Shakedown in Copenhagen
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 12/18/2009 ET
Updated 12/18/2009 ET
If you would know what Copenhagen is all about, hearken to this nugget in The Washington Post's report from the Danish capital.
"Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenari -- who is representing all of Africa here -- unveiled his proposal Wednesday for a system in which rich countries would provide money to poor ones to help deal with the effects of climate change. ...
"Zenawi said he would accept $30 billion in the short term, rising to $100 billion by 2020. ... This was seen as a key concession by developing countries, which had previously spurned that figure ... as too low."
There was a time when a U.S. diplomat would have burst out laughing after listening to a Third World con artist like this.
But not the Obamaites. They are already ponying up.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack just pledged $1 billion at Copenhagen to developing countries who preserve their forests. Thus, America, $12 trillion in debt and facing a second straight $1.4 trillion deficit, will borrow another $1 billion from China to send to Brazil to bribe them to stop cutting down their trees.
When you slice through the blather about marooned bears and melting ice caps, oceans rising and cities sinking, global warming is a racket and a crock. It is all about money and power.
Copenhagen has always been about an endless transfer of wealth from America, Europe and Japan and creation of a global bureaucracy to control the pace of world economic and industrial development.
End game: enrichment and empowerment of global elites at the expense of Western peoples whose leaders have been bamboozled by con artists.
When Katrina hit New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and Rita came ashore in Texas in 2005, we were told this was due to global warming, and hurricane seasons would now get worse and worse until the world radically reduced the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
President Bush ignored the hysteria. What happened?
As Michael Fumento reports, the 2009 hurricane season ended quietly, with the fewest hurricanes since 1997, and not one hurricane made landfall in the United States.
When the feds sought to list the polar bear as an endangered species, Gov. Sarah Palin protested this "politicized science" and sued, claiming the polar bear was a healthy species whose numbers had doubled in recent years.
Was she wrong?
Is the Arctic ice cap melting? So we are told. But what harm has befallen mankind other than to have a Northwest Passage opened up to maritime traffic in the summer?
The Antarctic ice sheet is nine times as large as the Arctic, and here is what the British Antarctic Survey wrote last April:
"(D)uring the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above. Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade."
One hundred thousand square kilometers a decade?
This would mean Antarctic sea ice expanded by 300,000 square kilometers since the 1970s, or 116,000 square miles, which is an area larger than all of New England.
How can the Antarctic ice cap grow for three decades as the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has steadily increased, unless carbon dioxide has little or nothing to do with global warming?
Unlike the Arctic, Antarctica is a continent, and while chunks of ice are cracking off in Western Antarctica, in Eastern Antarctica, four times larger, the ice sheet is thickening and expanding. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research reported last April that the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades."
In April 1992, as the alarm over the Earth's end times began, scientists worldwide issued what was called the Heidelberg Appeal, aimed at just the kind of hysteria we are witnessing now in Copenhagen.
"We are ... worried ... at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development," said the scientists.
"We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look towards the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere. ... (H)umanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse.
"We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data."
Since then, 4,000 scientists and 72 Nobel Prize winners have signed on. Again, it needs be said: Global warming is cyclical, and has been stagnant for a decade. There is no conclusive proof it is manmade, no conclusive proof it is harmful to the planet.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The farce of global warming
Pat Buchanan has an excellent article, "The Second Battle of Copenhagen," on HumanEvents.com. The full text is below.
The Second Battle of Copenhagen
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 10/16/2009 ET
Before President Obama even landed at Andrews Air Force Base, returning from his mission to Copenhagen to win the 2016 Olympic Games, Chicago had been voted off the island.
Many shared the lamentation of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, "What has become of America, when Chicago can't steal an election?"
A second and more serious battle of Copenhagen is shaping up, in mid-December, when a world conference gathers to impose limits on greenhouse gases to stop "global warming." Primary purpose: Rope in the Americans who refused to submit to the Kyoto Protocols that Al Gore brought home in the Clinton era.
The long campaign to bring the United States under another global regime -- the newest piece in the architecture of world government -- has been flagging since 2008. Then, it seemed a lock with the election of Obama and a veto-proof Democratic Senate.
Why has the campaign stalled? Because global warming has stalled. The hottest year of modern times, 1998, came and went a decade ago.
As BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson writes: "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though manmade carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."
What this powerfully suggests is that what man does and does not do is far less responsible for climate change, if it is responsible at all, than other factors over which he has no control.
Consider. Though the emissions of carbon dioxide rose constantly throughout the 20th century -- with the industrialization of the West, Japan, Southeast Asia and, finally, China and India -- global temperatures have not risen steadily at all. They have fluctuated.
John Sununu, writing in the St. Croix Review, says the Earth underwent "cooling in the 1920s, heating in the 1930s and 1940s, cooling in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s, warming in the 1980s and 1990s, and cooling in the past decade."
But if there is no crisis, why are we even going to Copenhagen? And if there is no causal connection between carbon dioxide and global warming, what is the true cause of climate change?
Some scientists say that 98 percent of the Earth's temperature can be explained by the sun. When the sun's energy increases, a matter over which man has zero control, the Earth's temperature rises. When the sun's energy diminishes, the Earth's temperature falls.
One solar scientist, Piers Corbyn, claims to have found a link between solar charged particles hitting the Earth and global warming and cooling.
Others, like professor Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University, contend that the oceans explain climate change. As they heat and cool cyclically, the Earth heats and cools. And where the oceans were cooling for 40 years before the 1990s, they have lately been heating up. Easterbrook says these cycles tend to last for 30 years.
As Hudson notes, there are scientists who claim they have taken all these factors into consideration and insist that the Earth, over the long haul, is warming. But Hudson cites Mojib Latif of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who says we are in the first stage of a long-term cooling trend that will last another 10 to 20 years.
The anecdotal evidence almost daily contradicts Al Gore and the end-of-times environmentalists. Lately, there have been record-breaking cold spells in the Midwest and West. Snow came to Colorado this October, postponing a baseball playoff game. The hurricane season turned out to be among the mildest on record. Contrary to predictions, the polar bear population seems to be doing fine.
While the ice cap at the North Pole is receding, the Antarctic ice cap, which contains 90 percent of the world's ice, is expanding.
Moreover, receding ice in the Arctic is opening up a northwest passage from Europe to Asia. The Russians believe the immense mineral resources of the Arctic may soon be accessible. While we wring our hands, they are rushing to get them.
The mounting evidence that global warming has halted and man is not responsible for climate change has thrown the Kyoto II lobby into something of a panic. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry are re-branding the Senate cap-and-trade bill as a national security measure.
If, however, cap-and-trade, which the Congressional Budget Office says will be another blow to economic growth, can be stopped before the Copenhagen summit in December, the republic may have dodged another bullet. And the goal of the globalists -- an end to the independence and sovereignty of the United States, and the creation of a world government -- will have sustained yet another welcome postponement.
The Second Battle of Copenhagen
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 10/16/2009 ET
Before President Obama even landed at Andrews Air Force Base, returning from his mission to Copenhagen to win the 2016 Olympic Games, Chicago had been voted off the island.
Many shared the lamentation of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, "What has become of America, when Chicago can't steal an election?"
A second and more serious battle of Copenhagen is shaping up, in mid-December, when a world conference gathers to impose limits on greenhouse gases to stop "global warming." Primary purpose: Rope in the Americans who refused to submit to the Kyoto Protocols that Al Gore brought home in the Clinton era.
The long campaign to bring the United States under another global regime -- the newest piece in the architecture of world government -- has been flagging since 2008. Then, it seemed a lock with the election of Obama and a veto-proof Democratic Senate.
Why has the campaign stalled? Because global warming has stalled. The hottest year of modern times, 1998, came and went a decade ago.
As BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson writes: "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though manmade carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."
What this powerfully suggests is that what man does and does not do is far less responsible for climate change, if it is responsible at all, than other factors over which he has no control.
