Bush Says War in Afghanistan Must Be Won for Global Stability

America went from having a leader in President Bush who wasn't afraid to stand up to the terrorist to Obama who wants to make nice and now as part of his strategy is considering giving the Taliban a portion of Afghanistan to control (White House Spin). We are having a hard time believing Obama when he says the Taliban is not that bad compared to Al Qaeda -- one small problem in that flawed thinking -- Al Qaeda and the Taliban have become closer since 9/11.

Obama is putting that whole region in jeopardy with his convoluted thinking that you can make nice with the Taliban. Our news media in the future better fully vet every candidate running for President including minority candidates -- they owe it to the America people after helping elect an unqualified President by covering up for Obama on his past which some are still doing today although more of them are getting a clue.

Bush Says War in Afghanistan Must Be Won for Global Stability
DPA via Earthtimes
Saturday, October 31, 2009

New Delhi - Former US president George W Bush on Saturday warned that the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan must be won else the world would face "serious threats."Addressing a conference in New Delhi, Bush said defeating the radical Islamic groups was necessary to stop a return to "brutal tyranny" in that country.

"The mission in Afghanistan has been long and difficult and costly but I believe it is necessary for stability and peace," he told the conference organized by the Hindustan Times.

"If the Taliban, al-Qaeda and their extremist allies were allowed to take over Afghanistan again, they would have a safe haven and the Afghan people, particularly the Afghan women, would face a return to a brutal tyranny," he said.

"The region and the world would face serious threats."
Bush made the comments as President Barack Obama reviews the US strategy in Afghanistan, before deciding on a military requests to send tens of thousands more troops to the war-torn country.

Bush was confident that the US would bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. "He's not leading any victory parades. He's not on TV espousing his views, he's hiding ... and yes, he'll be brought to justice," he said.

On his second visit to India, Bush is very popular in the South Asian country for building close bilateral ties that included a landmark nuclear deal which ended a three-decade ban on civilian nuclear trade to India.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hosted Bush at lunch Friday and described him as a "great friend of India."

Excerpt: Read more at earthtimes.org

What a pleasure to read this account from Pres Bush's speech and remember how he went out of his way to put people at ease and wasn't afraid to make a joke about himself. The current occupant cannot stand any criticism as we have witnessed with the attacks on Fox News, The Chamber of Commerce, Republicans, Tea Party, and the list goes on with his enemies list just like Nixon's. Bet India wishes that Pres Bush was still in office because they would know where they stood.

Manmohan, Bush get candid over lunch (Bush India trip)
Times Of India 10.31.09

NEW DELHI: Prime ministerial lunches are rarely fun affairs. People sort of get on with it, and then get on with their lives. Not on Friday. Early in the day, former US president George Bush, on a pleasure trip to India, announced cheerily, “I’m off to have lunch with my old pal.”

He sauntered across to the home of his pal, one Manmohan Singh, who famously abandoned his starchy mien to declare this nation’s “deep love” for Bush, then stood stoically through the vicious jokes hurled at him. But for all those present at the “friendly” lunch this afternoon, Bush clearly reciprocated in full measure. The food wasn’t to die for but the conversation, declared one guest, was adequate compensation.

Colleagues reported that Singh was rarely as “chirpy” as he was on Friday afternoon. The conversation was light and sparkling, there was a lot of laughter and banter. So when Singh talked about how much he appreciated the huge gesture of the nuclear deal, Bush quipped, “Yeah, it was a big deal and to get it we had to break a bit of china.”

Embarrassed but grateful laughter greeted this. His new venture of having his presidential library at the Southern Methodist University, in Dallas, Bush declared, was his main interest now. He is also writing a book, “but most of America doesn’t believe I can read”. The laughter now was a little more uncertain because it wasn’t clear whether the assemblage should be laughing at the ex-prez of the US, or tut-tut at the American people’s naivete.

At the outset, Bush disarmed all by thanking them for coming to see a “retired guy”.

SPECIAL ALERT: BOEHNER DELIVERS WEEKLY REPUBLICAN ADDRESS -- HEALTHCARE

UPDATE:

GOP on Health Care: In 568 words, what's wrong with 1,990 pages (Boehner radio address)
10/31/2009
Byron York

Posted on Saturday, October 31, 2009 3:10:01 PM by GVnana

In 568 words, what's wrong with 1,990 pages

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
10/31/09 10:44 AM EDT

House Republican Leader John Boehner gave the Republican radio address today, and in 568 words made a simple and compelling case for what is wrong with the Democrats' 1,990-page health care proposal -- and for what should be done instead.

"This 1,990 pages of bureaucracy will centralize health care decision making in Washington, DC," Boehner said. "It’ll require thousands of new federal employees. It’ll put unelected boards, bureaus, and commissions in charge of who gets access to what drug and what potentially life-saving treatment."

"The best way to get a sense of what Speaker Pelosi’s takeover of health care looks like is to actually look at it," Boehner continued. "Just shy of 2,000 pages, it runs more than 620 pages longer than the government-run plan Hillary Clinton proposed in 1993."

Boehner then offered four proposals to improve the health care situation in America -- not a universal fix, but four significant improvements:

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines;

Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do today;

Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs; and

Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

Excerpt: Read more at Washington Examiner

******
Will someone explain to us why the Healthcare bill in the house that Speaker Pelosi is touting is almost 2,000 pages in length? Why? What are the lobbiest hiding in that bill is what we would like to know. The Republican bill is much shorter by hundreds and hundreds of pages and is common sense. Most importantly, it is easily understood. That is probably the problem with the Republican version Obama, Pelosi, and Reid don't want to consider -- Common Sense, Easily Understood, Choice, and calls for Tort Reform. The last item is something the Democrats don't want to touch with a 10-foot pole as they are beholding to the Trial Attorneys for their large donations.

Demand answers from your Congressman on why the Democrat bill is almost 2,000 pages in length. We will put up an analysis of the bill as soon as it is available as we want the experts to tell us what is in the bill so nothing is missed. All we know is that a 2,000 page bill is flat out wrong and would bet it makes the Government option (not matter the name) mandatory.

As someone who is part of the Federal Employees Health Benefit program, trust me you don't want the Federal Government involved in Healthcare. That doesn't even include my bad experiences with Medicare which I handled for my Mom when she was alive which would take up page after page. Federal Employees and retirees just received one of the largest increases in what we pay in the last 30 years. Our benefit plan is now over $400 a month which is almost a $50 a month increase.

For any of you out there that thinks Federal employees and retirees get their insurance for next to nothing, think again. A lot of companies have dropped out of the Federal plan so we are left with few choices. We are happy with our insurance but extremely unhappy with the increased out of pocket along with increased premiums. If this is an example of Hope and Change, we can do without it.

SPECIAL ALERT: BOEHNER DELIVERS WEEKLY REPUBLICAN ADDRESS

“Only Republicans have offered solutions to lower health care costs and make it easier to obtain quality, affordable coverage without imposing a massive burden on the American people.”

October 31, 2009

Congressman John Boehner today delivered the Weekly Republican Address, where he discussed Republican health care solutions to lower health care costs, and make it easier to obtain quality, affordable coverage without imposing a massive burden on the American people. Audio of the address is available here; video of the address is available here

Boehner said:

“At the beginning of this year, I told President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi that Republicans would be ready to work with them whenever possible to address the nation’s biggest challenges. I also said that where there were differences, it was our obligation as a party to explain to the American people how we would do things better…

“We now have a choice: we can come together to implement smart, fiscally responsible reforms, or we can recklessly abandon it in favor of a partisan government takeover that creates far more problems than it solves.”In his address, Boehner highlighted the following four smart, fiscally-responsible reforms to lower costs and expand access:

1. Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

2. Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

3. Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

4. End junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it’s good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

To learn more about these and all the health care initiatives Republicans support, please visit healthcare.gop.gov

Gibbs: Obama Has Spent "Close to 20 Direct Hours" on Afghan War, "Quite a Bit of Time" Pondering

Obama took "Close to 20 Direct Hours" on the Afghan War while he has spent countless more hours playing golf not to mention date nights including NYC that cost the taxpayers, NYC, and the Air Force major dollars. He promised Michelle he would take her to Broadway after the campaign so he waited until he was President so the taxpayers had to pay for their date night.

