Random Thought........

In 1775 we revolted against da Kin' when tha dude demanded we buy stamps to put on our documents n' shit. Today Congress demands we buy healthcare...........

Be Obamacare Constitutional?

Here be a site dat makes da argument dat Obamacare be constitutional.

Here be ma counta argument dat Ah first posted at a blog called Da Livin' Room Times.

My take on da Balkin article:

I) Tha dude spends a lot of time discussin' da House bill n' shit. Dis be off topic 'n Ah gots to ignore it.

II) Tha dude's argument dat dis be not an individual mandate:

A) Listin' a set of muthas who be exempt from da mandate does not invalidate da fact dat fo most muthas dat shit remains a mandate n' shit. Instead dat shit reinforces da fact dat that shit be a mandate fo those not exempted.

B) At least four of da exemptions Balkin describes be temporary states, 'n when dat person’s status changes da mandate gots to cova them.

C) Tha dude argues dat that shit be a tax, 'n not a mandate.

1) Tha dude first argues dat that shit be an excise tax, in tha dude's words a “tax on transactions or events”, know what I'm sayin'? Howeva dis be not a tax on a transaction or event, dat shit be a tax on da absence of a transaction or event, know what I'm sayin'? Da person be not bein' taxed on somethin' tha dude did, but ratha because tha dude didn’t do something, know what I'm sayin'? Dis be not an excise tax.

2) Tha dude then argues dat that shit be a penalty tax, a tax fo not doin' somethin' yo' ass be mandated by da government to do n' shit. Logically dis defeats da whole basis of tha dude's argument dat that shit be not a mandate, man. Yo' ass can’t be penalized fo not doin' somethin' yo' ass be not mandated to do.

D) If tha dude's argument be dat da term individual mandate be misleading, why does tha dude then proceed to use da term in da rest of tha dude's article?

III) Tha dude's General Welfare argument

A) Da term general welfare had a much different meanin' when da Constitution wuz written than dat shit does today, man. Da general welfare clause originally wuz a justification fo passin' laws, not a justification fo entitlements.

B) Balkin states: Da individual mandate be a tax, know what I'm sayin'? Does dat shit serve da general welfare? Da constitutional test be whetha Congress could reasonably conclude dat its taxin' 'n spendin' programs promote da general welfare of da country
Da individual mandate be not a tax, know what I'm sayin'? Da individual mandate be a requirement to purchase health insurance, man. Da tax be a penalty fo not complyin' wid da mandate n' shit. Da argument be not dat da government cannot impose taxes or penalties, dat shit be dat da government cannot require yo' ass to purchase health insurance, man. If dis bill simply taxed da muthas to pay fo health care dis constitutional argument would not exist.

C) As Sully says above tha dude's polluta analogy be flawed, man. To be correct tha dude gots to instead argue dat everyone, polluters 'n non- polluters alike be forced to pay fo pollution control equipment or pay a fine, know what I'm sayin'? Indeed dat shit would be 'mo accurate to say dat everyone be forced to pay fo yearly pollution offsets every year or pay a fine, whetha they produce pollution or not, man. (in any case da analogy would still be flawed)

D) Ah strongly disagree wid tha dude's proposition dat “the textual argument fo Congress’s authority unda da General Welfare Clause be obvious 'n powerful” in dis case, know what I'm sayin'? Tha dude assumes dat proposition, know what I'm sayin'? Tha dude's only arguments be da flawed pollution analogy 'n a flawed definition of da individual mandate.

IV) Tha dude's Commerce Clause argument:

A) Both of da cases tha dude cites, Wickard v, man. Filburn 'n Gonzales v, man. Raich (both of which Ah disagree with), be cases where da government prohibited muthas from takin' an action dat might affect interstate commerce, man. Dis be a case where da government be forcin' muthas to take an action by arguin' dat they inaction affects commerce n' shit. Prohibitin' an action be not da same thin' as mandatin' an action.

B) Where be da logical end of dis argument? Usin' dis argument da government has a basis to mandate dat individuals purchase anythin' they want because dat shit could affect commerce, know what I'm sayin'? Why can’t da government mandate da purchase of a new GM or Chrysla ride every four years? Not buyin' GM or Chrysla products has a huge impact on interstate commerce, especially on otha buyin' they products.

