After 'Question Time,' GOP lawmaker blasts Obama - Rep Steve King (R-IA) Facts versus Obama Spin

Rep Steve King of Iowa has stood up with the facts once again to dispute Obama and his spin/lies just as does in the House against the Democrats. We have no doubt that he would also take on any Republican that didn't act in the best interest of the Country.

King is one of the most articulate members of Congress who gets right to the heart of the problem. For example, he will take the Pelosi/Democrat/lobbyist disjointed bills and pull out the key parts to put these bills in plain, succinct language so his constituents and the American people can understand what the Democrats are trying to ram through the House.

When King takes to the floor of the House, his speeches factually detail what is right or wrong with a particular bill. He goes right to the heart of the bill and you are left with "Why don't all members of Congress talk like this?" You are never left with "what did he say?" when he speaks as so often happens with Democrat members as they spin.

It is time that more Republicans in the House follow the tradition of Steve King, Joe Wilson, Mike Pence and others who are not afraid to stand up against the Democrats including Obama when the Democrats spin the facts or outright lie.

After 'Question Time,' GOP lawmaker blasts Obama
By: Byron YorkChief Political Correspondent
01/30/10 1:37 PM EST\

One of President Obama's more striking criticisms of Republicans during his visit to the GOP retreat Friday was the accusation of hypocrisy about stimulus spending. "Let's face it, some of you have been at the ribbon-cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities," Obama said. Later, he emphasized the point, adding, "As I said, a lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon-cuttings for the same projects that you voted against."

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King attended the session. Later, via e-mail, I asked him about the president's remark. "On its face, it's offensive to me," King answered. "I have been attacked for getting the least of the Iowa Delegation out of the stimulus, and I don't want to be lumped in with those who may have, and probably did, cut the ribbons or turn a shovel of dirt."

"In addition, Obama advertised Recovery.gov as a way to prove the success of the stimulus," King continued. "My recollection is that it claimed jobs 'saved or created' in my district that probably do not exist. It also claimed to have created jobs in District 00 of Iowa."

"Claiming credit for jobs that do not exist in districts that don't exist is a very weak platform for criticizing Republicans."

King, who had urged Obama to take a more centrist tack in the State of the Union address, concluded: "Audacity is more and more emerging as a leading characteristic of our president. Could it be possible that he believes Axelrod's talking points?"

Source: Washington Examiner

1/30/10 Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) Delivers Weekly GOP Address On National Security Policy

After viewing the Sen Susan Collins video and reading the transcript, ask yourself "Why this happened?" It makes no sense why the DOJ rushed in and declared this foreign terrorist a criminal and read him his Miranda Rights. But then we are still waiting for answers on Attorney General Holder dropping charges against the New Black Panthers on voter intimidation caught on tape in Philadelphia.

The first thought that enters a person's mind is what is this Administration trying to cover up by placing this terrorists immediately into the criminal court system thus stopping the experts from continuing to question him about other possible plots? When you stop to think about it, we are still asking that same question.

Collins nails the Obama Administration with her GOP Address this morning. We applaud her for continuing the demand answers to the same questions on the minds of many Americans.

TRANSCRIPT:

“Less than one hour. That’s right, less than one hour.

“In fact, just fifty minutes.

“That’s the amount of time that the FBI spent questioning Abdulmutallab, the foreign terrorist who tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day.

“Then, he was given a Miranda warning and a lawyer, and, not surprisingly, he stopped talking.

“How did we get to this point? How did the Obama administration decide to treat a foreign terrorist, who had tried to murder hundreds of people, as if he were a common criminal?

“On Christmas Day, the skies above Detroit became a battleground in the War on Terrorism.

“That day the bomb being carried by Abdulmutallab failed to detonate. Thanks to the courageous action of the passengers and crew, nearly 300 lives were saved on the plane and more lives were spared on the ground.

“The government’s security system, a front line in the war against terrorists, failed long before Abdulmutallab boarded his flight to the United States.

“It failed when his visa wasn’t revoked, even though his father had warned our embassy in Nigeria about his son’s ties to Islamic extremists.

“It failed when the intelligence community was unable to connect the dots that would have placed Abdulmutallab on the terrorist watchlist.

“It failed when this terrorist stepped on to the plane in Amsterdam with the same explosive used by the ‘Shoe Bomber,’ Richard Reid, more than 8 years ago.