Consider. Though the emissions of carbon dioxide rose constantly throughout the 20th century -- with the industrialization of the West, Japan, Southeast Asia and, finally, China and India -- global temperatures have not risen steadily at all. They have fluctuated.
John Sununu, writing in the St. Croix Review, says the Earth underwent "cooling in the 1920s, heating in the 1930s and 1940s, cooling in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s, warming in the 1980s and 1990s, and cooling in the past decade."
But if there is no crisis, why are we even going to Copenhagen? And if there is no causal connection between carbon dioxide and global warming, what is the true cause of climate change?
Some scientists say that 98 percent of the Earth's temperature can be explained by the sun. When the sun's energy increases, a matter over which man has zero control, the Earth's temperature rises. When the sun's energy diminishes, the Earth's temperature falls.
One solar scientist, Piers Corbyn, claims to have found a link between solar charged particles hitting the Earth and global warming and cooling.
Others, like professor Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University, contend that the oceans explain climate change. As they heat and cool cyclically, the Earth heats and cools. And where the oceans were cooling for 40 years before the 1990s, they have lately been heating up. Easterbrook says these cycles tend to last for 30 years.
As Hudson notes, there are scientists who claim they have taken all these factors into consideration and insist that the Earth, over the long haul, is warming. But Hudson cites Mojib Latif of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who says we are in the first stage of a long-term cooling trend that will last another 10 to 20 years.
The anecdotal evidence almost daily contradicts Al Gore and the end-of-times environmentalists. Lately, there have been record-breaking cold spells in the Midwest and West. Snow came to Colorado this October, postponing a baseball playoff game. The hurricane season turned out to be among the mildest on record. Contrary to predictions, the polar bear population seems to be doing fine.
While the ice cap at the North Pole is receding, the Antarctic ice cap, which contains 90 percent of the world's ice, is expanding.
Moreover, receding ice in the Arctic is opening up a northwest passage from Europe to Asia. The Russians believe the immense mineral resources of the Arctic may soon be accessible. While we wring our hands, they are rushing to get them.
The mounting evidence that global warming has halted and man is not responsible for climate change has thrown the Kyoto II lobby into something of a panic. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry are re-branding the Senate cap-and-trade bill as a national security measure.
If, however, cap-and-trade, which the Congressional Budget Office says will be another blow to economic growth, can be stopped before the Copenhagen summit in December, the republic may have dodged another bullet. And the goal of the globalists -- an end to the independence and sovereignty of the United States, and the creation of a world government -- will have sustained yet another welcome postponement.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Sticking with the status quo
President Obama laments that so many Congressional Republicans want to stick with the status quo rather than endorse his health-care reform.
Good for them. I much prefer the status quo than what he offers. We have some problems with health care, some injustices by insurance companies, some injustices from malpractice suits, some incompetent doctors and hospital administrators - but by and large, the health care system we have now works pretty good for the majority of people, in fact, according to many polls, about 80% of us. So, there is no need for a massive overhaul of our health care system -- fix the parts that need fixing, and for goodness sake, leave the rest of it alone.
But Mr. Obama calls a select group of doctors and nurses to the White House, passes out the white coats to make them look authoritarian, and announces that doctors and nurses support his overhaul plan. Which is totally deceptive, but what can we expect from a President who won't listen to the American people, and who denigrates everyone who opposes his plan.
Good for them. I much prefer the status quo than what he offers. We have some problems with health care, some injustices by insurance companies, some injustices from malpractice suits, some incompetent doctors and hospital administrators - but by and large, the health care system we have now works pretty good for the majority of people, in fact, according to many polls, about 80% of us. So, there is no need for a massive overhaul of our health care system -- fix the parts that need fixing, and for goodness sake, leave the rest of it alone.
But Mr. Obama calls a select group of doctors and nurses to the White House, passes out the white coats to make them look authoritarian, and announces that doctors and nurses support his overhaul plan. Which is totally deceptive, but what can we expect from a President who won't listen to the American people, and who denigrates everyone who opposes his plan.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Analysis of the impact of health care reform
Newt's recent email letter exposes the dramatic (negative) effect this health care reform is going to have on most Americans. Were all of Obama's promises just lies? Or does he not know what is in the bills? Or, as some suspect, is this just getting the camel's nose in the tent, the camel being total government control of our economy? I suspect Mr. Obama and the Congress are counting on being able to withstand the backlash at the polls.
********************************************************************
With the Senate Finance Committee poised to pass health care legislation, the final contours of the bill that could come out of Congress are starting to come into focus. The bill will contain new taxes on the middle class. It will add to the deficit. And it will put government bureaucrats between Americans and their doctors, among other things.
So it’s not too early to ask the obvious question: Will President Obama veto health care reform?
It’s worth asking because so many of the costs to taxpayers the President has repeatedly promised won’t be in the legislation are, and so many of the benefits are not.
What follows is a list, in no particular order, of the contradictions between the President’s promises and the reality of Democratic health care reform. Add them up and it’s hard to see how President Obama doesn’t reject the bill Congress seems likely to send him.
Contradiction #1: From a Promise Not to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class to $2 Billion in “Penalties”
As far back as the campaign, President Obama promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000.
But an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that at least 71 percent of the individual mandate penalties in Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’s (D-MT) bill would be paid by Americans earning less than $250,000. In fact, the nonpartisan analysis found that, of the $2.8 billion in penalties the bill imposes on those who do not purchase health insurance, a full $2 billion will be paid by taxpayers earning less than $120,000 for a family of four.
The Senate Finance bill also levies $215 billion in new taxes on employers and health insurers for offering high-value insurance benefits, which will surely be passed onto all consumers.
Republicans tried to ensure that President Obama’s words would not ring hollow by offering an amendment that said: “This amendment provides that no tax, fee or penalty imposed by this legislation shall be applied to any individual earning less than $200,000 per year or any couple earning less than $250,000 per year.” Democrats defeated it.
Contradiction #2: From a Promise to Reject a Bill That “Adds One Dime to the Deficit” to $239 Billion Added to the Deficit
In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress, the President was adamant: “I will not sign [a bill] if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.”
And yet House bill H.R. 3200 will increase the deficit by an amazing $239 billion over the next decade.
The Baucus bill pretends to be deficit neutral but it’s an accounting gimmick. “It pays for itself” by forcing a new $250-300 billion unfunded mandate on the states. And it doesn’t include nearly $300 billion that will be spent to adjust physician payments in Medicare.
Contradiction #3: From a Promise That “If You Like Your Current Plan You Can Keep It” to Half of Medicare Advantage Benefits Being Cut
In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress last month and elsewhere, the President has reassured nervous Americans that if they like their current coverage, his reform will let them keep it.
Unless you happen to have Medicare Advantage, that is.
Or employer provided insurance.
The director of the nonpartisan CBO testified before the Senate that, under the Senate bill, the benefits of seniors under Medicare Advantage would be cut in half.
And an analysis of the House bill found that 88 million people will lose their current insurance under government health care.
What’s more, both bills would disrupt vision care for more than 100 million Americans.
Contradiction #4: From “If You Like Your Current Doctor You Can Keep Your Doctor” to Squeezing Doctors and Hospitals Until They Reduce Patient Access
Here’s what three doctors who are former chairmen of the American Medical Association (AMA) say about the cuts to Medicare in Democratic health reform bills:
“Now the government is saying that additional Medicare cuts are coming—thus forcing doctors to try and make up the difference in volume, by seeing more patients. If you ask patients about this, they understand that more volume means less time with the doctor. That's something that all patients and doctors should oppose. In time, it will be difficult to find a physician.”
And here’s what the executive director of the Mayo Clinic said: “We will have to violate our values in order to stay in business and reduce our access to government patients.”
Contradiction #5: From a Promise that No Government Bureaucrat Will Stand Between Patients and Doctors to a Medicare Commission With the Power to Deny Treatment
Just this week, in a speech to doctors gathered in the White House Rose Garden, President Obama reiterated his pledge not to let a Washington bureaucrat get between a patient and their doctor.