“Because Congress believes dat da GM 'n Chrysla bailouts won’t succeed unless these muthas be forced to buy GM or Chrysla products, dat shit can regulate they activities in orda to make its bailout of GM 'n Chrysla effective.”

V) In ma opinion, da argument be not properly “Will da Supreme Court ova turn dis law.” sadly, Ah agree dat that shit be unlikely dat there be enough votes to overturn dis law, know what I'm sayin'? Howeva da argument properly should be “Should da Supreme Court overturn dis law?” In dat case Ah think da only answa be yes.

Update 10/27/10 9:45AM: Great minds think alike.

Wass Next?

Dateline Washington D.C, know what I'm sayin'? June 3, 2010:



Da Democrats regained they filibusta proof majority in da Senate today afta Democratic Governor Steve Beshear resigned 'n wuz appointed to fill out da term of Republican Sen, know what I'm sayin'? Mitch McConnell, who died in a tragic 'n mysterious home invasion robbery last week; by tha dude's successor, Daniel Mongiardo (D), who had formerly been da Lt, know what I'm sayin'? Governor.



Dateline Washington D.C, man. June 12, 2010:



President Obama held a joint press conference today wid Senate Majority Leada Harry Reid 'n Speaka of da House Nancy Pelosi today to announce da introduction of a new bill, da Invest in America 'n Americans Act.



"For far 'n all long millions of Americans has lacked access to a savings account 'n financial security", said President Obama, man. "This bill gots to fix that, 'n at da same time allow every American to own a piece of dis phat country, 'n help build a betta future." " Da American muthas has a right to a savings account, 'n we gots to provide 'em wid one!" Sen n' shit. Reid proudly proclaimed.



Da bill would require every taxpaya to set aside 10% of tha dude's gross income every year in savings, in da form of a 25 year Treasury bond issued by da government directly to a savings account in a government approved bank of they choice, man. Those wid naw income, or incomes unda $50, 000 a year, would be issued a $2,500 dollar savings bond in they name in a similar manner, man. Da savings would be collected by da I.R.S, man. through deductions from paychecks 'n on tax forms fo otha types of income.



"For far 'n all long da poor has been made to feel dat they has naw part of America," said Speaka Pelosi, "today dat has come to an end!"



Da bill be expected to be quickly passed by Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress so dat da I.R.S n' shit. can begin collectin' da savings from income in July of dis year.

Miss America 2010

Congratulations to our new Miss America fo 2010, Caressa Cameron.














Now, at da risk of bein' indelicate, we has obviously reached da point where dat shit be naw big ass deal fo a Black ho to win da Miss America pageant, know what I'm sayin'? Anyone want to bet on da chances of a White ho winnin' da Miss Black America pageant, or da existence of a Miss White America pageant?

It be long past time fo separatist organizations like Miss Black America to go by da wayside.

Edit: Linked at Da Otha McCain

Democrat Style Politics

How about H.R. 4474 Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act?

The Republican from Idaho introduced a bill on Sept. 8, 2009: H.R. 3538: Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act. The Democrat from Idaho was the co-sponsor.

The purpose of the bill was: To authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes.

On January 20, 2010 the bill was defeated by the Democrats in the House 225-191 with 187 Democrats voting against it.

On January 20, 2010 The Democrat from Idaho introduced a bill: H.R. 4474: Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act. The republican from Idaho was the co-sponsor.

The purpose of the bill was: To authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes.

On January 27, 2010 it passed the House 415-0.

So:

A Republican bill sits in the House for 5 months and is defeated by the Democrats.

The same bill is introduced by a Democrat, sits in the House for a week and is passed with no opposition.

Funny how that works.



(note: This post is comprised of two comments I made on a post over at The Living Room Times)

1/29/10 3:40 P.M.: edited for clarity

Some "Inconvenient Truths" Pt. 2

I have spent a long time arguing AGW and Climategate, both here and at other blogs as a skeptic.

One of the most common rejoinders, especially from a particular lefty named David K, is that this may be messy and ugly, but the science is still good, and no paper or conclusion will have to be withdrawn.

