas with added taxes makes it impossible for me to work? I think we should all aim for that type of claim....

"...Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it - from beachfront property owners to asthmatics - for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill.

Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.

"You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm's risk," said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The bill was written by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat. Both lawmakers declined repeated requests for comment..."

PS. Doesn't it make you a teenzie bit suspicious when the writers of a bill refuse to discuss it? What other surprises will we find? And will we find that some of Waxman's California celebrity supporters are first in line for assistance?

Full article HERE

Who Runs Things Part II: George Soros

George Soros is the man who would like to be But he's not a native, and he has a checkered personal past considering that the British don't allow him to trade on their shores due to manipulations designed to bring down the British pound. He's got lots of money, and lots of power and he funds socialist causes and candidates. He's publicly stated that he desires the US to become a socialist nation, despite the failure of similar nations to thrive economically. He has wealthy friends in places like the Middle East-the place were all the oil comes from. When you consider these relationships in tandem with the earlier story that contrary to popular opinion, it was the precipitous climb of oil pricing that created this meltdown, you have to wonder who he talked to, what they did and if all of this from the economic meltdown to the election of Obama was part of a bigger agenda. I say yes. So if black helicopters come and get me tonight, you will know what happened. I'm just joking. Kind of. Muckety Map linked in headline.

Borrowers and Lenders: The Fight

Suppose you lent someone some money. You would want it paid back- the sooner, the better, right? So if your creditor turned around and said they now had the money to pay you back much sooner than anticipated, you would be pleased. But that's not the way it works with Team Obama. Several banks have managed to adjust and survive. They want to return the money given them in TARP loans. You would think this was a sign of positive economic activity, but wait. Team Obama doesn't WANT the money back. In fact they so much don't want it back that they are imposing over the top surcharges if the banks return the money too soon.

One has to ask WHY? As a taxpayer, I want this money back in government coffers ASAP. So here's the catch, the TARP funds were never, ever about the money. They were about CONTROL. Team Obama wants to control the banking industry just as they are now nearly controlling the automotive industry. They want to say who gets the money, who doesn't and they want to know that they can impact through penalties, taxes and surcharges, the cost of doing business. This will affect the amount of money businesses can use, or the loans they can float. As we have already seen, the lack of ready access money has a dampering effect on economic growth. By putting what amounts to a VAT on loans-because banks will not absorb these added costs, they will tack them onto loans as fees-this effectively diminishes profit. That means less expansion, fewer jobs created and little room for research and development-both costly chunks of innovative manufacturing in the 21st century.

But don't take my word for it...Read this

"...President Obama emerged from a meeting with his senior economic advisers on Friday to say “what you’re starting to see is glimmers of hope across the economy.” But there were also signs of growing tensions between the White House and the nation’s banks over the next phase of the financial rescue.

Some of the healthier banks want to pay back their bailout loans to avoid executive pay and other restrictions that come with the money. But the banks are balking at the hefty premium they agreed to pay when they took the money.

Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, and two other executives of large banks raised the issue with Mr. Obama and the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, at a meeting two weeks ago.

“This is a source of considerable consternation,” said Camden R. Fine, who attended the White House meeting as president of the Independent Community Bankers, a trade group of 5,000 mostly smaller institutions, many of which are complaining about the repayment requirements.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration wants weaker banks to move more quickly to relieve their balance sheets of the toxic assets, the home loans and mortgage bonds that nobody wants to buy right now. But the banks are resisting because they would have to book big losses.

Finally, there is increasing anxiety in the industry that the administration could use the stress tests of the 19 biggest banks, due to be completed in the next three weeks, to insist on management changes, just as it did with General Motors when officials forced the resignation of its chief executive after examining that company’s books..."

Friday, April 10, 2009

Pride With Prejudice

It took them awhile, but the Washington Times finally got around to analyzing and yes, CRITICIZING President Obama's unprecedented and uncalled for bow to the Saudi King. This goes far beyond respect to another culture and into the area of fealty. Since when did the Middle East "own" us? From all appearances, since November, would be the answer. At any rate, read the column below: Column HERE

"...In a shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate, President Obama bowed to Saudi King Abdullah at the Group of 20 summit in London last week.