But the Senate Baucus bill creates an “Independent Medicare Commission” with the ability to deny benefits to the elderly or the disabled based on a government calculation of the costs versus the benefits.
Contradiction #6: From a Promise to “Slow the Growth of Health Care Costs For Our Families” to a New Tax on Hearing Aids, Wheel Chairs and Breakthrough Drugs
In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress, the President pledged to “slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government.”
But the Senate bill contains a tax on medical technology companies and drug makers that will raise the cost to American families for thousands of drugs and devices, including pacemakers, eyeglasses, hearing aids and powered wheelchairs.
Contradiction #7: From a Promise that Health Care Reform Will Fix the Economy to New Taxes on Small Businesses
One of President Obama’s main rationales for health care reform is that it is necessary for economic recovery.
Working against this promise is the provision in the Senate bill that will tax small businesses -- the engine of American economic growth and job creation -- that can’t afford to purchase health insurance for their employees. It’s hard to see how the economy recovers when small businesses are prevented from hiring new workers by a new government tax.
Contradiction #8: From Insuring All Americans to Leaving 25 Million Uninsured
One of President Obama’s three basic goals for health care reform is to provide insurance to those who don’t currently have it.
That’s the promise. The reality? The CBO has determined that the Senate bill will leave about 25 million nonelderly Americans uninsured.
I could go on, but I think the point is made. The differences between what Americans have been promised from health care reform and what they are getting go beyond the usual give and take of Washington.
A Congress controlled by the President’s party is producing health care legislation that blatantly contradicts his most basic, often repeated, promises.
What will the President do? Will President Obama veto health care reform?
Stay tuned.
Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
********************************************************************
With the Senate Finance Committee poised to pass health care legislation, the final contours of the bill that could come out of Congress are starting to come into focus. The bill will contain new taxes on the middle class. It will add to the deficit. And it will put government bureaucrats between Americans and their doctors, among other things.
So it’s not too early to ask the obvious question: Will President Obama veto health care reform?
It’s worth asking because so many of the costs to taxpayers the President has repeatedly promised won’t be in the legislation are, and so many of the benefits are not.
What follows is a list, in no particular order, of the contradictions between the President’s promises and the reality of Democratic health care reform. Add them up and it’s hard to see how President Obama doesn’t reject the bill Congress seems likely to send him.
Contradiction #1: From a Promise Not to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class to $2 Billion in “Penalties”
As far back as the campaign, President Obama promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000.
But an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that at least 71 percent of the individual mandate penalties in Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’s (D-MT) bill would be paid by Americans earning less than $250,000. In fact, the nonpartisan analysis found that, of the $2.8 billion in penalties the bill imposes on those who do not purchase health insurance, a full $2 billion will be paid by taxpayers earning less than $120,000 for a family of four.
The Senate Finance bill also levies $215 billion in new taxes on employers and health insurers for offering high-value insurance benefits, which will surely be passed onto all consumers.
Republicans tried to ensure that President Obama’s words would not ring hollow by offering an amendment that said: “This amendment provides that no tax, fee or penalty imposed by this legislation shall be applied to any individual earning less than $200,000 per year or any couple earning less than $250,000 per year.” Democrats defeated it.
Contradiction #2: From a Promise to Reject a Bill That “Adds One Dime to the Deficit” to $239 Billion Added to the Deficit
In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress, the President was adamant: “I will not sign [a bill] if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.”
And yet House bill H.R. 3200 will increase the deficit by an amazing $239 billion over the next decade.
The Baucus bill pretends to be deficit neutral but it’s an accounting gimmick. “It pays for itself” by forcing a new $250-300 billion unfunded mandate on the states. And it doesn’t include nearly $300 billion that will be spent to adjust physician payments in Medicare.
Contradiction #3: From a Promise That “If You Like Your Current Plan You Can Keep It” to Half of Medicare Advantage Benefits Being Cut
In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress last month and elsewhere, the President has reassured nervous Americans that if they like their current coverage, his reform will let them keep it.
Unless you happen to have Medicare Advantage, that is.
Or employer provided insurance.
The director of the nonpartisan CBO testified before the Senate that, under the Senate bill, the benefits of seniors under Medicare Advantage would be cut in half.
And an analysis of the House bill found that 88 million people will lose their current insurance under government health care.
What’s more, both bills would disrupt vision care for more than 100 million Americans.
Contradiction #4: From “If You Like Your Current Doctor You Can Keep Your Doctor” to Squeezing Doctors and Hospitals Until They Reduce Patient Access
Here’s what three doctors who are former chairmen of the American Medical Association (AMA) say about the cuts to Medicare in Democratic health reform bills:
“Now the government is saying that additional Medicare cuts are coming—thus forcing doctors to try and make up the difference in volume, by seeing more patients. If you ask patients about this, they understand that more volume means less time with the doctor. That's something that all patients and doctors should oppose. In time, it will be difficult to find a physician.”
And here’s what the executive director of the Mayo Clinic said: “We will have to violate our values in order to stay in business and reduce our access to government patients.”
Contradiction #5: From a Promise that No Government Bureaucrat Will Stand Between Patients and Doctors to a Medicare Commission With the Power to Deny Treatment
Just this week, in a speech to doctors gathered in the White House Rose Garden, President Obama reiterated his pledge not to let a Washington bureaucrat get between a patient and their doctor.
But the Senate Baucus bill creates an “Independent Medicare Commission” with the ability to deny benefits to the elderly or the disabled based on a government calculation of the costs versus the benefits.
Contradiction #6: From a Promise to “Slow the Growth of Health Care Costs For Our Families” to a New Tax on Hearing Aids, Wheel Chairs and Breakthrough Drugs
In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress, the President pledged to “slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government.”
But the Senate bill contains a tax on medical technology companies and drug makers that will raise the cost to American families for thousands of drugs and devices, including pacemakers, eyeglasses, hearing aids and powered wheelchairs.
Contradiction #7: From a Promise that Health Care Reform Will Fix the Economy to New Taxes on Small Businesses
One of President Obama’s main rationales for health care reform is that it is necessary for economic recovery.
Working against this promise is the provision in the Senate bill that will tax small businesses -- the engine of American economic growth and job creation -- that can’t afford to purchase health insurance for their employees. It’s hard to see how the economy recovers when small businesses are prevented from hiring new workers by a new government tax.
Contradiction #8: From Insuring All Americans to Leaving 25 Million Uninsured
One of President Obama’s three basic goals for health care reform is to provide insurance to those who don’t currently have it.
That’s the promise. The reality? The CBO has determined that the Senate bill will leave about 25 million nonelderly Americans uninsured.
I could go on, but I think the point is made. The differences between what Americans have been promised from health care reform and what they are getting go beyond the usual give and take of Washington.
A Congress controlled by the President’s party is producing health care legislation that blatantly contradicts his most basic, often repeated, promises.
What will the President do? Will President Obama veto health care reform?
Stay tuned.
Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
Saturday, October 3, 2009
President Obama is ashamed to be an American!
I am really tired of hearing President Obama run this country down. In his bid to get the Olympics for Chicago, he said he wanted to make the world welcome again in the US and to restore us to our values. He repeatedly says he wants to make the U.S. strong again.
Mr. Obama, the peace-loving people, law-abiding people of the world have always been welcome here.
Mr. Obama, George W. Bush has more value in his pinkie than you and Mrs. Obama combined have in your whole bodies.
We have been strong -- strong enough to prevent another 9/11 attack. Strong enough to bring down one of the world's most oppressive dictators. Strong enough to put Al Queda on the run in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Mr. Obama, if you are ashamed to be an American, then resign your position and move elsewhere.
Mr. Obama, the peace-loving people, law-abiding people of the world have always been welcome here.
Mr. Obama, George W. Bush has more value in his pinkie than you and Mrs. Obama combined have in your whole bodies.
We have been strong -- strong enough to prevent another 9/11 attack. Strong enough to bring down one of the world's most oppressive dictators. Strong enough to put Al Queda on the run in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Mr. Obama, if you are ashamed to be an American, then resign your position and move elsewhere.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Should we penalize people with bad health habits?