Looks like that argument just fell by the wayside:

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers
by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the
United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to
incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global
warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that
those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have
admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular
science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
It has
also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone
interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at
Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not
supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most
serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to
ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate
change.

So, the IPCC, in the most important document on AGW, one supported by "thousands of scientists" and the "scientific consensus", one written and peer reviewed by the top scientists in the field of AGW, a document designed to force a radical change in the economies of the world and transfer immense quantities of wealth, contains a section that relies on no science, but instead a pop science article based on a telephone interview.

I'm betting that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Update 2/22/09: Predictably, David K rejected my example above. Well here is another example, one that explicitly states that a study published in one of the top journals in the field has been withdrawn:

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise
due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The
study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in
its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007
report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used
data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between
7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

My Three Wishes

If a genie granted me three wishes tomorrow, they would be:

1) Return the United States to a federal republic. All governmental actions and responsibilities would be moved to the closest point of contact with individual Americans. For instance, the Dept. of Education would be eliminated, and education would become the responsibility of city and county government. In fact all the cabinet positions created after the Washington administration would be eliminated and their responsibilities shifted to the states, counties and cities. I would abolish the income tax and the IRS, because the national government would no longer require absurd amounts of money if it returned to only true constitutional duties.

2) Withholding of any taxes or governmental payments to any level of government would be unconstitutional. Any and all payments to the government by American citizens and corporations would be due on the first Monday after the first of November every year. Furthermore, these payments would require an affirmative action by the individual. (writing a check, making an electronic payment, paying in cash, etc) This way, when they voted the next day every other year they would have a clear reminder of what they were voting on.

3) Anyone receiving any governmental money except payments for goods received would no longer be eligible to vote in elections for the level of government they received the payments from. This includes employees (except active duty members of the armed services). Federal employees would be prevented from voting in federal elections, state employees would be prevented from voting in state elections. Welfare recipients, food stamp recipients, social security recipients, farm subsidy recipients, members of the boards of directors for corporations receiving subsidies, etc..all would be prohibited from voting at the level they received governmental payments.

You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one......

Some "Inconvenient Truths"

....for Al Gore at least.

I have been "man-made" global warming skeptic from the very beginning. The world's climate is simply so huge that it is the height of hubris to pretend that we are directing it. The Earth's climate is variable, but it is a self correcting system, always seeking a point of equilibrium. Then when you look at the wild swings in climate in the Earth's history, it becomes quite clear that our effect on the climate of Earth is negligible.

1) The Earth was in a Little Ice Age until the last half of the 1800's. (this period was anywhere from 600 to 200 years long, depending on what starting date you choose) The Earth has been warming ever since this period. This warming is dangerous and will inevitably lead to disaster we are told. But isn't just as likely that the Earth is returning to a normal temperature from a period of unusual cold? Unmanipulated data from New Zealand shows this warming rate to be about .06 degrees Celsius per century. The manipulated data shows this warming to be just under 1 degree Celsius per century. Prior to the Little Ice Age was a period hundreds of years (perhaps five hundred years) long called the medieval warm period (hereafter MWP). A common name for the MWP is the medieval climate optimum. The use of the term optimum is certainly interesting. The Earth's temperature was at least 1 degree Celsius (C) warmer than today during this period. So according to the manipulated data from New Zealand, in 100 years we will be back to a temperature that has been labeled the optimum. "Man-made global warming" "scientists" (hereafter GW scientists) have necessarily attempted to discredit or minimize the MWP, because not only did civilization and humanity survive the MWP, they thrived. In fact Western Civilization came close to collapsing when the MWP ended and the Little Ice Age began. At one point the GW scientists attempted to argue that the MWP only affected the Northern hemisphere, or Europe, but recent discoveries have disproved this. (here is one example)

So at one point in human history, the Earth was at least 1 degree C warmer than today, man and civilization thrived at this time, it was followed by an ice age that we are now emerging from, and under the worst case scenario 100 years from now we will be back to the temperature the Earth had during a period labeled an optimum.