“But, today, I want to discuss another failure – a failure that occurred after Abdulmutallab had already been detained by authorities in Detroit – an error that undoubtedly prevented the collection of valuable intelligence about future terrorist threats to our country.

“This failure occurred when the Obama Justice Department unilaterally decided to treat this foreign terrorist as an ordinary criminal.

Abdulmutallab was questioned for less than one hour before the Justice Department advised him that he could remain silent and offered him an attorney at our expense.

“Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist ‘lawyered up’ and stopped talking.

“When the Obama administration decided to treat Abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal, it did so without the input of our nation’s top intelligence officials.

“The Director of National Intelligence was not consulted.

“The Secretary of Defense was not consulted.

“The Secretary of Homeland Security was not consulted.

“The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center was not consulted.

“They would have explained the importance of gathering all possible intelligence about Yemen, where there is a serious threat from terrorists whose sights are trained on this nation. They would have explained the critical nature of learning all we could from Abdulmutallab. But they were never asked.

“President Obama recently used the phrase that ‘we are at war’ with terrorists. But unfortunately his rhetoric does not match the actions of his administration.

“The Obama administration appears to have a blind spot when it comes to the War on Terrorism.

“And, because of that blindness, this administration cannot see a foreign terrorist even when he stands right in front of them, fresh from an attempt to blow a plane out of the sky on Christmas Day.

“There’s no other way to explain the irresponsible, indeed dangerous, decision on Abdulmutallab’s interrogation. There’s no other way to explain the inconceivable treatment of him as if he were a common criminal.

“This charade must stop. Foreign terrorists are enemy combatants and they must be treated as such. The safety of the American people depends on it.

“I’m Senator Susan Collins from Maine. Thank you for listening.”

Source: GOP.com

BREAKING: ANGRY Obama Lashed Out at House Republicans at Their Retreat Video

BREAKING NEWS from GATEWAY PUNDIT

ANGRY Obama Lashes Out at House Republicans– Tells Them “I Am Not an Ideologue” (Video)
Friday, January 29, 2010, 12:04 PM
Jim Hoft

An angry Barack Obama met with House Republicans today at their retreat in Baltimore and attacked them for voting against his very radical and failed plans for restructuring America. To their credit not one single House Republican voted for the gigantic Stimulus Bill, the record Omnibus Bill, and the Obama Son of Stimulus Bill. And, only 5 voted for the democrat’s business-busting cap-and-tax bill and only one voted for Obamacare. Today Obama let them know what he thought about their lack of support for his radical agenda.

Look at how ANGRY he is while speaking to the House Republicans:

Excerpt: Read More at: Gateway Pundit

NOTE: Less then 48 hours after the State of the Union he reprimanded members of the House Republican Caucus at their retreat. He was a guest speaker and he took the opportunity to attack Republicans who invited him ignoring any sense of trying to be bi-partisan. So much for his bi-partisan approach.

This video needs widespread distribution and used in the 2010 elections to show just how nasty Obama can be if you don't agree with him 100%.

Guess we can take from this encounter that Obama did not hear the voters of Masschusetts last week.

Obama State of the Union Fallout

With snow coming down this morning to add to the rain that froze on objects, freezing rain that froze on the sidewalk, and sleet that accumulated like snow on roads and temperatures now below freezing, it is a very good day to stay inside and read the fallout from the State of the Union Obama gave on Wednesday night.

One thing went right -- teleprompters did not fail and he was able to read his entire speech which liberal media members gave high marks. Do they know what he said? Probably not but for an hour Chris Matthews, MSNBC, forgot he was black whatever that means. Who cares about the color of a Obama's skin? It is Obama's agenda that matter to us.

The American Thinker summed by the SOTU given by Obama versus the Rebuttal given by Governor Bob McDonnell of the Commonwealth of Virginia better then any one:

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnel, 01/27/10

January 29, 2010
Obama's sucker punch; McDonnell's knock out punchScott Strzelczyk

Obama ridiculed the justices in a nationally televised speech much to the joy and amusement of Congressional Democrats. Their boisterous standing applause is equally demeaning as Obama's statement.

The President's speech lasted 70 minutes and, to me, sounded just like everything else he says. A friend summed it up nicely by saying "history reference.... bumper sticker quote.... anecdotal story from a swing state about health care.... contemplative pause and look at the horizon.... overstate the obvious with mock sincerity.... blame Bush.... bumper sticker quote....stump speech excerpt.... knowing nod.... reinvent the wheel.... exaggerate accomplishments.... false promise.... blame Bush... repeat.... repeat.... repeat."