No, but we should reward people with good health habits with lower health insurance rates. That's the way it is in auto insurance -- no accidents and no tickets, your rates go down; accidents and tickets, your rates go up.
We reward good students with scholarships; we reward good employees with bonuses.
If you choose to engage in bad health practices, then you choose to have higher insurance premiums.
It's just good common sense. Choices have consequences. It's time we learned that lesson again.
We reward good students with scholarships; we reward good employees with bonuses.
If you choose to engage in bad health practices, then you choose to have higher insurance premiums.
It's just good common sense. Choices have consequences. It's time we learned that lesson again.
Are we marching along towards a New World Order?
Dick Morris's email today detailed the activities of the G20 summit meeting:
"While all eyes were on the rantings of Ahmadinejad at the United Nations, the United States -- under President Barack Obama -- was surrendering its economic sovereignty at the G-20 summit. The result of this conclave, which France's President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed as "revolutionary," was that all the nations agreed to coordinate their economic policies and programs and to submit them to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for comment and approval. While the G-20 nations and the IMF are, for now, only going to use "moral suasion" on those nations found not to be in compliance, talk of sanctions looms on the horizon."
"While the specific policies to which the U.S. committed itself (reducing the deficit and strengthening regulatory oversight of financial institutions) are laudable in themselves, the process and the precedent are frightening. We are to subject our most basic national economic policies to the review of a group of nations that includes autocratic Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. Even though our GDP is three times bigger than the second largest economy (Japan) and equal to that of 13 of the G-20 nations combined, we are to sit politely by with our one vote and submit to the global consensus. Europe has five votes (U.K., France, Germany, Italy and the EU) while we have but one."
National sovereignty seems to be going down the drain. We already can't do anything in the world to keep the peace without a UN resolution, and now we have the IMF overseeing our economic policies?
I know Obama isn't the first one to chip away at our national sovereignty, but it has to stop. That's why we elect a President and a Congress -- to handle our domestic AND foreign policies.
It's time to break free of these global enterprises and be our own country again!
"While all eyes were on the rantings of Ahmadinejad at the United Nations, the United States -- under President Barack Obama -- was surrendering its economic sovereignty at the G-20 summit. The result of this conclave, which France's President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed as "revolutionary," was that all the nations agreed to coordinate their economic policies and programs and to submit them to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for comment and approval. While the G-20 nations and the IMF are, for now, only going to use "moral suasion" on those nations found not to be in compliance, talk of sanctions looms on the horizon."
"While the specific policies to which the U.S. committed itself (reducing the deficit and strengthening regulatory oversight of financial institutions) are laudable in themselves, the process and the precedent are frightening. We are to subject our most basic national economic policies to the review of a group of nations that includes autocratic Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. Even though our GDP is three times bigger than the second largest economy (Japan) and equal to that of 13 of the G-20 nations combined, we are to sit politely by with our one vote and submit to the global consensus. Europe has five votes (U.K., France, Germany, Italy and the EU) while we have but one."
National sovereignty seems to be going down the drain. We already can't do anything in the world to keep the peace without a UN resolution, and now we have the IMF overseeing our economic policies?
I know Obama isn't the first one to chip away at our national sovereignty, but it has to stop. That's why we elect a President and a Congress -- to handle our domestic AND foreign policies.
It's time to break free of these global enterprises and be our own country again!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Michael Moore criticizes President Obama
Michael Moore's not too happy with President Obama -- he feels like Obama is betraying the left wing of the party, calls for Obama to be strong and get universal health care passed, i.e. a single payer, government run health care program just like Medicaid, Medicare, and other socialist programs in the United States.
Moore has a good point. Some commentators, like O'Reilly, say Obama ran on a centrist platform. He only seemed centrist because he was running against other left-wingers -- Clinton and Edwards. But Obama was the furthest left of the three. Beck has it right -- Obama said exactly what he was going to do in the campaign.
Well, almost. He backed off his pre-campaign push for a single-payer health care plan, and I suppose Moore and other lefties thought he did that only to get elected, and once in the White House, he'd go back to his single payer stance.
Why hasn't he? Because he knows it won't pass? Moore has a good point that if believe in something, stand up for it, and don't compromise. Moore thinks that Obama, as President, has the moral obligation to push what he believes, and what his big supporters thought he believed -- that's why they supported him.
I agree. A President should be true to himself. Obama revealed enough of himself during the campaign and in his pre-campaign speeches and writings that no one should be surprised that he is a marxist socialist. And I think the far left is right to be angry with Obama -- they truly thought he was going to fight for what "they" wanted, because as Moore so aptly put it, Obama is one of them.
Of course it's also very interesting that Moore is so successful in a capitalist system putting out an anti-capitalist movie. Oh, such irony!
I couldn't find a youtube on his recent criticisms of Obama, but I did find this one commenting on Obama's move to the center (which is still quite a ways to the left in my opinion).
Moore has a good point. Some commentators, like O'Reilly, say Obama ran on a centrist platform. He only seemed centrist because he was running against other left-wingers -- Clinton and Edwards. But Obama was the furthest left of the three. Beck has it right -- Obama said exactly what he was going to do in the campaign.
Well, almost. He backed off his pre-campaign push for a single-payer health care plan, and I suppose Moore and other lefties thought he did that only to get elected, and once in the White House, he'd go back to his single payer stance.
Why hasn't he? Because he knows it won't pass? Moore has a good point that if believe in something, stand up for it, and don't compromise. Moore thinks that Obama, as President, has the moral obligation to push what he believes, and what his big supporters thought he believed -- that's why they supported him.
I agree. A President should be true to himself. Obama revealed enough of himself during the campaign and in his pre-campaign speeches and writings that no one should be surprised that he is a marxist socialist. And I think the far left is right to be angry with Obama -- they truly thought he was going to fight for what "they" wanted, because as Moore so aptly put it, Obama is one of them.
Of course it's also very interesting that Moore is so successful in a capitalist system putting out an anti-capitalist movie. Oh, such irony!
I couldn't find a youtube on his recent criticisms of Obama, but I did find this one commenting on Obama's move to the center (which is still quite a ways to the left in my opinion).
AARP - Insurance fraud?
You may have heard about the squabble in Congress over Humana, who offers Medicare Advantage policies to seniors, sending out letters to its enrollees warning of the negative impact of current health reform bills. Congress voted to gag Humana on a technicality that providers of Medicare Advantage cannot advise seniors on policies.
However, AARP, which is very vocal in support of current health care reform bills, and who has done a massive campaign to get seniors to support it, was not included in the gag.
I can understand the Congress not gagging AARP -- hypocritical to the extreme, but expected. But what is AARP's motivation in all of this. Does it really think any of these bills are going to help seniors, when they all call for various cuts in Medicare?
The American Spectator perhaps exposes AARP's motivation -- it can make more money selling traditional Medicare gap policies than it does on Medicare Advantage.
"In 2008, AARP generated $652.7 million in revenue by selling products like Medigap supplemental Medicare insurance, accounting for over 60 percent of the group's revenue, according to an analysis of its financial statements cited in the report released by the House Republican Conference.
If the House Democrats health care bill becomes law, the report argues, it would be a boon to AARP, because while Medicare Advantage plans will be required to pay out 85 percent of the money collected in premiums to claims made by policy holders, the requirement would only be 65 percent for the kind of Medigap policies sold by AARP."
Would making 35% profit compared to 15% profit be enough motivation for AARP to sell out seniors? And isn't it terribly hypocritical for Mr. Obama and the Congress to demonize insurance companies for caring more about profits than about their enrollees' health care?
Glenn Beck has called for 56 members of Congress to refound America by coming clean on the corruption in their own parties. So far, he has 5 on board.
Maybe he should also call for employees of large businesses to come clean on corruption within their own businesses. The refounders are guaranteed anonymity, and the same could be done with the employees. There are laws to protect whistle-blowers, but I think Beck's way might be more successful.