2) Warm periods such as the MWP have occurred throughout pre-industrial age human history. Industrialization and man made greenhouse gases are a modern phenomena, and obviously could not have contributed to historical and prehistorical warming periods. During these periods the Earth was warmer than today, and sometimes much warmer. What caused these warming periods? I personally believe it was that ball of burning gas we call the sun, but at the very least it was something non-man made. So using Occam's Razor, absent scientific proof, shouldn't we assume that the causes of today's warming and prior warming are the same?

My first theory on global warming: the same things that caused the Earth to warm in the past, are causing the Earth to warm today. I welcome any and all skeptics and believers to test my hypothesis and attempt to disprove it, and I will help you in your efforts any way possible. Which theory is more plausible? Which theory has required their proponents to manipulate the observed data?

3) Other celestial bodies in our solar system are warming at the same time as Earth. Mars has been proven to be getting warmer. One of Neptune's moons, Triton, is getting warmer. Jupiter is getting warmer. Pluto is getting warmer. There is also evidence that Jupiter's and Saturn's rings are getting warmer. Now, I'm not saying that it is proven that the rest of the solar system is heating up for the same reason Earth is, but there is also no reason that it isn't. So I am forced to return to that whole Occam's Razor thing.

4) To the dismay of the GW scientists, the Earth has in fact been getting cooler over the last ten years. This threatens to throw their whole theory into disarray and they know it. The leaked e-mails from the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (hereafter CRU) (which is the main source of global warming data used around the world), show them desperately attempting to account for the fact that their models did not predict this cooling period and instead predicted increased warming.

So why is the Earth getting cooler? The GW scientists will tell you that we don't know, but we are sure it is going to start getting warmer again.

I suggest we look at what was going on in the mini ice age and compare it to today. If you do, you see that throughout the mini ice age we see solar minimums ( little or no sunspots): (Wolf minimum 1280 - 1350, Spörer Minimum 1450 - 1550, Maunder Minimum 1645 - 1715, Dalton Minimum 1790 - 1820) and no solar maximums. At the beginning of the MWP, we see the ending of a solar minimum and the beginning of a solar maximum. There are no solar minimums during the duration of the MWP. Today we are at the end of a solar maximum and are entering another solar minimum. Now for some unexplained reason, during solar minimums we see the Earth's temperature go down, during the solar maximums we see the Earth's temperature go up.

My second global warming theory: The sunspot cycle has an exponentially larger impact on the Earth's climate than man does. I cite the historical record as my first piece of evidence.

5) To my dismay, but not surprise, the GW scientists have been manipulating the data to produce desired outcomes.

A) The most "prestigious", most wildly cited and far and above the most influential group of GW scientists operate out of the CRU. Their work is the basis of the IPCC findings. These finding are driving environmental policy world wide. Even the US EPA cites the IPCC report as the justification for regulating CO2 emissions in the US. We now know that the scientists at the CRU are guilty of scientific fraud in four areas.

i) Manipulating data: The leaked e-mails discuss the manipulation of data by CRU scientists and their collaborators in order to produce the desired results.

ii) Hiding and destroying data: The GW scientists have been stonewalling Freedom of Information (FOI) requests in both the United Kingdom and the United States for years. Independent scientists have been requesting information from the CRU and NASA among others so that they can attempt to reproduce their results. They have been denied, and some of the leaked e-mails from CRU actually discuss strategies to hide and destroy the data. Science does not work this way.

iii) Corrupting the peer review process: We have been repeatedly told that the science is settled and that a scientific consensus has been formed to support man made global warming. First of all science is not based on consensus. In fact, quite a bit, if not most, of science's advances have come about in direct opposition to the consensus of the time. The most damning evidence to come out of the leaked CRU e-mails however is the clear evidence of efforts to mold a consensus by corrupting the peer review process. This was done in several ways. First by preventing man made warming skeptics from publishing their work. So remember the next time a GW scientists says, "Ignore that guy, his work has never been published anywhere that counts", that he hasn't been published because of collusion among the GW scientists. Secondly they sought to control the editorial process of scientific journals by putting pressure on the journals and by removing editors who were too friendly to skeptics. Lastly they compiled lists of "friendly" reviewers and "unreliable" or skeptical reviewers, and made sure their articles were only reviewed by the friendly reviewers.

iv) The CRU models don't work: Perhaps one of the saddest stories to come out of the hacked CRU e-mails details the three year efforts of a GW scientist to get their computer model to work.