Mr. Obama later said in Strasbourg, France, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect." Symbolism is important in world affairs. By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the U.S. president belittled the power and independence of the United States.

The bow was an extraordinary protocol violation. Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king's subjects, not his peer. There is no precedent for U.S. presidents bowing to Saudi or any other royals. Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt shook hands with Saudi King Abdulaziz in February 1945. Granted, Mr. Roosevelt was wheelchair-bound, but former President Dwight D. Eisenhower shook hands when he first met King Saud in January 1957. Mr. Obama's bow to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques does not help his image with those who believe he is secretly a Muslim, and why he chose to bow only to the Saudi King and not to any other royals remains unexplained.

No Americans of any station are required to bow to royalty. It is one of the pillars of American exceptionalism that our country rejected traditional caste divisions. Article I Section 9 of the Constitution forbids titles of nobility and stipulates that no officeholder or government employee may "accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state" without the consent of Congress. Judith Martin wrote in her Miss Manners column in 2001 that bowing "is not an ordinary bit of foreign etiquette one might adopt out of courtesy when traveling. ... Americans do not properly bow to any royalty. We show respect for other countries' leaders the same way we do to our own."

Press outlets have been conspicuously silent on Mr. Obama's bow. Compare this to the New York Times' reaction when former President Bill Clinton inclined a bit too far when meeting Japanese Emperor Akihito in 1994. According to the Gray Lady, "The image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent president, and the Emperor of Japan." Former President George W. Bush received thorough press attention after being photographed holding hands with then-Crown Prince Abdullah in 2005. "It clearly strikes a nerve," CBS News reported, while David Letterman satirized Mr. Bush as "officially the gayest president since Lincoln." These two cases were tame compared to Mr. Obama's full-out genuflection, which makes us wonder why it is not worthy of comment.

Mr. Obama is proving that one can be elected president without knowing how to behave presidentially. His servile gesture was fully fitting with the tone of his humility tour of Europe. In his eagerness to be loved personally, the president has lost sight of the fact that the leader of the free world also must be respected...."

So those Key Points again would be:

  • The bow was a protocol violation
  • No Americans of any station are required to bow to royalty.
  • It is one of the pillars of American esceptionalism that our country has rejected traditional caste systems.
  • Americans do not properly bow to any royalty. We show respect for other countries' leaders the same way we do to our own.
  • The press has been conspicuously silent on Mr. Obama's bow.
  • In his eagerness to be loved personally, the president has lost sight of the fact that the leader of the free world must also be RESPECTED.

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Who or What Caused the Recession?

It's an interesting question because our president is APOLOGIZING to the rest of the world, virtually claiming it was all our fault. But wait a minute, we weren't in recession until the last quarter of 2008, while the countries that were in deepest recession had been seeing the signs since late in 2007. So what gives? Furthermore, the nations in deep recession get relatively little in trade from the United States and hold very few securities that are nationally based. While Washington is donning sackcloth and ashes, bowing to heads of twelfth century nations for appeasement, it might be a little more prudent to consider this following factoid:

"...In 1983, economist James Hamilton of the University of California at San Diego showed that "all but one of the US recessions since World War Two have been preceded, typically with a lag of around three-fourths of a year, by a dramatic increase in the price of crude petroleum." The years 1946 to 2007 saw 10 dramatic spikes in the price of oil -- each of which was soon followed by recession..."

So by that reasoning, it's not the corporations that caused the economy to fail, it was the high price of crude oil. We can't drill much domestically, thanks to the green idiots who don't know a damned thing about modern drilling technology. So it has to be the brunt of the failure should be placed at the doors of those who drilled for and leveraged up the price per barrel on crude oil That, incidentally would include the Saudi Royal Family, the same ones that President Obama bowed in deference to despite over 200 years of protocol that says WE DON'T BOW TO KINGS. I have to wonder if there are wheels within wheels here. I have long suspected that the market's failure was a manipulation. I also know that one of the world's leading market manipulators is George Soros, a man who wants America to be Socialist and who funded You just have to wonder who knew what when. And if they did this deliberately to destroy America and tranform it into some utopian ideal on our dime.

This Is Another Fine Mess You've Gotten Us Into

NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap

Acid-rain countermeasures could drown London

New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.