This man who did the photo op at Dover which was disgusting enough but now has spent "20 Direct Hours" in ten months on the Afghanistan War that he said was the important war. Out of the "20 Direct Hours" three were yesterday with the Joint Chiefs. No President should ever use our fallen heroes for his own personal gain and that is what happens when you round up the media to go with you. He should have made it personal with the families not a photo op which demeans our soldiers who have died in the Obama Afghanistan War.

This Administration lied that the Bush Administration didn't leave them any information when in fact the Bush Administration turned over all the intelligence they had gathered from the military and intelligence community but Obama asked them to keep it secret. We know why -- Obama wanted to take credit for his victory. Guess Obama thought he could snap his fingers and the Taliban were going to lay down their weapons and all sing Kum By Ya together. Who wouldn't want to listen to the words of Obama as he spreads peace and harmony around the world to our enemies and trash our allies.

Obama doesn't deserve to considered the Commander in Chief. Shirker in Chief would be a better title since he goes to work at 9:00 or 10:00 as he is too busy decorating the White House quarters with Michelle. On weekends he plays golf. What a life.

Gibbs: Obama Has Spent "Close to 20 Direct Hours" on Afghan War, "Quite a Bit of Time" Pondering
Friday, October 30, 2009
Kristinn

At today's White House briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Barack Obama has spent "close to 20 direct hours" in meetings on Afghanistan since Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for tens of thousands of reinforcements was submitted over two months ago with a warning the war would be lost in twelve months without more troops.

Gibbs says Obama also spends "quite a bit of time" thinking about the war in Afghanistan.

Gibbs was asked about a statement by the mother of one of the fallen soldiers, Sgt. Dale Griffin, killed in Afghanistan this week whom Obama met with at Dover early Thursday morning. The mother, Dona Griffin, said she told Obama, Don't leave our troops hanging," when he asked the families if there was anything he could do for them. Gibbs was asked if Obama feels like he is leaving the troops hanging.

He responded that Obama is trying to "understand the full cost of the war."

MR. GIBBS: Again, we haven't gotten into broad specifics on that yet.
On the first part, Jeff, you know, look, I think -- I don't -- I used to have it calculated, I should just go back and do it, the number of hours that he has spent in these meetings is probably now -- well, at the end of today will probably be getting close to 20 direct hours of his time. The group -- the principals that meet with the President additionally take time to get the material ready, and are prepared to answer questions for the President, probably at least twice as much of that of the President's time the principals have spent.

So obviously we -- the President and his team have spent a pretty big chunk of time evaluating very, very closely each of these individual countries, their relationship together and their impact on the region.

At the conclusion of these meetings, he generally is off to the next thing. I think he has spent quite a bit of time after the meetings back in the office -- back in his office, probably primarily in the Residence at night, going back and reading through his notes, as well as -- notes that he's taken on the meetings, and oftentimes will come out with questions that the team will prepare the answers for, for the next meeting.

SNIP--

Early yesterday morning when he was in Dover and met with the families, the families said that he asked, is there anything we can do for the families. And the mother of -- Dona Griffin, a mother of the last of the dignified transfers, said that she told the President, "Don't leave our troops hanging." When he walks into the Situation Room right about now, does he have any sense that the time he's taking to make these decisions is leaving those troops hanging?

MR. GIBBS: Again, to go back through what's happened, the President believed that additional forces were needed in March and he added them to get us to a point where we could evaluate the outcome of the election. That obviously has been delayed a little bit, but he believes this is a point in which it's necessary to fully assess where we are. I don't believe the President thinks -- I know he doesn't believe that this assessment is in any way doing that. I think he understands and I think, as you heard him say yesterday in the Oval Office, I think his commitment, particularly after going to a place like Dover, is to understand the full cost of the war.

Source: freerepublic.com

President looking for new troop options

'Pres. Obama met today with the Joint Chiefs of Staff for just the second time since taking office' and ask yourself what is this President doing with his time. We learned yesterday he has spent '20 hours' on Afghanistan and now learn this is only the SECOND time he has met with the Joint Chiefs on a war that he said is the real war not Iraq.

Believe the title 'Slacker in Chief' fits this President to a tee. Any President who spends more time playing golf then on the Afghanistan War where we have troops dying while he dithers, is not much of a Commander in Chief in our estimation. One thing is for sure, he will never be compared to LBJ who micromanaged the Vietnam War. In fact, he cannot be compared to any President because past President's have not been this lazy. They have made some wrong decisions but this guy wants to vote 'Present' not even make a decision.

In ten months he has managed to make Pres Carter look good which was no small feat. A lot could be said about Carter policy's and people that surrounded him but word 'lazy' was never something you could use against Carter. In fact, he is anything but lazy as witnessed the number of homes he has personally helped build for Habitat for Humanity.

President looking for new troop options
Friday, October 30, 2009 6:45 PM
by Chuck Todd

From NBC's Chuck Todd and Jim Miklaszewski

Pres. Obama met today with the Joint Chiefs of Staff for just the second time since taking office. The president grilled the commanders on strategy and troop requests for Afghanistan during the nearly three hour meeting, but no final decision were made, according to both senior White House and Pentagon officials

In fact, the president has asked the Joint Chiefs to come back to the White House possibly as early as next week to present him with more options. The president is not happy with the choices that he has in front of him, which include Gen. Stanley McCrystal's request for approximately 40,000 more troops. So in the last few weeks, the White House asked the Pentagon to draw up more plans and when ready have the Joint Chiefs present the options formally to the president at the next meeting.

While nothing has been ruled out, the fact the president is asking for more options than what was already on the table, including the 40,000 troop request, is a strong sign that whatever number the president approves, it will likely be less than than 40,000 number. In fact, sources tell NBC News that at least one commander in the meeting today told the president there was a concern that the military was a bit stretched, something that may have had a big impact on the Commander in Chief.

As for timing, it's ALSO looking less likely the president will make a decision (let alone ANNOUNCE a decision) before he leaves for Asia on Nov. 11, a self-imposed soft deadline the White House had hoped to meet.

Excertp: MSNBC First Read

Who's Pulling Obama's Strings

We also believe that Valerie Jarrett, Bill Ayers, and Bernadette Dohrn are also pulling the strings behind the scenes. There is also one 800 lb gorilla that no one seems to be mentioning -- George Soros. When he pulls the strings, Obama talks. All in all the American people elected a President that cannot stand on his own two feet and will go down in history as the weakest President who has to be told what to say by his teleprompter even when it is a very short speech.

World leaders have taken stock of Obama and some have already found him lacking. Something about being more interested in photo ops then governing will do that. The travesty of taking the media along when he met our fallen soldiers who were returned left a bad taste in our mouths. He is ONLY about photo ops and more people are seeing he is nothing but an empty puppet who has puppetmasters pulling his strings.

Who's Pulling Obama's Strings?
FoxNews
October 30, 2009
Liz Peek

Obama fans are in a tight spot. As the White House turns ever harsher and more divisive, supporters are scrambling to explain why President Obama sounds so very different from Campaigner Obama. There are two possible explanations, neither of which is flattering. The first is that Obama was insincere on the campaign trail. The second is that his advisors – David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel -- are in control. The latter view is bound to take hold and it will not boost the president’s flagging popularity ratings.

Many who voted for President Obama feel deceived. When he said in Florida last year “we cannot afford the same political games and tactics that are being used to pit us against one another,” people believed him. When he extolled “rejecting fear and division for unity of purpose,” people believed him. When he said on election night “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree,” people believed him.
Why has the president left those admirable promises behind? Why is his administration going after Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce, insurance executives, AIG management, the drug industry, the Chrysler bondholders and any and all who oppose his policies?

Many believe that Obama is being manipulated by his political adviser David Axelrod and his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The aura of Chicago politics drifts over the capital like a smog.

Excerpt: Read more at foxnews.com

Obama Uses Teleprompter to Give Campaign Speeches

Obama campaigned in Virginia yesterday for Deeds who is running for Governor to replace Gov Kaine who is also the DNC Chair. Most, if not all polls, show the tax raiser Deeds way behind but what we note is that Obama when going to VA for a campaign stop took along his teleprompter for a short speech. Can Obama speak without his teleprompter?

Maybe Deeds should have hugged the teleprompter instead of Obama because the teleprompter told Obama what to say. Does Obama ever speak from the heart or always from his teleprompter which tells him what to say?