B) Some independent scientists asked for some data from the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (hereafter NIWA) to check the results. They were denied. So the skeptics took the raw data from temperature monitoring stations, and compared it to the manipulated data. The raw data showed a warming of .06 degrees C over a century, while the manipulated data showed a rise of .96 degrees C. The NIWA responded that the manipulation was needed to deal with the changing location of monitoring stations. (interestingly, the weather station at the NIWA headquarters is located on a roof, next to some air conditioners. I bet they get some accurate data from that!) They are refusing to release their justifications for the modifications. With one exception all of the data had been revised to show a warming trend.

6) US organizations often used data acquired from the CRU or the IPCC (which is itself based on data from the CRU). Other data used is collected from climate monitoring stations run by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A survey of these stations by skeptics has resulted in a report that details the fact that 89% of the stations fail to meet the siting criteria of the National Weather Service. These stations are located next to heat sources, and thus provide corrupt data showing temperatures that are too high. Even sadder, the US temperature monitoring system is considered the best in the world, so how flawed must be the data from everywhere else?

7) Now some scientists attempt to answer arguments like mine with the assertion that there is evidence that proves global warming: rising sea levels, rising co2 levels and shrinking glaciers and icecaps..

A) GW scientists and Al Gore say that the world's sea levels are rising, and will rise catastrophically in the future. Al Gore predicted a rise of twenty feet. Even the IPCC only predicts a rise of 17 inches by 2100. The leading expert on the world's sea levels, Nils-Axel Mörner, disagrees. In fact he details the way in which the IPCC took actual observations that showed no recent rise in the sea levels, and in 2003 manipulated the data in order to show a significant rise based on a single tide gage in Hong Kong. Further more, he points out the fact that out of 22 authors on rising sea levels for the IPCC reports, none of them are actually sea level experts. According to Dr. Mörner, the sea has not risen for the last fifty years, and at most it will rise 10 cm by the end of the century (with a +/- of 10 cm). So the sea could not rise at all, or it could rise 8 inches.

B) Some argue that CO2 levels are rising, man is a significant source of CO2, and CO2 causes global warming, so man-made global warming is occurring.

i) According to the evidence, CO2 levels are still rising. However since CO2 is a lagging indicator it will continue to rise even after warming has stopped.

ii) Man produces approximately 5% of the Earth's CO2. Nature accounts for the other 95%. So even if we magically drop man made CO2 to 0%, the Earth's CO2 levels will continue to rise. 5% can hardly be described as significant.

iii) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does cause warming. However CO2 is .o4% of the earth's atmosphere. Water vapor contributes three to four times as much to global warming, why aren't we concentrating on reducing water vapor instead?

So, CO2 levels are rising, but most CO2 is produced naturally and CO2 has a much smaller effect on the Earth's temperature than water vapor anyway. If man made CO2 is reduced to 0% (at a HUGE cost to civilization) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be reduced by .002%. Man-made CO2 is extremely small potatoes when it comes to global warming.

C) GW scientists argue that the world's glaciers and ice caps are shrinking. Some popular examples.

i) Mount Kilimanjaro: Many people like to cite the shrinking ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro as evidence for global warming. However it is now generally acknowledged that the melting is due to decreased precipitation, and this is largely due to the deforestation of the mount's slopes.

ii) Glaciers: The world's glaciers are all melting. This is not true. In fact many glaciers are increasing in size. Update 11/30/09: see also here.

iii) Ice caps: The world's ice caps are shrinking. The Antarctic ice sheet is in fact growing. There is conflicting evidence on the Arctic ice, but there is at least some evidence that the trend is shifting, and the Arctic ice cap is growing again.

Just what is the Earth's normal temperature anyway? Or even more importantly, what is the best temperature for humanity? Any temperature we choose must be an arbitrary decision.

In conclusion, there is some question as to whether global warming is still occurring. If it is occurring there is a question as to how much is caused by man, and how much by other sources. Even if man is having some effect, the changes we can make will come at an enormous cost in wealth and effort, and will likely have little effect. The "science" produced by the GW scientists must now be judged as dubious at best. It is time to take a breath and produce some real global warming science based on actual observations, open sourced data and models that work. Then we can re-evaluate just what the best path truly is.