And labor unions as well.
However, AARP, which is very vocal in support of current health care reform bills, and who has done a massive campaign to get seniors to support it, was not included in the gag.
I can understand the Congress not gagging AARP -- hypocritical to the extreme, but expected. But what is AARP's motivation in all of this. Does it really think any of these bills are going to help seniors, when they all call for various cuts in Medicare?
The American Spectator perhaps exposes AARP's motivation -- it can make more money selling traditional Medicare gap policies than it does on Medicare Advantage.
"In 2008, AARP generated $652.7 million in revenue by selling products like Medigap supplemental Medicare insurance, accounting for over 60 percent of the group's revenue, according to an analysis of its financial statements cited in the report released by the House Republican Conference.
If the House Democrats health care bill becomes law, the report argues, it would be a boon to AARP, because while Medicare Advantage plans will be required to pay out 85 percent of the money collected in premiums to claims made by policy holders, the requirement would only be 65 percent for the kind of Medigap policies sold by AARP."
Would making 35% profit compared to 15% profit be enough motivation for AARP to sell out seniors? And isn't it terribly hypocritical for Mr. Obama and the Congress to demonize insurance companies for caring more about profits than about their enrollees' health care?
Glenn Beck has called for 56 members of Congress to refound America by coming clean on the corruption in their own parties. So far, he has 5 on board.
Maybe he should also call for employees of large businesses to come clean on corruption within their own businesses. The refounders are guaranteed anonymity, and the same could be done with the employees. There are laws to protect whistle-blowers, but I think Beck's way might be more successful.
And labor unions as well.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Why do President's lie?
Well, the list of Presidential lies/deceit goes on and on. LBJ making up the Tonkin Bay incident; Nixon's lies are too many to enumerate; Clinton's lie "I never had sexual relation with that woman." Many believe Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, but my personal opinion is he acted in good faith on the intelligence he had at the time.
Has Obama lied to us? Well, he persists in saying the penalty for being uninsured under the new health care reform is not a tax, but every bill labels it a tax.
Has he also lied in the hardship stories he tells to convince us we need his health care reform? In at least one instance he did. He told of a man in the middle of chemotherapy who was dropped by his insurance company after the company found out he had gall stones that he didn't report, his treatment was delayed, and he died. Glenn Beck, in the video link, exposes the truth. The man was fully covered, and receiving expensive stem cell treatments, paid for by his insurance. He did die -- but many who undergo even the most extensive treatments die from cancer. Case in point, Farrah Fawcett and Patrick Swayze for some recent examples.
Beck suspects the story was misrepresented to convince we Americans that public health insurance would prevent this horror from ever happening. I agree with Beck.
Obama has to be sure the stories he uses are thoroughly vetted and he sticks to the facts. It bodes ill for this President that the truth isn't enough to make the case for his radical health care reform.
Here's the link for the video: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/videos/
Has Obama lied to us? Well, he persists in saying the penalty for being uninsured under the new health care reform is not a tax, but every bill labels it a tax.
Has he also lied in the hardship stories he tells to convince us we need his health care reform? In at least one instance he did. He told of a man in the middle of chemotherapy who was dropped by his insurance company after the company found out he had gall stones that he didn't report, his treatment was delayed, and he died. Glenn Beck, in the video link, exposes the truth. The man was fully covered, and receiving expensive stem cell treatments, paid for by his insurance. He did die -- but many who undergo even the most extensive treatments die from cancer. Case in point, Farrah Fawcett and Patrick Swayze for some recent examples.
Beck suspects the story was misrepresented to convince we Americans that public health insurance would prevent this horror from ever happening. I agree with Beck.
Obama has to be sure the stories he uses are thoroughly vetted and he sticks to the facts. It bodes ill for this President that the truth isn't enough to make the case for his radical health care reform.
Here's the link for the video: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/videos/
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Hamlet -- a lesson for our day?
Former President Clinton today said the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that Hilary thought was responsible for trying to bring Bill down during his presidency is still virulent and now aimed at President Obama. Clinton seems incapable of understanding honest dissent and disagreement -- one can't oppose a democrat without being accused of belonging to a vast right-wing conspiracy. Sigh!
That said, there are some, on both sides of the political aisle, that are indeed motivated by hate and a ultra-strong desire to destroy the other party. For those people who find themselves capable of saying, I hate President Bush, or, I hate President Obama, (fill in the name as you like), you might want to take a lesson from Hamlet, because in the process of trying to destroy the President, you will destroy the Nation.
Hamlet, written by Shakespeare, is a complex work that plays to the base human emotions of revenge and hate. Many readers and critics, most in fact, consider Hamlet a hero because he revenged the murder of his father. However, I have a dissenting minority view - I believe Shakespeare wants us to see the destructive nature of hate and revenge, even to bringing a nation into captivity by an enemy.
Hamlet's father was King, and Hamlet is mourning his father's death and his mother's sudden marriage to his Uncle Claudius, now the King of Denmark. Hamlet sees a ghost which claims to be his father, which tells him that King Claudius murdered him, in his sins, and consequently he is burning in hell. His father wants him to get revenge on King Claudius.
This is the first lesson to be learned -- the murdered King is in hell because of his own sins! So, he did not live an exemplary life. How many of those who want to bring a President down have their own sins -- perhaps equal to or worse than the one they hate? First remove the beam from thine own eye, then help the brother remove the mote from his.
What results when Hamlet decides to revenge his father's murder? In one way or another, Hamlet brings about the deaths of: Polonius, his girlfriend's father; Ophelia, his girlfriend; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; Laertes, Ophelia's brother (thus an entire family dead because of Hamlet); his uncle Claudius; his mother Gertrude; and Hamlet himself. The final scene is Hamlet giving Denmark to Denmark's worst enemy -- Prince Fortinbras of Norway. All the while, Hamlet thought himself a hero.
We are all created with reason and intelligence; and it is our constitutional duty to be engaged in our governmental processes. Rigorous debate is healthy for the nation. Party loyalty is a virtue, not a vice -- if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything! Indeed, partisanship helps the country steer a middle course.
But hatred and revenge are destructive, not productive. We see it when radical left-wingers and right-wingers severely distort the message from the other side and maliciously malign its motives. Hatred and revenge destroy, and if we do not keep these radical fringe elements in check, they may well succeed in handing over our great nation to our worst enemy -- and all the while believe they are heroes for doing so.
So, former President Clinton, there is no vast right-wing conspiracy to bring Obama down -- but there are a whole lot of very concerned Conservatives who do not want his legislation to pass. He is far too left of center for many of us. But there are a few, in the fringes on each side, that pose a real threat to the security of our great nation, and we must keep them in check.
That said, there are some, on both sides of the political aisle, that are indeed motivated by hate and a ultra-strong desire to destroy the other party. For those people who find themselves capable of saying, I hate President Bush, or, I hate President Obama, (fill in the name as you like), you might want to take a lesson from Hamlet, because in the process of trying to destroy the President, you will destroy the Nation.
Hamlet, written by Shakespeare, is a complex work that plays to the base human emotions of revenge and hate. Many readers and critics, most in fact, consider Hamlet a hero because he revenged the murder of his father. However, I have a dissenting minority view - I believe Shakespeare wants us to see the destructive nature of hate and revenge, even to bringing a nation into captivity by an enemy.
Hamlet's father was King, and Hamlet is mourning his father's death and his mother's sudden marriage to his Uncle Claudius, now the King of Denmark. Hamlet sees a ghost which claims to be his father, which tells him that King Claudius murdered him, in his sins, and consequently he is burning in hell. His father wants him to get revenge on King Claudius.
This is the first lesson to be learned -- the murdered King is in hell because of his own sins! So, he did not live an exemplary life. How many of those who want to bring a President down have their own sins -- perhaps equal to or worse than the one they hate? First remove the beam from thine own eye, then help the brother remove the mote from his.