Baucus balks at climate change legislation

Last weekend we decided to start giving some time to Cap and Trade which, if passed, would raise everyone's utility bills. Now we have the Democrat head of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen Baucus (D-MT) not supporting the House bill in its current form. Republicans and a lot of Democrats knew the bill was bad but Speaker Pelosi wanted it passed and eight naive (being kind) Republicans voted with them. Why? No one seems to know.

The one major flaw in the House Cap and Trade bill is that no one including the Democrats were given time to read the bill before it came up for a vote. House Minority Leader Boehner took to the House floor to read parts of the bill they received the night before.

We The People do not believe that is the way for Congress to take action -- ram things through that no one reads but then we have members of Congress saying it is too complicated to understand. If they are having bills written that are too complicated to understand, then the people writing the bills are doing it on purpose so they can get their agenda passed or members of Congress have a reading comprehension. Either way it is not right that We The People do not have time to read and comments on bills before they are passed.

Guess you could say that Obama's promise to make bills available for comment before he signs them was another lie during his campaign. Lies keep piling up and even Democrats are beginning to question what is happening.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Baucus balks at climate change legislation
Cites 'reservations' over 2020 target and powers granted EPA
By Edward Felker

A key Democratic senator said Tuesday that he could not support the Senate's global warming bill in its current form, even as President Obama praised the legislation and Democrats moved to push it through committee.

Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, said at the start of a series of hearings in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that he had "serious reservations" about the climate change bill's target of a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. He also said the bill should not allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions.

Mr. Baucus, who also chairs the powerful Senate Finance Committee, became the first Democrat on the panel to object to the bill, which was released Friday in revised form by committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, California Democrat.

The Senate bill is stricter than a companion climate bill narrowly passed by the House in June. The House bill requires large carbon dioxide emitters, primarily power plants and factories, to reduce emissions by 17 percent by 2020. The House bill would also bar the EPA from regulating carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Both bills call for the same long-term goal: a reduction in emissions of about 80 percent by 2050, achieved through a "cap-and-trade" system. The system could mandate reductions based on declining annual emissions limits and require polluters to obtain permits through a government auction or from other polluters.

Excerpt: For Full Story See Washington Times

Pence Denounces President's Support for Hate-Crimes

Is this the kind of Hope and Change people expected when they voted for Obama because he appeared to be a moderate? If the drive-by media would have done their job, Obama wouldn't have been President because the American people would have seen that he hung around with radicals his whole life but instead the drive-bys kneedpadded for Obama every step of the way. They totally ignored what was in front of their nose.

Exactly what is Hate Crimes Legislation? What if black gang members kill another black by beating them at a school bus stop? What would you call that? I call it a hate crime because the young man who was killed was a good student and the teenagers who beat him to death in Chicago were nothing but thugs. If I say those thugs deserve to be sent to the electric chair, is that a hate crime because they are black? I would say the same thing if they were white or Hispanic.

Exactly what are the Democrat thought police going to use as their litmus test for a hate crime? Are they going to try reading our minds next? Ludicrous is the best word we can think to describe this underhanded tactic of attaching a hate crimes bill to the Defense bill. Social engineering is not going to work.

Pence Denounces President's Support for Hate-Crimes

Washington, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, issued the following statement after President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that included so-called ‘hate crimes' legislation:

"Today, the president of the United States put his liberal social priorities ahead of an unambiguous affirmation of our men and women in uniform. Every day, our Armed Forces stand in defense of freedom and our cherished way of life. It is deeply offensive to their service and to millions of Americans to pile so-called ‘hate crimes' legislation onto a bill that authorizes critical resources for our troops. Hate crimes legislation is antithetical to the First Amendment, unnecessary and will have a chilling effect on religious freedom. "The president has used his position as commander in chief to advance a radical social agenda, when he should have used it to advance legislation that would unequivocally support our troops. We should remember why our soldiers put on the uniform, and honor their service by giving them the resources they need to get the job done, without unrelated liberal priorities attached."


Online at GOP.gov

Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Advocated ‘Queering Elementary Education’

Will someone please explain to us how Obama knows all of these radidicals and has been able to put them in key positions with no oversight from the Senate. How are they being paid? Someone needs to shut down the White House budget until they get answers.

For the life of me I cannot see how this person can have anything to do with schools, but then the Secretary of Education wanted to make a gay high school in Chicago. Guess I had better write this today because tomorrow it might be a hate crime to question his fitness for the position. Attaching a hate crimes bill to the Defense bill is flat out wrong -- no discussion -- just ram it through as part of the defense bill.

Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Advocated ‘Queering Elementary Education’ Wednesday, October 28, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama’s safe schools czar wrote a foreword to a book in 1999 that called for elementary school children to explore their sexual identities, for teachers to incorporate homosexual themes in grades K-5, for discarding a “hetero-normative” approach to education and for “acknowledging children as sexual beings.”

Kevin Jennings, now the assistant deputy secretary for education who heads the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, began the foreword to Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling (Rowan & Littlefield Publishers) by writing about the Columbine school shooting in Colorado and comparing it to the beating-death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming and, from there, to the issue of intolerance in schools.

“We remain silent in the face of intolerance,” wrote Jennings, then president of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, an organization he founded. “We do little to teach the values of equality and justice. We simply fail to set any kind of expectation at all that these young people must respect each other even (especially?) when differences among them are vast and profound.”

Excerpt: Read more at cnsnews.com

Obama: Grayson an outstanding member of Congress

If we are known by the company we keep, then it doesn't say much about the President with his calling Grayson an outstanding member of Congress. Does that mean Obama agrees with Grayson's calling Linda Robertson, an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a “K Street whore” in a month-old radio interview that circulated on Capitol Hill Monday night. Members of both parties slammed him for that remark but now we have the President saying he was an 'outstanding member of Congress?'

Then we have this from Grayson's appearance on MSNBC Hardball on Oct 22, 2009:

Grayson: Cheney Has 'Blood That Drips From His Teeth'

Here's Rep. Alan Grayson's money comment on Hardball last night, where the loudmouthed freshman congressman compares former Vice President Dick Cheney to a vampire:

REP. ALAN GRAYSON: “By the way, I have trouble listening to what [Cheney] says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he’s talking, but my response is this: he’s just angry because the president doesn’t shoot old men in the face. But by the way, when he was done speaking, did he just then turn into a bat and fly away?”

What has this Nation come to with this President who praises a Congressman that has no class, not even a little. Both sides of the aisle (except for leadership) are slamming Grayson. Guess the conclusion you can draw is that Grayson is saying what Obama and the House Leadership wishes they could say.

Time for Grayson to leave Florida and resettle in Chicago where he would fit right in with the rest of the Chicago thugs.

Obama: Grayson an outstanding member of Congress
Politico
10/27/2009
Josh Kraushaar

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) is drawing criticism from his congressional colleagues, but President Obama offered him some warm words at a Miami fundraiser for the Democratic congressional campaign committees last night.Obama, in introducing the members of Congress in attendance, called Grayson – along with Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Kendrick Meek – as “outstanding members of Congress.”

Obama may regret his praise of Grayson, who is now drawing fire from members in both parties for referring to Linda Robertson, the adviser to Obama’s Fed Chief Ben Bernanke as a “K Street whore” in a radio interview last month. And he’s received national attention for equating GOP opposition to the Democrats’ health care plan to wanting sick seniors to “die quickly.

”This isn’t the first time the White House political operation has given an assist to Grayson’s re-election prospects. He was the first freshman Democrat in the House to receive political help from Vice President Joe Biden, who came down to Orlando to headline a fundraiser for him in August.

During the event, the vice president told Grayson: “We owe you one buddy…This is a guy who doesn't back away from a fight, and doesn't back down from what he believes in."That much is clear, and even as Grayson continues to draw national controversy for his provocative comments, it doesn't look like the administration is making any effort to distance themselves from him.

SOURCE: Politico

Stimulus Contracts Go to Companies Under Criminal Investigation

After spending most of my adult life around the Air Force, I would love to believe that this is not true but after the last six months spent on looking into another area, I believe every word of the article. Today's contracting officers have a tendency not to look very hard and just do what they are told with no questions asked.