You Have Got To Be Kidding Me!!!!

Pres. Barak Obama, after nine months in office, has just won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples and for giving the world "hope for a better future" with his work for peace and calls to reduce the global stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Excuse me?

This confirms for all time just what a joke the Nobel Peace Prize has become. It has been political for decades, awarded to various popular lefties...but up to now there has been at least a fig leaf for the committee to hide behind.

Not a single nuclear weapon has been destroyed.

Not a single conflict has been ended.

Nominations for this prize ended TWO Weeks after he entered office.

Look, even if you believe that Pres. Obama had actually has done something to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize...had he done it by his second week in office?

Update 3:23 AM: 205 people were nominated this year for the peace prize. Not one of them was more deserving of the prize? Not one? Unfortunately we are going to have to wait 50 years to get an official list of the other nominees. Brian Kilmeade, a Fox News host just had the definitive line about this....Pres. Obama has just become the third person to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "Not being George Bush", joining Al Gore and Pres. Carter.

Update 3:52 AM: This award is simply embarassing. It is beyond a joke, it is insulting. It insults all the previous winners over the years, and the thousands of previous nominees. At least Pres. Carter and Al Gore had DONE SOMETHING. All Pres. Obama has done is give a bunch of speeches (many overseas) where he has praised and appeased our enemies, insulted and offeneded our allies and denigrated our country's history. I believe a sound and rational argument can be made that Pres. Obama's actions and speeches have actually lessened the chance for peace in the future and made the world a more dangerous place.

Huckabee

OK..I'm NOT a big Mike Huckabee fan....but......watching him play bass with Alabama tonight was definitely way cooler than Pres. Clinton playing the sax on late night TV.

Pres. Obama and the Olympics

OK, first, yes I confess to a good dose of Schadenfreude over the results in Copenhagen this week. Not so much because it was a personal defeat for Pres. Obama, but because it was such an obvious display of incompetence. There is no way that either he or his wife should have gone unless Chicago getting the Olympics was a sure thing. Pres. Obama put political capital and prestige on the line and lost. I would have hated to be one of those responsible for going on that trip on the flight back. I think it is also another example of this administration's complete incompetence in international relations.

However I am disappointed that the USA lost. I never like to see my country lose. On the other hand, the prospect of an Olympics in Chicago is simply frightening. The corruption and graft that would have accompanied the building of the Olympic venues would have been monumental.

Now, some on the left are attacking those on the right who are celebrating Pres. Obama's failure. This is hypocritical to say the least. The left would have done at least as much if it had been Pres. Bush who failed to win the Olympics. Hell some, including Sen. Burriss, are blaming THIS failure on Pres. Bush.

But even worse, some are saying that if Pres. Obama had not gone to Copenhagen, the right would be blaming him for the loss. My response is why? Why would we expect Pres. Obama to interject himself? No president has before. There might have been some comments made about the president's hometown failing, but no one would have laid it at the president's feet.

Do We Really Want The Government To Run Anything?

I was laid off as a teacher at the end of the last school year due to budget cuts. (Don't cry for me...I have 39 months of rehire rights and the district not only has to hire me as a sub, they have to pay me my last year's per diem to do it. Because I will work more days this year, I will actually make more money this year.)

I filed for unemployment June 18. I was granted unemployment, and filed my first claim the first week of July. My last day of work was June 17, I had to wait a week, and then I filed for the last two weeks of June. When I hadn't heard from the Employment Development Department (EDD) (that's what California calls their unemployment department) by July 22, I sent them an email inquiry per their instructions. On the July 29, a week later, I got a reply saying they needed to conduct a phone interview, and that I would receive the information in the mail. So I waited, and subbed some summer school at $20 an hour.

I had now gone a month with no income. ( I wouldn't get paid my meager sub earnings {less than $500} until Aug. 9) Thankfully, I had paid off all my debts so I only owed my mortgage and my monthly bills. I had also managed to put about $8,000 away in savings last year. (yes..I saw both the economic downturn and my layoff coming) But what if I hadn't? How was I supposed to survive for a month if I had been the typical irresponsible modern consumer? What if I was leasing a new car every other year, maxed out my credit cards, and back in 2007 I had refinanced my house to take out the $250,000 dollars in paper equity? I'd be screwed that is what, and probably pretty hungry.