What results when Hamlet decides to revenge his father's murder? In one way or another, Hamlet brings about the deaths of: Polonius, his girlfriend's father; Ophelia, his girlfriend; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; Laertes, Ophelia's brother (thus an entire family dead because of Hamlet); his uncle Claudius; his mother Gertrude; and Hamlet himself. The final scene is Hamlet giving Denmark to Denmark's worst enemy -- Prince Fortinbras of Norway. All the while, Hamlet thought himself a hero.
We are all created with reason and intelligence; and it is our constitutional duty to be engaged in our governmental processes. Rigorous debate is healthy for the nation. Party loyalty is a virtue, not a vice -- if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything! Indeed, partisanship helps the country steer a middle course.
But hatred and revenge are destructive, not productive. We see it when radical left-wingers and right-wingers severely distort the message from the other side and maliciously malign its motives. Hatred and revenge destroy, and if we do not keep these radical fringe elements in check, they may well succeed in handing over our great nation to our worst enemy -- and all the while believe they are heroes for doing so.
So, former President Clinton, there is no vast right-wing conspiracy to bring Obama down -- but there are a whole lot of very concerned Conservatives who do not want his legislation to pass. He is far too left of center for many of us. But there are a few, in the fringes on each side, that pose a real threat to the security of our great nation, and we must keep them in check.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Hypocrisy, Deceit, and Stupidity
1) Rich actors and actresses condemning the rich insurance company execs in the new pro-Obamacare commercial. I guess they think only people in their profession should be millionaires. Or maybe they can't afford health insurance.
2) Obama continuing to say that the fine on uninsured is not a tax, when every bill calls it a tax.
3) The objection to Cadillac insurance policies. For the life of me, I can't understand why they are a problem to anyone. It's just an excuse to tax someone to pay for a mega government-spending bill. And, unless it has a specific adjustment for inflation, in not too many years, inflation will catapult most insured people into that excise tax category. And to think the insurance companies aren't going to pass on the tax to the consumers?
4) The objection to catastrophic insurance. Again, for the life of me, I can't figure this one out, either. Some of you who are old enough remember that that was the purpose of insurance "in the beginning." To keep us from going bankrupt because of a very costly disease or accident. We expected to have health care expenses, and we budgeted for them, or we made monthly payments. But Obama will not allow them.
5) Afghanistan. The members of Congress who worry that Afghanistan will become another Vietnam are the very ones opposing sending more troops. Aren't they intelligent enough to understand that we quagmired and eventually lost in Vietnam precisely because it was a policy of containment -- when Nixon went in to win, they slapped him down with the War Powers Act. Either fight to win, or bring our troops home.
6) Are we now seeing real justification for the Patriot Act that gave what many thought to be too much power to the Government? Especially now with Iran heating up? It doesn't take a fatalist to predict that anyone with terrorist connections already in the US will unleash their fury on us if we take a strong stand against Iran, i.e., something that will actually work.
2) Obama continuing to say that the fine on uninsured is not a tax, when every bill calls it a tax.
3) The objection to Cadillac insurance policies. For the life of me, I can't understand why they are a problem to anyone. It's just an excuse to tax someone to pay for a mega government-spending bill. And, unless it has a specific adjustment for inflation, in not too many years, inflation will catapult most insured people into that excise tax category. And to think the insurance companies aren't going to pass on the tax to the consumers?
4) The objection to catastrophic insurance. Again, for the life of me, I can't figure this one out, either. Some of you who are old enough remember that that was the purpose of insurance "in the beginning." To keep us from going bankrupt because of a very costly disease or accident. We expected to have health care expenses, and we budgeted for them, or we made monthly payments. But Obama will not allow them.
5) Afghanistan. The members of Congress who worry that Afghanistan will become another Vietnam are the very ones opposing sending more troops. Aren't they intelligent enough to understand that we quagmired and eventually lost in Vietnam precisely because it was a policy of containment -- when Nixon went in to win, they slapped him down with the War Powers Act. Either fight to win, or bring our troops home.
6) Are we now seeing real justification for the Patriot Act that gave what many thought to be too much power to the Government? Especially now with Iran heating up? It doesn't take a fatalist to predict that anyone with terrorist connections already in the US will unleash their fury on us if we take a strong stand against Iran, i.e., something that will actually work.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Taxes on sodas, Iran, and other issues
San Francisco wants to tax sodas because, it says, they contribute significantly to obesity and other serious health problems.
I think if a city or state wants to increase revenue, that it's okay to target non-essential foods, such as sodas. However, spare us the sanctimonious lecture.
Iran is indeed a problem. In 1962, Kennedy put a blockade around Cuba to prevent Russia from installing nukes on that island, which would have put America in grave danger. Russia backed down. I do believe Iran would back down if we put her under blockade. I seriously doubt, however, that either the US or the international community has the fortitude to withstand such an action. Iran is going to stall us long enough to break our resolve.
Afghanistan. Mr. President, If you aren't in Afghanistan to win, then bring our troops home. If you don't trust the man you appointed to run this war, then appoint someone you do trust. Mr. President, make up your mind.
ACORN. My gosh, how many scandals does it take to convince the whole country that this organization is corrupt at its core. Some left-winger posted an article about someone that was laid off from ACORN because of the reduced funding caused by the exposure of these scandals. The article lamented how poor people will not be getting the help they need. This attitude is disgusting. First, it's a lie. The funding cuts have not yet been implemented and won't be until Pres. Obama signs the bill, and who knows how long that's going to be. Second, to tolerate corruption on this scale on the argument that some poor people now will not get the help they need is evil. It's evil because the money that is going into ACORN is helping only a fraction of the poor that it would help if the organization were not corrupt. So, it is a slap in the face of the poor to knowingly accept the corruption that denies them the services they need.
McCain. Glenn Beck said that McCain as President would be worse for the country. That is being turned around to Beck saying that McCain would be a worse President. That is not the same thing. Beck said McCain is not nearly as progressive as Obama, and on many issues he agrees with McCain. However, Beck points out, Obama is galvanizing -- he is SO progressive that it's a real eye-opeing shock to see what he is all about. McCain's progressiveness is much more low-key, and thus tolerable. Beck likened it to putting a frog into cold water and turning on the heat (McCain) compared to throwing a frog into boiling water (Obama).
However, I disagree with Beck. I do believe McCain has had a change of heart about the border situation, which Beck does not acknowledge. I also believe we would be winning Afhanistan and we would be standing up to Iran. And, McCain would put a stop to the pork that is snuck into the bills. So, I don't think McCain is progressive enough to harm the country.
But the most important point is, if Obama is not stopped, our country is going to suffer irreparable harm.
I think if a city or state wants to increase revenue, that it's okay to target non-essential foods, such as sodas. However, spare us the sanctimonious lecture.
Iran is indeed a problem. In 1962, Kennedy put a blockade around Cuba to prevent Russia from installing nukes on that island, which would have put America in grave danger. Russia backed down. I do believe Iran would back down if we put her under blockade. I seriously doubt, however, that either the US or the international community has the fortitude to withstand such an action. Iran is going to stall us long enough to break our resolve.
Afghanistan. Mr. President, If you aren't in Afghanistan to win, then bring our troops home. If you don't trust the man you appointed to run this war, then appoint someone you do trust. Mr. President, make up your mind.
ACORN. My gosh, how many scandals does it take to convince the whole country that this organization is corrupt at its core. Some left-winger posted an article about someone that was laid off from ACORN because of the reduced funding caused by the exposure of these scandals. The article lamented how poor people will not be getting the help they need. This attitude is disgusting. First, it's a lie. The funding cuts have not yet been implemented and won't be until Pres. Obama signs the bill, and who knows how long that's going to be. Second, to tolerate corruption on this scale on the argument that some poor people now will not get the help they need is evil. It's evil because the money that is going into ACORN is helping only a fraction of the poor that it would help if the organization were not corrupt. So, it is a slap in the face of the poor to knowingly accept the corruption that denies them the services they need.