We figured there was going to be a lot of misuse of our tax dollars with the stimulus but didn't figure it would be from Air Force and or any of the Service's contracting groups. Guess when you have an organization that doesn't observe simple procurement rules on solicitations and stiff arms contractors, this should not be a shock.

Would bet there will be more to come until finally the Congress will have to launch an investigation into how the services are spending our tax dollars.

Stimulus Contracts Go to Companies Under Criminal Investigation
by Michael Grabell,

ProPublica - October 25, 2009 10:30 pm EDT

A version of this story was co-published with USA Today.

The Department of Defense awarded nearly $30 million in stimulus contracts to six companies while they were under federal criminal investigation on suspicion of defrauding the government.

According to Air Force documents, the companies claimed to be small, minority-owned businesses, which allowed them to gain special preference in bidding for government contracts. But investigators found that they were all part of a larger minority-owned enterprise in Southern California, making them ineligible for the contracts.

The Air Force and the Army awarded the companies 112 stimulus projects at U.S. military bases, federal contracting records show [2] (27MB Microsoft Excel File). It wasn’t until Sept. 23 – more than a year after the criminal investigation started – that the Air Force suspended the firms from receiving new government contracts.
Federal rules allow agencies to terminate contracts when it’s in the government’s interest. But neither military branch plans to terminate the stimulus contracts awarded to the suspended companies as long as they are performing satisfactorily, said Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col. Ann Stefanek and Army spokesman Maj. Jimmie Cummings.

According to the Air Force, the companies were controlled by Craig Jackson, an African-American businessman whose firm, Sanders Engineering, has won awards from the Small Business Administration.

Jackson did not return calls seeking comment. But an attorney for his firm, Tony Franco, said the company would “vigorously contest” the suspension. He said Jackson has been praised as “someone who has helped small businesses and we believe the facts will bear out that he continues doing so.”

Allegations about one of the firms, APM LLC, became public a year ago, when an SBA audit [3] led to the firm’s suspension from the small-business program and prompted the Defense Department’s criminal probe. That such a warning could go unheeded exposes a gap in the government’s contracting process, said Scott Amey, general counsel for the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight, which tracks contractor misconduct [4].

“The big problem I have – was there any disclosure of the contractors’ missteps prior to them receiving the stimulus money?” said Amey, when told of the suspended companies. “That’s the type of information you would hope government officials would have in front of them when making responsibility determinations.”

Stefanek said the projects were awarded independently by contracting officers at military bases who wouldn’t have spotted problems unless the contractors were suspended or debarred. The Air Force didn’t suspend the firms until Sept. 23 because it wasn’t officially notified by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, which is conducting the investigation, until late August.

Gary Comerford, spokesman for the investigative service, said a criminal investigation isn’t enough to suspend a firm “because there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.”

Records show that on Sept. 24, a day after the Air Force suspensions, Scott Air Force Base in Illinois awarded two more projects worth $423,000 to APM. Stefanek said the contracting officer at Scott didn’t notice the suspension and that the awards have been rescinded.

To spend the stimulus money quickly, many of the projects to improve military facilities were added to existing contracts. Although those contracts had been competitively bid in the past, none of the new stimulus work the companies received was open to competition.

In addition to APM, based in Yorba Linda, Calif., the suspended contractors that won stimulus projects include 1CI Inc., of Gaithersburg, Md.; All Cities Enterprises of Ontario, Calif; Cherokee Chainlink and Construction of Hemet, Calif.; Chung and Associates of Anaheim, Calif.; and Coleman Construction in Los Angeles.
John Brewer, president of Cherokee Chainlink, said Jackson had no control over his company.

“I’m just a client,” Brewer said. “His company does my accounting. He doesn’t run my company and never has.” Brewer called the contracting suspension unfair, saying federal officials “just threw out a big net and grabbed everybody up.”
Managers of the other firms did not return calls or declined to comment.
The suspensions are temporary pending completion of the DOD criminal investigation, and none of the companies has been charged with a crime.

The stimulus projects assigned to the suspended companies include repairing hangars and installing energy-efficient windows at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland; replacing fencing and renovating the dining hall at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio; renovating a child-development center in Fort Knox, Ky.; repairing the airfield electrical system at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia; and stabilizing a landslide area in Colorado Springs, Colo.

$700 million in contested contracts

Small businesses and minority contracting have gained new attention under the $787 billion economic stimulus. Noting the role of small businesses in creating jobs, the White House directed agencies to take advantage of small-business set-asides even if they conflict with another stimulus goal, open competition.

Excerpt: Full article at ProPublica.Org

Another Democrat Taking Orders from Big Labor: Reid makes Concessions to Labor Unions on Healthcare

For all of you out there who have been wondering who is behind Obamacare, we are getting the answer. AFL-CIO President is telling Reid what the Labor Unions will accept with this bill. Makes no difference that the voters don't want a public option because the unions do and that is who pulls the strings of the Democrats and funds their campaigns along with ACORN voter fraud.

Looks like Reid like so many Democrats is bought and paid for by the Unions. Shame that the people of Nevada ever elected him to represent them as he has one master and that looks to be Labor Unions who fund and work his campaign even if a lot of them don't even live in Nevada.

Unions who were getting weaker have sprung back to life with this Administration. We would like to say it is for their workers but we all know better because it is to line the pockets of the union officials at all levels.

Read this article and see for yourself that the head of the US Senate has sold out to the Unions once again. Democrats might as well wear a big tag that says "I am Bought and Paid for by Labor Unions!"

Reid makes concessions to labor unions on Senate healthcare bill The Hill
October 26, 2009
Alexander Bolton

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has made several significant concessions to organized labor in the healthcare reform bill he is preparing for the Senate floor, according to a source familiar with the legislation.

Reid has increased the threshold of high-cost insurance plans that would be subject to taxation to pay for healthcare reform.

Legislation passed by the Senate Finance Committee would impose a 40 percent excise tax on family plans costing more than $21,000, a provision estimated to raise $201 billion for healthcare reform. Under heavy pressure from unions, Reid has increased the threshold so that only family plans costing $23,000 or more would be taxed, said a source familiar with the bill.

The taxable threshold would increase each year by the rate of the Consumer Price Index plus one percent.

Union officials are happy that Reid has listened to their concerns, even though they would like to see the controversial tax scrapped altogether.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka praised Reid on Monday for trying to lessen the impact of the insurance plan tax on working families.

"Sen. Reid is working hard to lessen the impact of this tax and we appreciate his hard work on this," Trumka said during a conference call with reporters.

The Senate bill that Reid has crafted would also include a national government-run insurance plan and allow individual states to opt out of the program. Trumka said his union would not support an “opt in/opt out” compromise on the public option but he said it was a step in the right direction.

“It’s on its way but it’s not there yet,” he said.

The legislation Reid is crafting with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) would also increase the penalty on employers who fail to provide healthcare insurance for employees.

A spokeswoman for Reid did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

SOURCE: The Hill

Obama boosts Chamber donations; Is Obama going after the Chamber for Big Labor?

Chamber is taking in more money to fight the Obama agenda -- how funny! Obama couldn't even get his attacks right on Fox either as the Fox News Ratings are climbing.

This would be laughable if it didn't have such serious consequences. With the War in Afghanistan decision put on hold until Obama can make a decision, the President and his surrogates still have time to attack the US Chamber and Fox News along with anyone else who goes against their agenda. Important decisions to be made and this President goes golfing once again on Sunday and campaigns around the Country at the end of last week for Democrat candidates while our Commander in Afghanistan is waiting for a decision.

It would be nice if Obama would stay in the WH and cut down on the use of fuel for one thing. No President has ever spent so much time away from the White House in recent memory, but then when you see his desk, it is clean of work. Who is doing the work of President because Obama doesn't spend enough time in the Oval Office to do more then photo ops.

Guess he has made the tough job of the Buck Stops Here as President into a cushy job for someone to travel around campaigning and visiting. Considering he never played golf before he was elected, he sure plays enough now that he is President. Even on Father's Day when he told Fathers to spend the day with their children, he went golfing. Lazy is the word that comes to mind.

Who is running Government? Emanual or Axelrod or a combination with Jarrett?

Electing somone to be President with no real experience except voting 'Present' was a bad idea as he has turned out to be playing at President with all the perks but not working. He couldn't even provide the Democrats a plan for Healthcare that was his own. 'Hope' is not working out when you have no substance behind the 'Hope.'