Contrast Obama's speech with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's speech. McDonnell's speech was brief, concise, and delivered with the proper tone and authority we expect from a leader. He summarized the challenges we face; unemployment, intrusive federal government, and the 12 trillion dollar debt. He discussed solutions to the issues. He eloquently quoted Thomas Jefferson, referenced scripture, and stated our founding fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to create our country. And, he was able to communicate this succinctly and without any ambiguity in a mere 15 minutes.

Obama threw a sucker punch last night. McDonnell delivered a knockout punch.

Excerpt: Read More at American Thinker

Michael Barone's article this morning had us chuckling as he decided to wait to write his article after seeing if the media covered certain parts of the Obama SOTU. His fresh perspective after some members of the fawning media fell all over Obama was well worth the wait.

Inside Obama's State of the Union speech
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
01/28/10 3:32 PM EST

I know I’m weighing in late—in the old days of journalism this would have been early!—but I want to make a few points about Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech which I haven’t seen elsewhere.

Bows to labor unions. In saluting the resilience of the American people, Obama specifically mentioned people “building cars and teaching kids”—both heavily unionized occupations. (snip)

Where is the “jobs bill”? Obama’s jobs proposals look like pretty small beer. He also called for a National Export Initiative to double exports in five years; just how that would be done he didn’t say (snip) And, as Ira Stoll has pointed out, a five-year program has unfortunate echoes of Stalin’s five-year plans.

He kept boosting the House over the Senate. He commended the House for passing a “jobs bill,” for passing “financial reform,” for passing “a comprehensive energy and climate bill” (no mention of cap-and-trade) and for passing a community colleges bill. (snip)

And at least one senator took umbrage. “I thought he was pointing his finger at the Senate a lot in his speech last night,” said Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. “No, I do not think it’s fair.” Obama needs all the Senate votes he can get, especially from moderate Democrats like Landrieu, and he went out of his way to antagonize them, in search of cheap applause.

The Christmas bomber. Obama seemed to acknowledge the government’s failure to anticipate the Christmas bomber. (snip) Translation into English: 50 minutes of interrogation of a captured terrorist by FBI agents who happened to be on duty Christmas Day in Michigan, and who have no knowledge of terrorism networks, is enough. How many Americans agree?

Bones to the left. Obama’s brief discussion of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran was carefully framed to be consistent with his dovish campaign rhetoric on those subjects. (snip)

Possible reset I: energy. Obama did not signal a pivot to the center, as the Massachusetts result seemed to dictate, on many issues. But he did call for “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country” (his pal Bill Ayers’s father, as CEO of Commonwealth Edison, built lots of nuclear plants in Illinois that haven’t blown up), for “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas” (after reinstating the ban on offshore drilling lifted by the Bush administration) and for “continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies” (after his vice president said on the 2008 campaign trail that we wouldn’t build any more coal-fired power plants).

Possible reset II: trade. “We will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets” and “will strengthen our trade relations with Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama and Colombia.” This sounds like a call for the Democratic Congress to approve the pending Free Trade Agreements with those three countries which labor unions and most Democrats have opposed.

Health care. Obama seemed not to change his stand on health care at all, though it’s obvious that the Democratic bills are not going anywhere. (snip)

Immigration. Supporters of comprehensive immigration reform hoped that Obama, having downplayed the issue in 2009, would raise it in 2010. He did, but only barely, in a single sentence. “And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system—to secure our borders, enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and our nation.”

Excerpt: Read more at the Washington Examiner

Because Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana are heavily involved in the production of oil and natural gas, residents of those states took particular interest in the SOTU speech when Obama threw out some positive initiatives on energy. The drawback is that although it sounded good, he already knew some of the initiatives were going to be blocked by either regulations already on the books or by the Democrat leadership in Congress.

Over the years the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has gained way too much power to rule and regulate which has been hurting our domestic energy oil and gas production for years. We need new and updated refineries but how are you going to get new ones built and on-line with the EPA regulations causing the cost to be build new refineries prohibitive. The US is pretty much at capacity for oil refining yet the EPA is always looking for new ways to hurt domestic oil and gas production. Why? Is it because the vast majority of oil and gas production takes place in Red States? It does make you wonder.