McCain. Glenn Beck said that McCain as President would be worse for the country. That is being turned around to Beck saying that McCain would be a worse President. That is not the same thing. Beck said McCain is not nearly as progressive as Obama, and on many issues he agrees with McCain. However, Beck points out, Obama is galvanizing -- he is SO progressive that it's a real eye-opeing shock to see what he is all about. McCain's progressiveness is much more low-key, and thus tolerable. Beck likened it to putting a frog into cold water and turning on the heat (McCain) compared to throwing a frog into boiling water (Obama).
However, I disagree with Beck. I do believe McCain has had a change of heart about the border situation, which Beck does not acknowledge. I also believe we would be winning Afhanistan and we would be standing up to Iran. And, McCain would put a stop to the pork that is snuck into the bills. So, I don't think McCain is progressive enough to harm the country.
But the most important point is, if Obama is not stopped, our country is going to suffer irreparable harm.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Qadaffi is absolutely right!
Not on everything, of course, but he is spot-on in his assessment of the UN:
"He . . . chastised the U.N. for being unable to prevent or stop what he numbered at sixty-five conflicts since the Security Council was established, and called for U.N. headquarters to be moved out of New York."
The UN is an abysmal failure, and why everyone can't see that is beyond my ability to understand. Besides not being able to prevent or stop any of the conflicts since its inception, it severely restricts our national sovereignty, putting us under the burden of having to get permission to do what needs to be done as the primary peacekeeper for the world. When we act to enforce UN resolutions, the world gets mad at us.
Not only should the UN get out of New York, the United States should get out of the UN.
"He . . . chastised the U.N. for being unable to prevent or stop what he numbered at sixty-five conflicts since the Security Council was established, and called for U.N. headquarters to be moved out of New York."
The UN is an abysmal failure, and why everyone can't see that is beyond my ability to understand. Besides not being able to prevent or stop any of the conflicts since its inception, it severely restricts our national sovereignty, putting us under the burden of having to get permission to do what needs to be done as the primary peacekeeper for the world. When we act to enforce UN resolutions, the world gets mad at us.
Not only should the UN get out of New York, the United States should get out of the UN.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Global Warming
If you have any questions about the accuracy of the Global Warming Claim, click here for some good information.
I do not believe the hype. I believe it is a politically motivated effort to gain more and more control over our economy and our lives.
But, you can read the dissenting opinion and judge for yourself.
Comments are welcome.
I do not believe the hype. I believe it is a politically motivated effort to gain more and more control over our economy and our lives.
But, you can read the dissenting opinion and judge for yourself.
Comments are welcome.
Donald Trump crossed the line
I was very disappointed with Donald Trump last night. I thought he allowed Joan Rivers to without cause malign and degrade Annie and her supporters who contributed a whopping $450,000 for charity. That is almost 1/2 million -- raised for charity. He allowed Joan Rivers to call them mafia, and when Annie protested, he said well she didn't really know that they weren't mafia.
If I were a professional poker player, I would be talking to an attorney about a libel suit.
Annie did so much better at raising money and winning the tasks than Joan did. Joan came off to me as even worse than Melissa. Melissa is a crybaby; Joan is a bully.
Annie earned more for charity than anyone ever has on his show -- and the thanks she got is to be maligned. I certainly hope that $450,000 went to HER charity, and not to Joan's.
Annie earned even more than Joan after adding in the $250,000 prize money.
Obviously, professional gamblers are very generous people. At least the ones Annie knows are.
Too bad Annie can't call up Bret Maverick and have him have a talk with the Donald.
______________________________
The Amazing Race was a little frustrating to watch, but only because Luke and Marge had it in the bag until he got confused over the last two pit stops on the last challenge. I really admire those people being able to do that, and Luke, knowing it was coming, prepared himself. It's just ironic that it was the last 2 that stumped him, as it seems those would have been the easiest to remember. Tammie and Victor certainly deserved the victory, as would any of the couples that were in the final 3. It's been very nice to see Tammy and Victor learn to work together and to see Victor get away from some of that "I'm the big brother, so my way is the right way" attitude. Tammy carried her part in it, so she has a lot to be proud of.
The girls came close, but gosh they were plagued with getting a bad cabbie on almost every leg of this race.
_____________________________________
The Biggest Loser coming up Tuesday night. I'd like to see either Tara or Helen win it, but I won't begrudge Mike the victory if he does. I was reading on some boards, and so much criticism of Ron. I only fault Ron for one thing -- when he said he honored his commitment to Kristin's mom when he in fact instructed Mike to vote for Kristin, knowing Kristin would go home. It was the best play for Mike, but I just wish Ron would have admitted it to Kristin's face.
If I were a professional poker player, I would be talking to an attorney about a libel suit.
Annie did so much better at raising money and winning the tasks than Joan did. Joan came off to me as even worse than Melissa. Melissa is a crybaby; Joan is a bully.
Annie earned more for charity than anyone ever has on his show -- and the thanks she got is to be maligned. I certainly hope that $450,000 went to HER charity, and not to Joan's.
Annie earned even more than Joan after adding in the $250,000 prize money.
Obviously, professional gamblers are very generous people. At least the ones Annie knows are.
Too bad Annie can't call up Bret Maverick and have him have a talk with the Donald.
______________________________
The Amazing Race was a little frustrating to watch, but only because Luke and Marge had it in the bag until he got confused over the last two pit stops on the last challenge. I really admire those people being able to do that, and Luke, knowing it was coming, prepared himself. It's just ironic that it was the last 2 that stumped him, as it seems those would have been the easiest to remember. Tammie and Victor certainly deserved the victory, as would any of the couples that were in the final 3. It's been very nice to see Tammy and Victor learn to work together and to see Victor get away from some of that "I'm the big brother, so my way is the right way" attitude. Tammy carried her part in it, so she has a lot to be proud of.
The girls came close, but gosh they were plagued with getting a bad cabbie on almost every leg of this race.
_____________________________________
The Biggest Loser coming up Tuesday night. I'd like to see either Tara or Helen win it, but I won't begrudge Mike the victory if he does. I was reading on some boards, and so much criticism of Ron. I only fault Ron for one thing -- when he said he honored his commitment to Kristin's mom when he in fact instructed Mike to vote for Kristin, knowing Kristin would go home. It was the best play for Mike, but I just wish Ron would have admitted it to Kristin's face.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Finals Are Drawing Near
The Biggest Loser
A big hearty congratulations to Tara, Helen, Mike, and Ron for completing that marathon. Wow! I was especially proud of Ron for keeping on keeping on. He has mastered so much this season, and although he doesn't have much of a chance to win, he has really been a great example.
I was very glad to see TBL show just how hard it is to maintain that positive "can do" attitude when faced with daily challenges. Folks, the hardest part is keeping the weight off. Those of us with weight issues are literally in the same boat with alcoholics -- we are just one proverbial drink away from falling off the wagon. And it's hard to get back on track again.
How many times have we heard these contestants, and ourselves, say "never again," and then 6 months later, or 2 years later, or even 10 years later, we get intot the same destructive mindset. It takes constant vigilance.
I do disagree with Jilian. Yes, some people, once they lose weight, can go back to enjoying some of the "cheat" foods and maintain control. But, most of us can't. And we find out the hard way -- after a 3-day binge has piled on 10-15 lbs.
It was good to see several contestants from previous seasons -- and especially to see that they are still in pretty good shape. Ali and Michelle look fabulous.
I voted to protect Mike because I think Mike has a real chance of winning it. I hope Tara or Helen wins it, because I'm a woman, but I won't be upset if Mike wins.
I just pray that when they went home again, that they were able to setup and maintain good routines so that they feel they did their best -- whether they win or not.
Celebrity Apprentice
My vote is already for Annie. I think Joan has made this season way too personal. I see from the ads that Dennis will be on Annie's team, so that should prove interesting. I was disappointed in Piers saying that Brandy wasn't bright enough. I think she is bright enough, but just not aggressive enough. She sits back too much instead of taking the lead.