Ironic that it takes the British Press to point out about the US Chamber bringing in more dollars as our Obama media continues to sleep on the job just like their hero.

Obama boosts Chamber donations
Daily Mail
10/26/09
Don Surber

“U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue says a campaign by the White House and its allies to undermine his $200-million-a-year association has largely failed — and actually has helped raise even more money for its pro-business efforts,” Politico reported.

Shades of Fox News enjoying higher ratings thanks to efforts by the president to demonize it. An effort by the White House to have advertisers boycott Glenn Beck largely failed.

Donohue told Politico the Chamber will raise $10 million more this year than it did last year, a 5% increase.

Politico noted: “Several CEOs have told Politico in recent weeks they have gone from genuinely uncertain about Obama’s economic views to authentically concerned. And the outcome of climate change, health care and regulation could turn much of business against the president’s goals.”

Excerpt: Read more at blogs.dailymail.com

Everything is beginning to make sense about the White House attacks on the Chamber when you read the article below. Big Labor is after the Chamber and are making sure the man they bought and paid for in 2008 is on their side against the Chamber. Thus, we see Obama and his surrogates going after the Chamber for Big Labor.

How many other issues has this President supported because he has been bought and paid for by special interest? Our guess is the healthcare bill is a payback to the progressives for their support of him.

Getting more obvious as days go by that this President's core values are based on who was the highest bidder. This may be why he has a hard time making a decision since he was able to vote 'Present' in the past and is not used to having a tough job.

Big Labor on U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Not 'credible'
Politico
10/26/09
VICTORIA MCGRANE

The White House may want to diffuse its spat with the Chamber of Commerce, but Big Labor clearly has no such intentions.

Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union and chairwoman of the five-union federation Change to Win, slammed the big business lobby and its president, Tom Donohue, in a letter delivered today to House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and Rep. Spencer Bachus, the ranking Republican on the committee.

Excerpt: Read more at politico.com

Briton not sold on global warming alarmism

More and more people are waking up to the fact that the 'sky is falling' chicken littles of the world on global warming just might not have the scientific evidence to back them up. Obvious too many that these people have not gone through the swings of climate change as they were growing up.

Beginning to look more and more like the actual science about Global Warming and Cooling is going to be on the side of Senator Inhofe (R-OK) who has been warning for years that the pro-Global Warming crowd is using junk science to prove their point. We would have expected no less out of Al Gore, the Global Warming expert, who has no background in the science of weather but is taken as an expert by people around the world who want to believe what Gore has to say whether there is a factual basis or not.

Once again, the Brits get it right while our Obama media is asleep on the job.

Briton not sold on global warming alarmism
By: Michael BaroneSenior Political Analyst10/25/09 5:38 PM EDT

If, as I noted Friday, Americans increasingly are not sold on global warming alarmism, neither is Christopher Booker of the London Sunday Telegraph (and founding editor of Private Eye). His column provides an account in brief of the rise of global warming alarmism—and its thin scientific basis. He notes that the British House of Commons recently passed legislation mandatin reductions carbon emissions of more than 80% by 2050 that will cost the U.K. some £18 billion a year—at a time when it was snowing outside the Houses of Parliament, the first October snow there in 74 years. His conclusion: “Thanks to misreading the significance of a brief period of rising temperatures at the end of the 20th century, the Western world (but not India or China) is now contemplating measures that add up to the most expensive economic suicide note ever written.” For more information, you can pre-order his book The Real Global Warming Disaster.

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Briton-not-sold-on-global-warming-alarmism--65948782.html

How the Global Warming Industry is Based on One Massive LIE!

These two articles that are part of our coverage on Global Warming. Some scientific methods that provided the basis for Global Warming are providing to be flawed. How long before others are also found to be suspect and Sen Inhofe is proven right about junk science being used? For Obama and the Democrats to push Cap and Trade based on faulty methodology is nothing more then a power and tax grab.

Everything can be best summed up by this quote:

"I will take the scientific method and open discourse over two noble peace prizes and slue of cherry picking ivory tower types any day of the week." - Anonymous

Reading this article reminded us of Al Gore's home in TN. While Al Gore was running around the world touting manmade Global Warming on his Gulfstream Private Jet, his Mansion was spinning the energy dials in Feb 2007.



The think tank report cited figures from the Nashville Electric Service that showed Gore burned through 22,619 kilowatt-hours of electricity at his house last August, a rate that is twice the level used by an average U.S. household in an entire year.

Click here to read the research center's press release on the report.We have discovered that Al Gore has taken his Mansion green but are unable to provide any figures of the savings.

We are not opposed to energy savings like using solar because we have had the experience of using solar hot water and it is great. What we oppose is the hysteria and outright lies on Global Warming told by the likes of Al Gore illustrated below with FACTs. Instead of being honest Democrats like Obama and Gore are adding to the hysteria of Global Warming with lies and half truths. Cap and Trade is nothing more then a payoff to contributors not real change. Obama and his Administration are using some junk science to try to ram their agenda through.

If this Administration and Democrats really cared, they would be promoting entrepeneurs to develop new and improved ways to save energy which make sense rather then wanting to tax everyone. There is a reason people call this bill Cap and Tax as Democrats never met a tax they didn't like.

Read this article below and then ask yourself what science that Cap and Trade is based along with the fear of Global Warming.

How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie

By James Delingpole Politics
Last updated: September 29th, 2009

For the growing band of AGW “Sceptics” the following story is dynamite. And for those who do believe in Al Gore’s highly profitable myth about “Man-Made Global Warming”, it will no doubt feel as comfortable as the rectally inserted suicide bomb that put paid to an Al Qaeda operative earlier this week.

Now read on.

Those of you who saw An Inconvenient Truth may remember, if you weren’t asleep by that stage, the key scene where big green Al deploys his terrifying graph to show how totally screwed we all are by man-made global warming. This graph – known as the Hockey Stick Curve – purports to show rising global temperatures through the ages. In the part representing the late twentieth century it shoots up almost vertically. To emphasise his point that this is serious and that if we don’t act NOW we’re doomed, Al Gore – wearing a wry smile which says: “Sure folks, this is kinda funny. But don’t forget how serious it is too” – climbs on to a mini-lift in order to be able to reach the top of the chart. Cue consensual gasps from his parti pris audience.

Except that the graph – devised in 1998 by a US climatologist called Dr Michael Mann - is based on a huge lie, as Sceptics have been saying for quite some time. The first thing they noticed is that this “Hockey Stick” (based on tree ring data, one of the most accurate ways of recording how climate changes over the centuries) is that it seemed completely to omit the Medieval Warming Period.

According to Mann’s graph, the hottest period in modern history was NOT the generally balmy era between 900 and 1300 but the late 20th century. This led many sceptics, among them a Canadian mathematician named Steve McIntyre to smell a rat. He tried to replicate Mann’s tree ring work but was stymied by lack of data: ie the global community of climate-fear-promotion scientists closed ranks and refused to provide him with any information that might contradict their cause.

This is the point where British climate change scientists appear – and in a most unedifying light. As Christopher Booker has reported the Met Office, its Hadley Centre in Exeter and the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia are among the primary drivers of global climate change alarmism. Their data has formed the basis for the IPCC’s “we’re all doomed” reports; their scientists – among them Professor Phil Jones and tree ring expert Professor Keith Briffa – have been doughty supporters of Mann’s Hockey Stick theory and of the computer models showing inexorably rising temperatures.

Hence their misleading predictions of that “barbecue summer” we never had. As Booker says: “Part of the reason why the Met Office has made such a mess of its forecasts for Britain is that they are based on the same models which failed to predict the declining trend in world temperatures since 2001.

Excerpt: See Full Article at London Telegraph

The following links will provide more details on the lies about Global Warming brought to you be the scientific community who are not swayed by the rhetoric of Al Gore and the Progressive Democrats:

http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://climateresearchnews.com/

We found the following article showing once again the data that has been used to prove their point of global warming is very suspect once again. How many of these scientist touting global warming and the sky is falling have used flawed data to make a test show what they want instead of doing a scientific analysis. When did so many in the science community sell out to the likes of Al Gore and others.

Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem
by Steve McIntyre on September 27th, 2009
The second image below is, in my opinion, one of the most disquieting images ever presented at Climate Audit.