NASA graphic showing temperature trends vis-a-vis clean air rules

Acid rain fixed, woo! Hey, what's that gurgling sound?

Shindell's research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:

Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

Meanwhile, levels of black-carbon aerosols (soot, in other words) have been rising, largely driven by greater industrialisation in Asia. Soot, rather than reflecting heat as sulphates do, traps solar energy in the atmosphere and warms things up.

The Arctic is especially subject to aerosol effects, says Shindell, because the planet's main industrialised areas are all in the northern hemisphere and because there's not much precipitation to wash the air clean.

"Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases," says Shindell.

Just as an aside, how many coal fired generators and factories have been sited for environmental infractions or shut down entirely in detriment to job, revenue and economic gains? I know that some Texas mayors managed to kill the building of two clean coalburning generators a couple of years back. So while all these greenies are patting themselves on the back, isn't it beginning to look like they were more superstitious than authorotative on their commands about what a modern civilization must do and do without in order to "save the world?"

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

"The New Diplomacy: Capitulation"

This following excerpt came from a piece discussing the recent trip by Team Obama to the G20. It should be noted that it has long been a policy of presidents to leave the country for glitzy overseas tours on the heels of bad news domestically. Seeing that Gates is cutting defense spending at a time when Team Obama is ramping up for Afghanistan makes little sense. It also has the double whammy of disrupting the manufacturing process due to shutdowns and putting yet more people out of work. It may look good on paper, and it may make the Leftist Doves in Congress happy, but to the rest of the world it smells of surrender and defeat. It's Jimmy Carter's "Malaise" all over again. Pair that with his obvious gaffes such as BOWING TO A KING and APOLOGIZING FOR AMERICA and you have a guy who thinks every problem in the world is caused by US and that we must shell out money to solve them all. I don't know if he realizes that there is an end to this bottomless pit, but you can't keep dishing out money and not limiting anything else. He won't cut spending, he won't enforce illegal immigration laws, he won't listen to anyone and he won't reel in Pelosi and Reid. It almost seems like we are going to have to see massive unemployment coupled with riots in the streets before these Ivory Tower Stuffed Shirts change their tunes. And by then it may be too late.....
"...The leaders of Europe came naked to the Nato meeting last weekend, shorn of the cover provided by Bush-hatred. As the American commentator Robert Kagan puts it: "George W Bush did the Europeans a great favour by giving them the best excuse for inaction in transatlantic history." Europe's leaders have always claimed they would co-operate with America in all things, were it not for that toxic Texan with his unilateralist belief in spreading democracy and free markets.

Barack Obama persuades Nato allies to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan

Well, George W Bush is safely back in Texas, Barack Obama wants to listen as well as lead, and Michelle Obama, after a touchy-feely visit with the Queen, proved to have more crowd-appeal than Carla Bruni. One astute observer told me that British and European crowds "went weak-kneed in the presence of the Obamas". But popularity on the streets means little in the conference room.

At the Nato meetings, "weak-kneed" took on an added meaning – no significant permanent deployment of fighting troops to aid the Americans. Obama was prepared for the turn-down, although he did harbour the illusion that in the end Gordon Brown would come up with more than a few poll-watchers. After all, the President had gone out of his way to sprinkle some of his stardust on the embattled Prime Minister. Unfortunately, Obama had not been briefed by Tony Blair on Brown's capacity for gratitude.

Turkey was a somewhat better stopover for the travelling President, who had no specific requests that could be turned down. The persistently fawning New York Times reported that the President was "showing more self-confidence each day on his maiden overseas trip as President", although how Obama could show more self-confidence than he already has is difficult to imagine: this is a man confident in self to a point that is slightly unnerving.

Obama had won favour with European audiences by proclaiming that America has shown inadequate respect for Europe's accomplishments. So he carried his I-am-not-George-Bush campaign to Ankara by implying that the US bears responsibility for "the difficulties of these last few years" between Muslim countries and America. No need to mention the World Trade Centre, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole or his support in the Senate for labelling as "genocide" the killing of Armenian Christians by Ottoman Turks. More politic to support Turkey's application for membership in the EU, despite a mind-your-own-business warning from President Sarkozy, who earlier agreed to accept one – yes, one – of the 245 Guantánamo detainees because that is "what being allies is about'..." Link is in headline

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Who Runs This Country: Part I-Pelosi


I thought you would find this link interesting. If you click on the various parts, you can see linked relationships. You can do this yourself at linked in the headline. If you click on the names it expands to open new connections. Note her close association with Planned Parenthood.