We do have more hope for new nuclear power plants for electricity. We were glad to see President Obama talk about nuclear power plants following up on the initiatives started under the Bush Administration in 2002 after almost three decades of no new power plants. Chances of getting new nuclear plants is much higher then off shore drilling but they also take longer to get up and running. Will Obama carry through to push nuclear energy or will this fall by the wayside like so much of his rhetoric. Only time will tell.

According to the US Dept of Energy, the last reactor built was the "River Bend" plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977. The last plant to begin commercial operation is the "Watts Bar" plant in Tennessee, which came online in 1996.

There are nuclear power plants already approved by the State of Florida but will not be operational until 2016 or later. The catch for the Florida residents is they will be helping pay for these plants long before they are finished at the rate of around 4 percent a year. Florida power plants have not received Federal approval to date as applications for design and construction of nuclear power plants have to be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the Department of Energy.

There are currently 16 applications 'Under Review' with two more including one from Florida anticipated as of Feb 2009 with the next release of data in May 2010. Data on the pending nuclear power plants can be found at US Energy Information Administration

In 2002, the Department of Energy in cooperative projects with industry asked the NRC approval for three sites which were approved in FY 2007/2008. One additional application is currently under review as of FY 2009; three more are expected in the FY 2010-2012 time frame. These submittals were for new advanced nuclear power plant designs as part of the cooperative projects.

Design certification for Construction and Operation License (COL)for the initial demonstration projects is expected in early-2011 and construction started 2-3 years after that. The Department of Energy under the Bush Administration instituted the COL as a means of shortening the length of time it takes to get through the process for approval and certification by combining the two applications for Construction and Operation into one.

You can read more on Nuclear Energy at Nuclear Power 2010 from the DOE

While looking through the email, this editorial by Mark Tapscott from the Washington Examiner jumped out as the perfect headline review of the Obama speech -- 'nothing for everybody' which has summed up Obama's rhetoric on the campaign trail and while in office.

A speech with nothing for everybody
Examiner Editorial
January 29, 2010

That was some performance Wednesday night by President Obama, delivering one of the longest-ever State of the Union addresses but offering no evidence whatsoever of a willingness to listen to the swelling nationwide chorus of voices of discontent with his policies. For example, rather than acknowledging that clear majorities of Americans have decisively rejected his signature health care reform plan and suggesting a different approach, Obama doubled down on his insistence that Congress approve his proposal to put federal bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. Thus, Obama's congressional supporters get nothing on which to try to build a credible health care compromise, and his congressional critics come away with nothing beyond vague rhetoric about working together.

For those worried about the 17 percent real unemployment rate (10 percent officially unemployed, plus 7 percent who have given up looking for work), Obama put forward lots of reassuring words about jobs and small business, but only warmed-over ideas from the past as concrete proposals. (snip)

Similarly, why should anybody think the "new jobs bill" Obama asked Congress to put on his desk promptly will work any better than last year's $787 billion economic stimulus program that he said would keep unemployment at or below 8 percent? (snip)

Then there is the Obama freeze on federal spending, which has been praised in this space as a needed first step. The problem, however, is that it is all but invisible, saving a mere $250 billion or so when Washington will spend $4 trillion or more every year. Worse, the freeze does nothing to restrain entitlement spending, the chief factor in the government's swelling annual deficits. (snip)

Excerpt: Read more at the Washington Examiner

We will be watching closely to see if what Obama promised in his SOTU will ever become reality or will it be more hollow rhetoric like his campaign and first year in office. One thing is certain from his SOTU speech -- he gave no cover to Democrats running for office in 2010 as he continues his assault on the American healthcare system with Obamacare which the majority of Americans don't want.

Obama State of the Union Attacks on Supreme Court Justices

Last night did not watch the speech live because there was a previous scheduled event and knew there would be plenty of Monday morning quarterbacking after the speech. One thing about a major speech is that you can view parts you missed, read the full speech the next morning or watch the full video. Must admit to being appalled last night when reading POLITICO about Obama's misguided attack on members of SCOTUS who were in attendance.

POLITICO's Kasie Hunt, who was in the House chamber, reported that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision. After learning and seeing the clip of his attack, appalled has gone to outrage.

After reading various media outlets this morning, it has become clear that certain members of the media cannot get their facts straight either:

First, members of the mainstream media need understand that Obama is NOT and NEVER has been a Professor of Constitutional Law. He was invited to be a guest lecture to a class on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, but even then there were complaints that all he did was talk about sports so his short tenure as an adjunct ended. An assumption can be made that there was a connection in Obama being chosen as a guest lecturer through Bill Ayers a long time Obama friend and professor at The University of Chicago.