Two posts ago, I observed that the number of cores used in the most recent portion of the Yamal archive at CRU was implausibly low. There were only 10 cores in 1990 versus 65 cores in 1990 in the Polar Urals archive and 110 cores in the Avam-Taimyr archive. These cores were picked from a larger population - measurements from the larger population remain unavailable.

One post ago, I observed that Briffa had supplemented the Taimyr data set (which had a pronounced 20th century divergence problem) not just with the Sidorova et al 2007 data from Avam referenced in Briffa et al 2008, but with a Schweingruber data set from Balschaya Kamenka (russ124w), also located over 400 km from Taimyr.

Given this precedent, I examined the ITRDB data set for potential measurement data from Yamal that could be used to supplement the obviously deficient recent portion of the CRU archive (along the lines of Brifffa's supplementing the Taimyr data set.) Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 describe the Yamal location as follows:
Excerpt: For Full Article See Climate Audit.org

Are Solar Panels Really Black? And What Does That Have to Do With the Climate Debate?

Please take some time to read this and understand what Nathan Myhrvold is saying. Truthfully, when it comes to science, it is not my strong suit, but fortunately our website team includes a mathematician who understands Cap and Trade and other scientific issues very well and is assisting us on getting out the facts on these issues involving the environment like Cap and Trade. He found this article and sent it our way especially since it is from the NY Times.

October 20, 2009, 11:47 am — Updated: 9:45 am
Are Solar Panels Really Black? And What Does That Have to Do With the Climate Debate?
By Nathan Myhrvold

Nathan Myhrvold is a polymath’s polymath, the former chief technology officer at Microsoft who, by the time he was 23, had earned, primarily at UCLA and Princeton, a bachelor’s degree (mathematics), two master’s degrees (geophysics/space physics and mathematical economics), and a Ph.D. (mathematical physics). He is co-founder of Intellectual Ventures, a firm comprising many other scientists, including climate scientists, whose counterintuitive views on global warming and its possible solutions are explored in the final chapter of SuperFreakonomics. A climate-activist blogger didn’t like the chapter, accusing Levitt and Dubner of chicanery (a charge that Dubner rebuffed here) and accusing Myhrvold of not understanding the physics behind solar power. Oops. Below you can read Myhrvold’s views on the tenor of the global-warming debate in general and solar power in particular. Watch this space for further rebuttals of shouted claims of error and evil.

One of the saddest things for me about climate science is how political it has become. Science works by having an open dialog that ultimately converges on the truth, for the common benefit of everyone. Most scientific fields enjoy this free flow of ideas.

There are serious scientific and technological issues in studying our climate, how it responds to human-caused emission of greenhouse gases, and what the most effective solutions will be for global warming. But unfortunately, the policy implications are vast and there is a lot at stake in economic terms.

It seems inevitable that discussions of climate science would degenerate to being deeply politicized and polarized. Depending on which views are adopted, individuals, industries, and countries will gain or lose, which provides ample motive. Once people with a strong political or ideological bent latch onto an issue, it becomes hard to have a reasonable discussion; once you’re in a political mode, the focus in the discussion changes. Everything becomes an attempt to protect territory. Evidence and logic becomes secondary, used when advantageous and discarded when expedient. What should be a rational debate becomes a personal and venal brawl. Rational, scientific debate that could advance the common good gets usurped by personal attacks and counterattacks.

Political movements always have extremists — bitterly partisan true believers who attack anybody they feel threatens their movement. I’m sure you know the type, because his main talent is making himself heard. He doesn’t bother with making thoughtful arguments; instead, his technique is about shrill attacks in all directions, throwing a lot of issues up and hoping that one will stick or that the audience becomes confused by the chaos. These folks can be found at the fringe of every political movement, throughout all of history. Technology has amplified them in recent years. First with talk radio and then with cable TV, the extremists found larger and larger audiences.

The Internet provides the ultimate extremist platform. Every blogger can reach millions, and given the lack of scrutiny or review over content, there is little accountability. Indeed, the more over-the-top the discourse is the better — because it is entertaining. Ancient Romans watched gladiators in much the same way that we read angry bloggers.

That seems to be the case with Joe Romm, a blogger with strong views about global warming and what he calls “climate progress.” In a recent series of blog posts, Romm levels one baseless, bald charge after another. What provoked this? The best summary I’ve seen comes from a comment by DaveyNC to the Freakonomics blog which says:

Excerpt: See Full Article at NY Times

An important letter sent to the President about the danger of climate change

When we were first sent this letter, we were trying to figure out what the writer meant and if he knew something that the global warming crowd had not figured out. After all, we did see a snow storm on Monday Night Football in New England which was extremely early for winter weather.

Then we read to the bottom of the letter and have been chuckling ever since. Shows the 'sky is falling' crowd is not to be taken very serious.

Hope you enjoy this as much as we did!

21 October 2009
An important letter sent to the President about the danger of climate change
Fabius Maximus @ 6:00 am

An important conference was held in January at Brown University: “The Present Interglacial, How and When Will it End?” (The October issue of Science had a summary of the it) As a result, the following letter was sent to the President. The media has not reported this, but you should be aware of the letter and its significance.

Dear Mr. President:

Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.
The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.

Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace.

The practical consequences which might be brough by such developments to existing social institution are among others:

(1) Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected.
(2) Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc.
With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research …

With best regards,

George J. Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory)
R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)

Important details about this letter:

It was sent to President Nixon, not Obama.
The date of letter: 3 December 1972.

The text is from slide 6 ”The Origins of a ‘diagnostics climate center“, Robert W. Reeves and Daphne Gemmill (NOAA), posted at the NOAA website — presented at the 29th Annual Climate Diagnostics & Prediction Workshop, 20 October 2004 — . It did not include the text of the penultimate paragraph. The last paragraph warned about Soviet science in this area.

Here is the text of the presentation.
The October 1972 Science article about the conference was “The Present Interglacial, How and When Will it End?”.

Excerpt:
Click for the remaining sections of this post

Is Cap and Trade Payback for Campaign Donations to Obama/Democrats?

With all the healthcare news, we have been waiting to report on Cap and Trade and the consequences to business and consumers with these new taxes and regulations. The comments below from the Junior Senator from NY, Gillibrand, made us stop and think that now would be a good time to have Cap and Trade share the spotlight. Today’s postings will also feature a letter sent to the President with the sky is falling – do something now mantra which will come as a surprise to the global warming crowd.

We have suspected all along Cap and Trade aka known as Cap and Tax was a payback for Obama/Democrat donors. How many companies stood to gain from an Obama agenda such as Cap and Trade because their campaign contributions in 2008 were so far out of the norm?

One of the companies we consider among the most suspicious is GE who bundled almost 1/2 million dollars ($2300 per person for the primary and $2300 for the general). The $4600 max contribution by donor shows the large number of donors GE had to find to raise that much money. How many of those donors were stiff armed to donate to Obama? For those that don’t understand, bundling is reaching out to private donors through events, private meetings, and phone calls for maximum donations which are set by the FEC.

Another question comes to mind with a possible conflict of interest for GE. What is GE doing by raising this much money when they control TV networks? Those networks especially MSNBC knee padded for Obama every step of the way and still do. Makes one wonder if Cap and Trade legislation is what they paid for with donations to Obama and the Democrats. Worse is when GE started their Obama propaganda machine through MSNBC after bundling so much money. MSNBC with Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews were so overboard for Obama and anti-McCain it should have been an in-kind campaign contribution for an infomercial for Obama instead of news programs.

NBC’s Brian Williams was cheerleading for Obama in many instances which surprised us. There was absolutely no fairness during the Presidential campaign by the GE networks. We expected some liberal bias but GE networks were over the top on Obama refusing to report any negatives even when Obama kept throwing people under the bus like Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, and others. Crickets were chirping at GE networks along with lack of comments on Obama’s background considering he (Obama) had everything sealed. No questions asked. No investigative journalism. If someone can point out when GE networks were not in full support/cover-up mode for Obama over McCain, we will be glad to spotlight.

One other group of companies that had us all scratching our heads during the election was the defense contractors who all of a sudden supported Obama over McCain? We were asking back during the general election why employees of the three major defense contractors were being stiff armed by their company PACs to donate to Obama as it made no sense. Obama was never a friend of the military or their weapon systems so why would the defense industry line up for him.