Well I kept waiting. In the meantime the middle school school year began on July 28, and I began subbing for $120 a day. After 21 days this became $347.70 a day, and was retro. I have since learned that very few of the laid off teachers are taking advantage of their ability to substitute for their per diem...which I simply don't understand.

When I hadn't received my telephone interview or notice by August 15, I sent a second e-mail to the EDD. They responded on August 24, 9 days later, with the same reply they sent me on July 29.

So, just to review, I was now up to two months with potentially no employment, (I didn't have to sub, and as I have stated, many other laid off teachers didn't) and no income.

Finally in the mail, I receive a notice that I am scheduled to have a phone interview to determine my unemployment eligibility on September 22. Not only is this three months after I first filed for unemployment (and was sent a claim form) but it is a week day, which means that I have to spend a work day waiting for a phone call between the hours of 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM. I take the call. We talk for less than 10 minutes. I am informed that I qualify beginning with the second week I intially claimed, and the check would be in the mail.

Yesterday, Sept. 30, I got a check for $295.

The one thing this experience has done is to reinforce my knowledge that you cannot depend on the government for anything, and if you do, you are screwed.

I am eternally grateful to my parents that I was raised to be an ant rather than a grasshopper....but I am damn tired of carrying all the grasshoppers on my back, and pissed off at the government's attempts to turn me into a grasshopper.

Surely This Must Be A Sign....

of the Apocalypse!

First we are given the horrific specter of Paul Krugman being in demand on the talk show circuit. It seems to me that Krugman has been studying at the feet of David Brooks and has decided to adopt a similar tactic, only from the Left. And as to Krugman's ideas, all that needs to be said is that he thinks the government has not intruded enough into our economy. Not only is he a crapweasel, he's a socialist crapweasel!

But the true horror comes when we learn that someone has created a music video asking why Krugman is not a member of the Obama administration! Seriously, someone created a music video praising Krugman!

If that is not a sign of the end times, I don't know what is.....

Health Care

I just saw a Business show on Fox (Cashing In) and there was a debate on Pres. Obama's health care plan. Everyone (including me) is pretty sure that his plan will be for a nationalized plan run by the government. During the debate the point was made that Pres. Obama believes that there is a right to health care provided by the government, as does some of the guests on the show.

This is repetitive, but important:

Where does this "right" to health care come from?

If we get a "right" to health care, what will the Left demand next? Because you know they will move on to a new "right" that the government must supply. I've already predicted that it will be Internet access. Hell, we're already giving out government coupons so people can buy digital decoder boxes, I assume there is a "right" to watch TV.

Do We Really Want National Health Care?

Today a young woman named Jade Goody died of cervical cancer at the age of 27. Certainly a personal tragedy to her family, and because of her fame, a national one for the United Kingdom. Her story shines a light on one corner of the darkness of nationalized health care.

Here in the United States, it is recommended that young women get tested for cervical cancer by the age of 21 or within three years of their first sexual intercourse if younger. The test is commonly known as a pap smear. This is because cervical cancer happens to be one of those that can be detected very early, and if treated is very survivable. It is quite common for teenage girls to get pap smears.

Things are quite different under the National Health Care systems in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe.. In most of the United Kingdom, women CANNOT get a pap smear until the age of 20, and since 2003, in England until the age of 25. When confronted about it, British NHS officials bragged that in other parts of Europe women have to wait until the age of 30 to get a pap smear.

Next factor in the fact that here in the United States it is recommended that women receive a pap smear every year until at least the age of 30 and three consecutive clear smears, at which point they recommend every three years until the age of 70.

In the UK they only provide pap smears every three years between the age of 25 and 49, and then every five years until the age of 64.

Early detection is vital in curing cervical cancer. In fact in countries without access to pap smears, cervical cancer is a leading cause of death among women.

When do you want your daughters, sisters, mothers and wives to have their first pap smears? How often do you want to get them? Do you want some government bureaucrat telling you that you cannot get tested? This is just one small fragment of the tragedy of nationalized health care. Imagine this spread across the whole medical realm.