Second, some members of the media refuse to admit that Obama's facts on the current SCOTUS ruling are flawed. This was not a 100 year old ruling that was overturned, but one that is less then 20 years old. The portion of McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform that infringed on free speech by outlawing ads against candidates paid directly by corporations and unions should have been overturned at the time by SCOTUS as most expected it would be. Unfortunately the Court upheld the law at time infringing on free speech. Now the current Court has given free speech back to the people who want to pay for ads in campaigns no matter who they are.

This Court ruling did not change the fact the portions of the law prohibiting foreign contributions and direct corporation contributions to candidates were not overturned. It remains illegal to take such contributions. The FEC should have investigated charges that Obama was accepting foreign contributions illegally but there were operating shorthanded since Democrats (Schumer) refused to allow a vote on Bush appointees and the recess appointments had expired to the Federal Elections Commission.

Makes one wonder if this attack on the SCOTUS ruling by Obama and the Democrats is their fear that corporations they have targeted for takeover by the Federal Government might decide to run ads against them in the 2010 election. Wouldn't blame them if they did. Anyone who lost an automobile dealership thanks to Obama would probably be first in line to pay for an ad against a Democrat candidate.

In searching the internet this morning for comments on the SCOTUS attack during the State of the Union, we found these comments by Professor Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center, noteworthy.

Randy Barnett Professor, Georgetown University Law Center :

In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

Source: Politico

In the New York Times Opinion Blog article written by Linda Greenhouse, she reaffirms that the SCOTUS ruling did not affect banned direct corporate contributions which Obama alleged in his speech. Greenhouse was the winner of the 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme Court for The New York Times from 1978 to 2008. She teaches at Yale Law School and is the author of a biography of Justice Harry A. Blackmun, “Becoming Justice Blackmun.”

January 27, 2010, 11:18 pm

Justice Alito’s Reaction
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

(snip)

Mr. Obama’s words were sharp, echoing his earlier criticism of the court’s decision last week in the Citizens United case to strike down the limits that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law placed on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The decision would “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections,” Mr. Obama said, adding that “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.” He urged Congress to “pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.”

(snip)

Some members of the court dislike the exercise so much that they never attend. Justice Sotomayor’s predecessor, David H. Souter, never did. For several years, Justice Breyer attended alone.

This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election.

(snip)

Excerpt: Read More at New York Times Legal Blog

The bottom line is Obama attacked the Supreme Court Justices on their latest ruling overturning portions of McCain Feingold but did not have his facts straight. We agree with the Georgetown professor that he owes the SCOTUS members an apology but we are not holding our breath because this bully in the Chicago tradition does not apologize.

Obama State of the Union Teleprompter Reading

Obama's State of the Union is tonight and we are wondering today which Obama is going to show up to read the teleprompter. What will his demeanor be like tonight? Will he be angry as we keep reading in various articles? Another questions being asked is if he going to wear a tie tonight or will it be the casual look he is now using? Only time will tell which Obama shows up to read and if the tie shows up as well.

We sure hope the teleprompter technicians are checking the teleprompters that he is going to be using tonight at least several times to make sure they won't fail. We would hate to see him standing in the House staring at a blank screen waiting for words to appear. Anyone who needs a teleprompter to talk to 6th graders definitely needs them to give the State of the Union. He even used them in the White House recently to speak to his own small group of people. Is Obama incapable now of speaking without teleprompters? If so, why?


We know he is going to read words on the teleprompter written by someone else who most likely won't put in "Let Me Be Clear" which is a favorite of Obama's. If Obama shows up angry, is he going to blame Republicans for obstructing his programs to spend more money, take over more chunks of the economy, and raise taxes? Could he possibly 'blame Bush' which is a favorite mantra of the Dems? Is Obama going to move more to the center and make his liberal base really mad? The articles are all over the board this morning on what to expect him to say.

We know one thing and that is the love affair with most of the mainstream media is coming to an end. From the Washington Times article today Jennifer Harper, Obama's honeymoon with media is over:

He has an official pre-presidential logo and a dramatic custom-built dais — with columns — even before he arrived at the White House. President Obama drew instant love from the press, who were captivated by the image before them.

Mr. Obama garnered more coverage — and more positive coverage — than former Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan during their comparable times in office, according to a study released Monday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).