We may be getting closer to the answer. Rumor has it that the largest of the major defense contractors is joining Boeing and Northrop Grumman in the green movement and support of Cap and Trade? If the rumor about Lockheed is true, then what you have are the three defense contractors pushing Cap and Trade and going green after bundling large amounts of money for Obama. What this the reason to stiff McCain -- Cap and Trade?

How many other companies like GE and the three major defense contractors who supported Obama now support going green and Cap and Trade to help them make hundreds of millions of dollars or billions on the backs of the American consumers and our energy industry? We will be looking into all of this in more depth in the weeks to come including the connections on Wall Street.

Senator Gillibrand: Democrats Now the Party of Goldman-Sachs, J.P. Morgan ChaseIsraPundit
10/23/09
Bill Levinson

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) says openly that Wall Street speculators will profit from "climate legislation"
Senator Gillibrand's own words, from yesterday's Wall Street Journal, show that the real purpose of Barack Obama's climate change legislation is to give Wall Street speculators yet another tulip bulb scheme to replace the mess (mortgage backed securities) for which we are still paying with a $750 billion stimulus package, various bailouts at the taxpayers' expense, and ten percent unemployment.

We encourage our readers to circulate this article, and Senator Gillibrand's own words, as widely as possible to show that Barack Obama's cap and trade agenda has very little to do about protecting the environment and everything to do with lining the pockets of fat-cat Wall Street speculators, the same kind that gave us the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble, at the expense of the American people. It is especially important to convey this message to the working people who make up the Democratic Party's base. We also remind our readers that General Electric, which stands to benefit enormously from cap and trade, raised almost half a million dollars in bundled contributions to elect Barack Obama.

Excerpt: Read more at israpundit.com

The Hexagon Of Progress: Barack Obama – Working Families Party – Democratic Socialists Of America ...

This is some great research and everyone needs to follow the link below to understand what is happening with Obama and his agenda. Democrats in particular who are not liberal need to understand what has happened to their Party which is nothing like the Democrats of their Father and Grandfather.

The Hexagon Of Progress: Barack Obama – Working Families Party – Democratic Socialists Of America – New Party – ACORN – SEIU
October 21, 2009



Folks, we are not calling Democrats “socialists.” That’s a mean, ugly word frequently used as an epithet to smear people on a personal level. We are calling them “Democratic Socialists.”

We don’t mean this as a judgment. It is simply a fact which the politicians involved with the Working Families Party group should be made to own.

Caution: This is a lengthy post, but, it’s easy to follow and there’s a party favor at very end.

Let’s review the facts:

Excerpt: See details at Founding Bloggers (MUST READ)

Obama taxes pacemakers, heart valves

Has AARP woken up yet to how bad Obamacare would be for senior citizens and others or do they still have their head buried in the sand so not to hear what Obama wants to do with healthcare?

Now Obama wants to tax necessary medical items for people to live or make their lives more comfortable. How can you tell a patient that needs a knee replacement that they are going to be taxed? Why you ask? Because the industry that make these medical devices to improve people's lives told Obama they would not support Obamacare. For that, they are going to get taxed. If you disagree with the Obama agenda, you will suffer the consequences.

Someone better remind Obama that playing basketball is hard on his knees, but we expect him to pay the tax if he ever needs a replacement. Wonder what his mother-in-law thinks of his going after senior citizens on healthcare?

Obamacare gets worse by the day. We envision that Cap and Trade will be the same way as it rears its ugly head. In the meantime, Obama and his Chicago thugs continue to go after Fox News while the economy is in the tank.

Welcome to Hope and Change Chicago Style!

Obama taxes pacemakers, heart valves
The Hill
10/23/2009
Dick Morris

The more the fiscal details of the healthcare bills emerge, the more appalling they seem. The Senate Finance Committee bill includes a broad provision taxing all manner of medical devices. This tax includes such frivolous luxuries as pacemakers, stents, artificial heart valves, defibrillators, automated wheelchairs, mechanized artificial limbs, replacement hips and knees, surgical gurneys, laparoscopic equipment and the like.

President Obama is planning to reduce the cost of medical care by taxing it!

The most recent Gallup Poll reflected that 49 percent of respondents said they believed that the ObamaCare plan will increase their healthcare costs. Only about 20 percent said it would lower them. It is taxes like these that substantiate this kind of concern.

The origins of this new medical device tax are troubling as well.

The medical device industry had its day at the White House, as did the insurance industry, the drug makers, the nurses and the doctors. In turn, each group heard the White House request that it come up with voluntary cuts in its healthcare costs and support Obama’s proposed changes in return for assurances that Congress would not impose deeper cuts (or, in the case of the doctors, that it would actually rescind cuts already scheduled under current statutes).

But, unlike all these other groups, the medical device industry refused the deal. This posture enraged the tyrants in the White House, who vowed to punish the industry with cuts imposed by Congress. The result was a decision by the revenue-hungry Senate Finance Committee to extract billions in funds from the industry.

Excerpt: Read more at thehill.com

'Fierce urgency' for jobs, not health care

When you have the #2 person in the House, Rep Hoyer (D-MD) that doesn't seem to know the difference between a mandate and promote and Sen Leahy who says that no one has the right to question Congress, you have a prescription for not listening to the American people on Obamacare. The stimulus package didn't create enough jobs to even mention the fact for all the money wasted and now the Administration is saying unemployment will remain above 10% for 2010 but we have to pass healthcare right away that will put more people out of work. Must have to be a Democrat to understand that scenario.

Then we have the chicken littles, Reid and Pelosi, running around saying they have enough votes to pass a public option, but they won't take a vote. Our sense is that both are lying. Take Reid's math -- he lost by 14 votes with Dems joining all the Republicans, today he says he has now picked up two votes while one of the Dems that voted with the Dems is now saying no to a public option but Reid has near 60 votes? Make sense to you -- it doesn't to us. Maybe this is Dem math at work. All we know is if either House had the votes, this would have been passed yesterday.

Today we also find out from Bryon York that Obama is using the words of Martin Luther King on the urgency of passing something. Does that man have an original thought in his head or is his so-called intelligence factor that he 'borrows' phrases from others to use as his own?

'Fierce urgency' for jobs, not health care
By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent
October 23, 2009

How many times have you heard Barack Obama talk about "the fierce urgency of now"? The president has used the quote, from Martin Luther King Jr., to call for quick action on the war in Iraq, on global warming, on homelessness, on education -- you name it.

Now, Obama and his fellow Democrats are trying to convince the nation of the fiercely urgent need to enact national health care reform this very instant.
"We have been waiting for health reform since the days of Teddy Roosevelt," Obama told the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation in September. "We cannot wait any longer. ... There comes a time to remember the fierce urgency of right now."

But the American people simply do not share Obama's sense of urgency about health care reform. In a new poll, the Gallup organization asked the following question: "If Congress is going to reform the health care system, should Congress deal with health care reform on a gradual basis over several years, or should Congress try to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan this year?" Just 38 percent of those surveyed want reform now, versus a clear majority -- 58 percent -- who want reform on a gradual basis.

When you break Gallup's results down by political party, you see that Democrats are the only ones feeling any urgency at all. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats want reform now, but 77 percent of Republicans, and 63 percent of independents, want gradual reform. When it comes to health care reform, there is no fierce urgency of now.

The plain fact is, the public's top priority lies elsewhere. "The only issue that people have a sense of fierce urgency about right now is the economy and jobs," says Republican pollster David Winston. "The president is in an uphill battle to try to move the discussion to other topics."

Excerpt: Read more at Washington Examiner

The Chicago Way (Don't Cross Obama or ...)

This summer when I was in Chicago, one thing jumped out -- lack of signs that Obama was President. Ebony had the usual big Obama pictures in the front window but walking downtown only saw one Obama sign in a window.

It was like Obama didn't exist and wasn't President. Told me that a lot of people in Chicago don't even consider him from Chicago. It was odd to see such a lack of an Obama presence. No signs, no bumperstrips, and a downtown McDonald's that covers black notable people but couldn't find an Obama picture in the restaurant. Just really strange.

Chicago seems to be an afterthought for Obama now but unfortunately one thing he did take with him is the Chicago thuggery that goes with politics in Chicago. From listening to people talk, Chicago is without a doubt one of the most corrupt cities in America. Guess Chicago never heard of term limits or the Daley family wouldn't still be in control.