The Amazing Race
I have no strong favorites this season - I like all 3 couples that are in the final. I would like to see the girls win, because that would be a first. I would also like to see Marge and her son win, because of his handicap. He's played the game very well, among the best. I would like to see the brother/sister win because I think it's really great to see the way they've learned to work together and enjoy the experience.
Dancing with the Stars
Boy, I sure was shocked to see Lil Kim go home. I thought for sure it would be Ty. I think my favorite right now is Shawn.
A big hearty congratulations to Tara, Helen, Mike, and Ron for completing that marathon. Wow! I was especially proud of Ron for keeping on keeping on. He has mastered so much this season, and although he doesn't have much of a chance to win, he has really been a great example.
I was very glad to see TBL show just how hard it is to maintain that positive "can do" attitude when faced with daily challenges. Folks, the hardest part is keeping the weight off. Those of us with weight issues are literally in the same boat with alcoholics -- we are just one proverbial drink away from falling off the wagon. And it's hard to get back on track again.
How many times have we heard these contestants, and ourselves, say "never again," and then 6 months later, or 2 years later, or even 10 years later, we get intot the same destructive mindset. It takes constant vigilance.
I do disagree with Jilian. Yes, some people, once they lose weight, can go back to enjoying some of the "cheat" foods and maintain control. But, most of us can't. And we find out the hard way -- after a 3-day binge has piled on 10-15 lbs.
It was good to see several contestants from previous seasons -- and especially to see that they are still in pretty good shape. Ali and Michelle look fabulous.
I voted to protect Mike because I think Mike has a real chance of winning it. I hope Tara or Helen wins it, because I'm a woman, but I won't be upset if Mike wins.
I just pray that when they went home again, that they were able to setup and maintain good routines so that they feel they did their best -- whether they win or not.
Celebrity Apprentice
My vote is already for Annie. I think Joan has made this season way too personal. I see from the ads that Dennis will be on Annie's team, so that should prove interesting. I was disappointed in Piers saying that Brandy wasn't bright enough. I think she is bright enough, but just not aggressive enough. She sits back too much instead of taking the lead.
The Amazing Race
I have no strong favorites this season - I like all 3 couples that are in the final. I would like to see the girls win, because that would be a first. I would also like to see Marge and her son win, because of his handicap. He's played the game very well, among the best. I would like to see the brother/sister win because I think it's really great to see the way they've learned to work together and enjoy the experience.
Dancing with the Stars
Boy, I sure was shocked to see Lil Kim go home. I thought for sure it would be Ty. I think my favorite right now is Shawn.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Reality Shows
First, I don't know why they call them "reality" shows -- they are competitions.
I really like the following:
The Biggest Loser -- so motivational. This actually is "reality" as so many of us struggle with weight problems. But, that quarter million dollars makes it a competition. I don't have a solid favorite this season, as all of my non-favorites have been sent home. But if I were an at-homer, I'd be praying that BOTH Tera and Mike stay at the ranch, otherwise none of them will have much chance of winning the at-home $100,000 prize.
The Amazing Race -- another one of my very favorite favorites. I usually have a strong favorite by the time they get down to the final 4, but this season I don't. I was a little down on Keisha and Jen, but this last Sunday softened my heart towards them. I could not have done that competition because of my fear of water, I don't think even with a life vest. So I really admire Jen for completing that activity, and since it is a 2-week leg, they may well be able to catch up. I think all 4 remaining teams are top-notch contenders.
Celebrity Apprentice -- I watched a couple seasons when it was the regular Celebrity Apprentice, but I really like Celebrity Apprentice so much better. This last Sunday Melissa Rivers made a royal fool of herself. At this stage of the competition, it's not who deserves to be fired, but who deserves to stay. Annie and Brandy are the top 2 fund raisers, in that order, and so they obviously deserved to stay, absent either one of them making a very serious blunder in the project. Melissa has been a whining crybaby almost from the beginning. And her mother encouraged it, IMO. For her to turn her back on her commitment to the show and to her charity just because it was time to let Melissa shows a real lack of character. I was a little sad to see Clint's team win, though, as I was really hoping Jesse James would get fired -- I think his work ethic leaves a lot to be desired.
Dancing With the Stars -- I'm a late comer to this competition, too. The first time I watched it, I thought how embarrassing that these "stars" are making such fools of themselves trying to dance. But a couple seasons later I watched an entire season, and was really caught up in how much improvement some of them make. It's also very interesting to me to see at what level each of them peaks out, and to observe the shockers when a really good dancer is eliminated. I'll never forget Cloris Leachman's fantastic performances. She's one classy entertainer. Again, I don't have a solid favorite this season, but all the ones I wanted eliminated have been, so I'm happy with that.
Britain's Got Talent -- I love the American counterpart, but it's in off-season right now. We don't get BGT on our tv selections, but I caught the news about Susan Boyle and googled the show. They have clips from other contestants also that are really good. A 12-year old boy and a 10-year old girl are very talented. They have a dance group that is sensational, and a comedy routine that was just really funny. Boyle is going to have to work to win the competition for sure -- it's not in the bag for her by any means. It is so wonderful to see ordinary people have the opportunity to display their talents and be recognized and rewarded for them.
Survivor -- I'm currently rooting for Sierra, because she's the underdog. I was so glad to see Tyson booted out. His conceit and arrogance knows no match, except for Coach, who I hope is the next to go.
I really like the following:
The Biggest Loser -- so motivational. This actually is "reality" as so many of us struggle with weight problems. But, that quarter million dollars makes it a competition. I don't have a solid favorite this season, as all of my non-favorites have been sent home. But if I were an at-homer, I'd be praying that BOTH Tera and Mike stay at the ranch, otherwise none of them will have much chance of winning the at-home $100,000 prize.
The Amazing Race -- another one of my very favorite favorites. I usually have a strong favorite by the time they get down to the final 4, but this season I don't. I was a little down on Keisha and Jen, but this last Sunday softened my heart towards them. I could not have done that competition because of my fear of water, I don't think even with a life vest. So I really admire Jen for completing that activity, and since it is a 2-week leg, they may well be able to catch up. I think all 4 remaining teams are top-notch contenders.
Celebrity Apprentice -- I watched a couple seasons when it was the regular Celebrity Apprentice, but I really like Celebrity Apprentice so much better. This last Sunday Melissa Rivers made a royal fool of herself. At this stage of the competition, it's not who deserves to be fired, but who deserves to stay. Annie and Brandy are the top 2 fund raisers, in that order, and so they obviously deserved to stay, absent either one of them making a very serious blunder in the project. Melissa has been a whining crybaby almost from the beginning. And her mother encouraged it, IMO. For her to turn her back on her commitment to the show and to her charity just because it was time to let Melissa shows a real lack of character. I was a little sad to see Clint's team win, though, as I was really hoping Jesse James would get fired -- I think his work ethic leaves a lot to be desired.
Dancing With the Stars -- I'm a late comer to this competition, too. The first time I watched it, I thought how embarrassing that these "stars" are making such fools of themselves trying to dance. But a couple seasons later I watched an entire season, and was really caught up in how much improvement some of them make. It's also very interesting to me to see at what level each of them peaks out, and to observe the shockers when a really good dancer is eliminated. I'll never forget Cloris Leachman's fantastic performances. She's one classy entertainer. Again, I don't have a solid favorite this season, but all the ones I wanted eliminated have been, so I'm happy with that.
Britain's Got Talent -- I love the American counterpart, but it's in off-season right now. We don't get BGT on our tv selections, but I caught the news about Susan Boyle and googled the show. They have clips from other contestants also that are really good. A 12-year old boy and a 10-year old girl are very talented. They have a dance group that is sensational, and a comedy routine that was just really funny. Boyle is going to have to work to win the competition for sure -- it's not in the bag for her by any means. It is so wonderful to see ordinary people have the opportunity to display their talents and be recognized and rewarded for them.
Survivor -- I'm currently rooting for Sierra, because she's the underdog. I was so glad to see Tyson booted out. His conceit and arrogance knows no match, except for Coach, who I hope is the next to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)