Saturday Night Live Slams Obama Takeover of US Business (Barney Frank Suggests All Business be Subject to the Government)

Saturday Night Live Slams Obama Takeover of US Business (Barney Frank Suggests All Business be Subject to the Government)

Saturday, April 04, 2009

And They Think We Aren't Serious....

Date Night's a Little Different In Cali

Imagine that you send you daughter to college. You warn her of the dangers of accepting drinks from strangers. You tell her to lock her door. You tell her to travel in groups late at night. But do you tell her to avoid an on campus, student organization funded movie? And furthermore, do you tell her not to go, or worry that she goes with a date and how her date might respond? Well, maybe you should. Here's the story, I have provided a link as well as an excerpt. And I have just one final question-In the face of the many many MANY student rules regarding exploitation of the women on college campuses, isn't it rather hypocritical to allow pornography to be played on campus, with campus funding to students who may be under the age of 21? Do we not have enough problems with date rape and such on college campuses or do we need more incentive? And for every one of you who wants to post how porn is not a trigger for rape, consider that most rapists have porn in their possession when arrested. Just like pot, it may not hook everyone on drugs, but porn can cause some people to lose control. And I don't think that's beneficial to coed living arrangements on college campuses.


"DAVIS, Calif. — If all goes as planned tonight, hundreds of students at the University of California, Davis, will watch a $10 million pornographic movie in a chemistry lecture hall, the periodic table of elements hanging above their heads.

It's been a long time since adult movies of the 1970s — "Behind the Green Door" and "Deep Throat" — roiled university campuses.

Today's college students have virtually unlimited access to pornography on their computers. Many see nothing thrilling about an X-rated movie on campus.

UC Davis administrators aren't objecting, saying the university doesn't censor student events.

So why is the campus's Entertainment Council – the student group that organizes films and concerts at UC Davis – screening "Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge?"

Part of the answer comes from Digital Playground, the Van Nuys adult entertainment company that made the swashbuckling tale of lust and adventure on the high seas. The movie – reportedly the most expensive porn film ever made – combines computer-generated images with hardcore sex scenes..."

Full Story here

This Is What Our President Thinks of Us

For all those who said that Obama's administration would be a renaissance for the US, consider the following word:

"Addressing a crowd of some 2,000 mainly students from France and Germany, Mr Obama said: In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world..."-

Yep, that's it. We didn't have anything to do with winning WWII. We didn't liberate France or save the UK from the devastation of the German bombardment. We were just guys who happened to be hanging around. Europe runs the world. All of industry and innovation comes from Europe which is why so many folks seek to emigrate to Europe, right?

Wrong. If that's the case then why do we see so many people seeking political and economic asylum in the freedom of the American lifestyle? Why are so many Mexican, Guatamalans, Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese moving here rather than Europe? Yet Obama maintains that Europe is the engine that makes this little planet tick. Let's consider for a few minutes the numerous organizations largely funded by US dollars. How about the UN? We pay the majority of the costs for that largely anti-American organization. How about UNESCO? We fund that. What about Red Cross? That's funded heavily by the American government. What about the countless programs that domestically support the indigent and ill even when they aren't residents here? And frankly, look back to international disasters and who do they call? France? Germany? No, they call US. They call the United States because we have the will and the way to make things happen. But our "Dear Leader" would have the world believe that we are lank also-rans incapable of walking down the street without a keeper. Is this what you expect of your elected leader? Or do you expect him to hold his head up as the leader of a sovereign nation that owes nothing to such pumped up puppets as the Saudi Royal Family? To bow before men who are slaveholders and misogynists is to say that you approve. So what's next? Will Team Obama insist on dipping the US flag at next year's Winter Olympics? Will we tie our economy into the Euro? Anything is possible. And remember, those who chose not to ask the hard questions voted for this guy. They have no room to complain as he dismantled our economy and makes us into a pallid doppelganger of our past glory.

What Does Canada Know That We Don't?