We have a community organizer turned President who is still voting 'Present' on Afghanistan but threatens Fox News, Chamber of Commerce, and any others who get in the way of his agenda. More and more people are seeing Obama in the light of Nixon who would do anything to take down his enemies and that is not a compliment. You can tell the Chicago thug Rahm Emanuel is behind a lot of this as it has his fingerprints all over from how he operated in Chicago.

The Chicago Way
The Wall Street Journal
October 23, 2009
Kimberly Strassel

They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way.

–Jim Malone,
"The Untouchables"

When Barack Obama promised to deliver "a new kind of politics" to Washington, most folk didn't picture Rahm Emanuel with a baseball bat. These days, the capital would make David Mamet, who wrote Malone's memorable movie dialogue, proud.

A White House set on kneecapping its opponents isn't, of course, entirely new. (See: Nixon) What is a little novel is the public and bare-knuckle way in which the Obama team is waging these campaigns against the other side.

In recent weeks the Windy City gang added a new name to their list of societal offenders: the Chamber of Commerce. For the cheek of disagreeing with Democrats on climate and financial regulation, it was reported the Oval Office will neuter the business lobby. Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett slammed the outfit as "old school," and warned CEOs they'd be wise to seek better protection.

That was after the president accused the business lobby of false advertising. And that recent black eye for the Chamber (when several companies, all with Democratic ties, quit in a huff)—think that happened on its own? ("Somebody messes with me, I'm gonna mess with him! Somebody steals from me, I'm gonna say you stole. Not talk to him for spitting on the sidewalk. Understand!?")

The Chamber can at least take comfort in crowds. Who isn't on the business end of the White House's sawed-off shotgun? First up were Chrysler bondholders who—upon balking at a White House deal that rewarded only unions—were privately threatened and then publicly excoriated by the president.

Excerpt: Read more at online.wsj.com

Escalation: White House Tries to Exclude Fox From Press Pool Interview

View this video from Fox News discussing the fact that the White House tried to exclude Fox from the Press Pool interview. Seems the other media outlets stood up to the White House and refused to do the interview unless Fox was invited since Fox News is part of the Press Pool. Talk about being petty and Nixonian -- this fits the bill for the Obama White House.

Bryd stops Obamacare

Once again Senator Robert Byrd has stepped up to the plate. He stopped Hillarycare which was a Government run healthcare, and he looks poised to do it again. While not always agreeing with his votes, the one thing that has stood out is his love of our Constitution and Country. He knows the Constitution probably better then any member of Congress. Instead of Democrats going to Sen Byrd for advice, they shove him aside until they need his vote. He has forgotten more about how the Senate works then they will ever know.

Thank you Senator Byrd for standing up for Americans and our Constitution. You understand that there is no place in the Constitution that mandates Government run healthcare. Obama and the Democrat leaders must realize that fact but they are charging ahead without regard to what the Constitution says because it doesn't suit their agenda. As Leahy says we are not to question Congress. We bet Senator Byrd disagrees with Leahy has he has many times over the years.

Byrd stops Obamacare
Charleston Daily Mail
10/22/2009
Don Surber

So the word was that Democratic leaders worried about the health of Democratic Senate President Pro Tempore Robert C. Byrd, whom they needed as a 60th vote to end any Republican filibuster.

On Wednesday, Byrd voted against cloture — meaning he sided with the Republican filibuster.

(snip)

Byrd could be an ally in stopping Obamacare. He killed Hillarycare 16 years ago. He just may have an inclination to do it again.

Excerpt: Read more at blogs.dailymail.com

Obama: The Other Side (Republicans) Do What They are Told!

Not only is there a transcript of the President speaking but we found the video on You Tube. So Mr. Arrogance believes Republicans 'do what they are told?' If that is the case, how do you explain Sen Snowe and Senator Colllins and used to be Sen Specter when he was a Republican. Would like to see someone tell Senators Inhofe or Coburn how they had to vote with no questions asked. What a total arrogant statement to make by Obama.

The Party that normally voted in lockstep in the past was always the Democrats because they are NOT independent thinkers for the most part in the House especially. There are always been the Senators that stood out for independent thinking among the Democrats -- David Boren, Sam Nunn, Robert Kerrey, and Robert Byrd to name a few but by and large when the leadership says jump, they say how high.

For Obama to makes these comments shows two things -- first he doesn't understand Republicans and second, he has lost quite a few Democrats over Obamacare. Making a statement like this will only infuriate most Republicans who actually read the bills.

Obama's lecture using "ya'll thinkin'" is demeaning in our opinion. He seems to be talking down to Democrats with his use of the slang langauage. We are used to Obama considering us a bunch of 'hicks' in the south and Middle America, but we doubt the Democrats he was speaking to appreciated the slang comments used toward them.

OOPS! We forgot to leave out Chicago as part of Middle America since they consider themselvess part of the East Coast.

OBAMA: "Sometimes Democrats can be their own worst enemies. Democrats are an opinionated bunch. You know the other side, they just kind of do what they’re told. Democrats, ya’ll thinkin’ for yourselves. I like that in you, but it’s time for us to make sure that we finish the job here, we are this close and we’ve got to be unified."

Sen Leahy Could Not Explain How Congress Gets Authority to Mandate Healthcare

The arrogance of the Democrats in Congress is personified yesterday by Rep Hoyer (D-MD) and today in this CNS News interview Sen Leahy. Hoyer quoted the 'promote the general welfare' in the Constitution for his authority to mandate healthcare and now we have Leahy saying: “nobody questions” Congress’ authority for such an action.

Hoyer equated mandate and promote as meaning the same thing and Leahy has just told us we have no right to question Congress.

Most people are left speechless when you look at these two men and what they are saying. One simple fact they have forgotten is that they are 'elected' to do the will of the people and work for us. These two and the other 533 members of Congress were elected to do the will of the people who are by a fairly large majority now saying "NO" to mandated healthcare. The arrogance of these progressive Democrats knows no bounds.

No where in the Constitution does it say they have a right to mandate every American citizen sign up for government run healthcare or be fined or better yet jailed for refusing to sign up. Last we checked we were a free people even if the Democrats don't like the fact. Medicare is not mandated so why should we have government run healthcare mandated? We have a right to choose as free and independent Americans.

Leahy equating lowering the speed limit to a mandate in the 70's didn't even get that right. It was the carrot approach not a mandate where states would lose their federal highway funds if they didn't lower the speed limits. Nevada told them to take it and shove it and continued on like nothing had happened. Drove across Nevada in the summer of 1975 and got passed regularly doing 70 mph on the open roads. It was great. Leahy's use of speed limits was faulty rhetoric.

In response to Leahy's "nobody questions Congress" mantra, we would like to state for the record that 'We The People' do question Congress on Obamacare and many other bills they have been passing which flies in the face of OUR Constitution.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Unable to Explain Where Congress Gets Authority for Individual Insurance Mandate
Thursday, October 22, 2009
By Matt Cover

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Photo courtesy of Leahy’s Web site) (CNSNews.com) – Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) could not explain what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance – as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do.

Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that “nobody questions” Congress’ authority for such an action.

CNSNews.com: Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?

Sen. Leahy: We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?

CNSNews.com: I’m asking –

Sen. Leahy: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority, nobody questions that.

When CNSNews.com again attempted to ask which provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance, Leahy compared the mandate to the government’s ability to set speed limits on interstate highways – before turning and walking away.

(snip)

The individual health insurance mandate contained in all five health overhaul bills currently being considered in Congress would levy a tax on any American adult who does not have one of three government-defined health insurance policies, purchased either through an employer or individually in government-run exchanges.

This is not the first time Congress has tried to force Americans to buy insurance. An individual mandate was a key component of then-President Bill Clinton’s government-led health care overhaul.

Of that Clinton-era mandate, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that such a proposal would be “unprecedented,” adding that the government had “never required” Americans to purchase anything. “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” CBO found.

CBO also noted that an individual mandate would carry with it something never before done in the history of America: it would impose a legal duty on American citizenship. In other words, all American citizens – and anyone wanting to become one – would be forced by the government to do something, even if they didn’t want to or chose not to.

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States," CBO said at the time.

"An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government."

Excerpt: Read Full Article at CNS