Remember this when the Left starts extolling the benefits of nationalized health care and just say no.

Tax RevoltTea Parties

Just about one month ago Rick Santelli gave his famous speech from the floor of the Chicago Stock exchange:



Future generations may know this man as "The Sam Adams of the 21st Century" All over the country people have been spontaneously organizing Tea Party protests over the actions of Pres. Obama and the Democratic Congress.

The only thing more amazing than the rapid spread of this grassroots movement across the country is the complete lack of coverage of it from the MSM. Literally dozens of articles and reports have been made about 40 people protesting outside the homes of AIG executives yesterday. By most accounts the protesters were heavily outnumbered by the reporters. This protest was all over cable and network news. Where is the coverage of the tea parties?

I am starting to hear suggestions that a big nationwide event is going to happen on April 15. I certainly hope so. If we don't see any improvement soon, I have two suggestions for next year.

First, if possible, change your withholding to "0" as soon as possible. This reduces the amount of interest free loans we give the government, and if enough of us do it, will probably affect the government's cash flow. Simply take the amount you used to send to the IRS each month, and put it in a savings account. Thus you get the interest payments on your money the government isn't giving you, and when your taxes are due in 2010, you have the money on hand.

Second, don't file your taxes until April 14 or April 15 next year. You will have to wait longer for your refund, but if you follow my suggestion above, the government won't owe you a refund. The impact this would have on the IRS is immense. They depend upon the fact that people start filing their returns on January 1.

Protests are good. But it is time to go to the next step. If we can convince millions of Americans upset with Pres. Obama and the Democrats to follow my two suggestions we could really shake things up in Sodom on the Potomac.

Fort Knox

A stray thought hit me this afternoon. What is going on with all of the gold in Fort Knox?

There have been rumors for years that all of the gold is gone. Maybe now we will find out. Because if there is any gold there, it won't be there much longer when Pres. Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid remember it is there.

Remember you read it here first when it happens, probably within the next six months. The Democrats have already looted our wallets, our children's future and surely Fort Knox is next.

Pres. Obama

OK, set aside for the moment his inability to staff the executive branch, his inept handling of the economy and his inability to speak without a teleprompter.

First he snubs Prime Minister Gordon by refusing to hold a traditional press conference, then he embarrasses the United States by giving him a collection of DVDs...that don't even work in England! What the hell? Could you imagine the hue and cry if Pres. Bush had done something so incompetent? Where are the cute segments on SNL or The Daily Show? Where is Olbermann's self-righteous rant?

Now my first thought was it was just one more example of Democratic incompetence. But someone on another blog brought up a good point: What happened to the White House protocol office? There is supposed to be a group of non-political professionals in the White House that stops this type of Mickey Mouse nonsense from happening. The way I see it, one of three things happened:

1) Obama staffers ignored the White House protocol professionals and/or left them out of the loop.

2) The White House protocol office allowed the gaffe to occur for whatever reason.

3) The Obama administration took a page out of the Clinton administration playbook and replaced the non-partisan professionals with incompetent political appointees.

Whatever happened, it says something interesting about the Obama administration, something much more serious than just a gaffe.

Next we turn to Pres. Obama's appearance on The Tonight Show. (Note to Pres. Obama: the campaign is over...you won) Can you imagine the howls of outrage if Pres. Bush had made that Special Olympics comment? Instead the MSM is rallying around Pres. Obama to defend him.


Every one of you who voted for Obama has some 'splaining to do.

Oh Stop It Barry!

I just saw President Obama's press conference about the budget. There was a lot there to get angry about, but the part that pissed me off the most was his "born with a silver spoon " remarks and the implication that he raised himself up from the depths of poverty. Bullshit. Everywhere he lived he was in the upper middle class. He seems to want people to believe he was from the 'hood. Hell, read here about his high school in Hawaii. he went to IVY league schools in college.

I really don't know why Pres. Obama hates the rich (except for the fact that he has surrounded himself with Marxists his whole life) but it is quite clear he does. Fine, but at least spare us the poor boy act.

Congratulations

Congratulations to the Democrats and President-Elect Obama. For both your sakes, and the sake of our country, I hope your term in office is successful.