Well they know this....
They know that despite the best efforts of the administration support team, this administration is in big trouble politically. Many who voted for Obama feel that they've been flimflammed. Others feel that he was so busy being all things to all people that he ends up being a talking head. Maybe he should have listened to the words of his alleged muse:
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time."

Taking One For the Team?

So now Blagojevich has passed being impeached and moved onto indictment. This takes the whole situation to a different level. Do you think Blago will take one for the team? Or since most weasels when cornered are cowards, do you think he will spill his guts to get a plea-bargain? And when that happens, will the Congress censure Burris-who should never have been seated to begin with? Will Rahm Emmanuel's name come up? What about President Obama? He was deeply involved in Illinois politics, he had to be to get the nomination. Believe me, favors were called in. So does this story escalate, or do the combined forces of the mainstream nutroots media and the power of the Obama Administration collude on hiding the facts? At that point, don't we have the same type of obstruction of justice that brought down many other political creatures?

This is going to be interesting......

Lower Or Higher?

Here's an explanation of taxes and revenue.

TAXES by definition are the sums taken from individuals, businesses and corporation based on a little thing we like to call INCOME.

INCOME is what is earned through the production of products, sales of products or services.

PROFIT is what is left over after payroll and production and tax costs have been met.

You must understand those terms to understand anything else.

IF you LOWER the INCOME made by corporations, businesses and individuals through higher TAXES, you risk the shrinkage of REVENUE as the businesses lose the funding needed to expand or just maintain productivity. That in turn means that the businesses, corporations and individuals must do more work to get the same INCOME. And if they are working a close margin of INCOME to outgo, that may mean closure of factories, businesses and outright bankruptcy by entities large and small. That's not just a bad thing for the businesses, it's a bad thing for government, because less entities to tax means that the government must either LOWER their expectations or make taxes HIGHER.

A case in point would be plastic bags. The "greenness" of plastic bags is at question so some communities think it's a good idea to ban them. But let's suppose that one of the businesses that pays taxes is a plastic bag manufacturer. And in addition, let's suppose the factory employs 1000 people. When you ban the bags, you can feel all moral and superior, but that isn't going to help the 1000 people who are out of work. It's also going to make it where remaining businesses will have to take up the slack in terms of paying taxes if governments don't want to back down on the big ticket programs. This pushes more businesses into dangerous waters, leaving more people jobless and further pushing the need for taxes HIGHER. Are you getting the idea yet? In order for things to change, our GOVERNMENTS AT ALL LEVELS MUST STOP SPENDING ON UNNECESSARY PROGRAMS. There are lots of programs which are "feel-good" programs. They look nice on paper and make people happy. One example would be PBS. Don't get me wrong, I like PBS. I have even paid some although it was mostly to stop those annoying pledge drives. But if any program, service or even artwork is truly successful, then an appreciative market will pay them for what they do. But if the programming or service doesn't appeal to anyone, people won't pay and it will go away. That's what makes businesses.

The government has no business getting into business. Frankly speaking, GM would have been in much better shape had it been allowed to restructure under the bankruptcy laws and renegotiate the ridiculous union contracts. And while we are speaking of it, I wonder if pro sports are paying any attention to the economy. The default by the Hicks Sports Group is just the tip of a very nasty iceberg. How many pro athletes are making more in a month than a cop or a teacher will in a lifetime? This is pretty indicative of the screwed up priorities our culture has produced. It's the type of Entertainment Tonight Presidency that looks good on the TV, but does very little down the road.

Lower or Higher, which way do you want to go?

Neglectful Blog Owner-Looking In the Mirror

I post quite frequently at MyFoxDFW, but since the election I haven't really had the time or the heart to blog. Personally, we were going through what most of the nation has had to endure. My husband was laid off for the first time in his life. But the good news is that his good reputation and contacts in the industry made it possible for him to get a job as a sales rep. It's a tough gig-straight commission and exploring new territory, but it's doable. And I suppose that's the message I would like to send to folks who are currently dealing with this economic crisis. You may not come out of this as rich in "things" as you were before, but as the Great Depression shaped the Greatest Generation, this has the possiblity of changing the most egocentric generation and their children into Real Adults. And isn't that really what we need in this nation?

Every Cent You Make.....