Much of the Obama coverage was breathlessly positive, even melodramatic. But then something happened.

"The press stopped covering President Obama the historical figure, and started covering President Obama the politician. It took a few months, but many journalists started returning to their old critical ways, and the coverage went negative," said CMPA Director Robert Lichter, who conducted the research in conjunction with George Mason and Chapman universities.

With all the media spin and cover-up for Obama for years, they have had to face reality that what he said on the campaign trail is not how he governs as he has turned out to be a liberal bordering on socialist in his attempts to remake America. In fact, his pledge of transparency has been just the opposite. The media has 'now' discovered or are now reporting (we are guessing it is the latter) his anger streak which makes him look like a spoiled brat who didn't get his way. More positive coverage by far then any other President, but he never took advantage as Obama and his Chicago White House never learned how to deal with people only how to use thug tactics to get them to bend to their will.

Note to all: Never vote for someone from Chicago for President no matter which Party they belong.

Next we found on the Washington Times an Editorial: Obama's loose grip on reality with the comment The state of the union isn't what he pretends which is very telling especially when you read the first few paragraphs and you see his comments (highlighted) comparing 1994 to 2010. In some ways, it sends a chill up your spine to realize that this man who is President may be this out of touch with reality not to realize his governing and policies are the problem.

President Obama's response to the catastrophic political failures of his freshman year in office is to fight harder for more of the same. Presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett made the point explicitly on Sunday, asserting that the White House is "not hitting a reset button at all." That reflects the kind of political savvy that handed the safest Democratic Senate seat in America to a Republican.

Mr. Obama seems unaware that he is part of the problem. The president credited Scott Brown's historic Senate-race victory in Massachusetts last week to the same voter frustration that swept him into office in 2008. The glitch in that worldview is that Mr. Brown ran explicitly against the Obama agenda.

Mr. Obama's response to comparisons to 1994, when Democrats lost control of both the House and Senate, is that "the big difference here and in '94 was you've got me." Mr. Obama certainly is making a big difference, but none that should give comfort to his party.

To be fair to this Administration, we also visited the Washington Post, the White House paper of choice, and found these articles:

Transparency falters
More than 300 individuals and groups have sued the government to get records in the year since President Obama pledged that his administration would be the most open in history. Transparency advocates express "disappointment" with the figure, which is similar to numbers from the Bush era.
• VIDEO: Records still hard to get

American disapproval of Obama is on the rise
By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Excerpt:
Consider the poll last week by The Washington Post and ABC News. People were asked a standard question about how much confidence they had in President Obama to "make the right decisions" for the nation's future. A majority -- 53 percent -- gave the two most dismal of the four possible responses: "just some" and "none at all." The same question had been asked a year earlier; in just 12 months, the "none at all" camp had tripled, from 9 percent to 27 percent.

We have articles from two inside the beltway newspapers -- Washington Times which trends more conservative and the Washington Post which is liberal by any account. When the Washington Post quits spinning for Obama, he is in bad shape. For months, very little criticism came out of the Post, but now the day of the State of the Union we have an article about lack of transparency by this Administration and Americans disapproval of Obama.

What has caused the changed? Was the election of Senator-Elect Scott Brown so earth shattering after Republicans winning back Governorships in New Jersey and Virginia that the mainstream media is waking up to the fact that Obama's promises on the campaign trail were hollow.

Could it have been the attempt by a terrorist to take down a Northwest Airlines plane enroute to Detroit and then have this Administration stop the questioning and read him his rights so the Federal Law Enforcement could ask no more questions and thus gain no more information. The question still out there is why? Obama, who was on his $4,000 a night vacation in Hawaii, a few days to say anything meaningful on the terrorism incident. Guess his golfing got in the way of his making comments.

Maybe it was the Muslim Major who went on a killing rampage at Fort Hood who has ties in the terrorist community. Obama rushed out to say not to jump to conclusions about terrorist ties even though all the evidence gathered by the media pointed in that direction.

Then we had what we consider to be one of the worst mistakes of this Administration in their announcing the terrorists at GITMO who planned the WTC and Pentagon attacks would be brought to NYC to be tried in Federal Court. How dare they bring these terrorists to NYC who suffered so much during the 9/11 attacks? How can they even consider trying them in Federal Court and having a lot of evidence thrown out? How can Obama and AG Holder defend this action? Most important question is WHY are they doing this to Americans by putting a target on the City of New York for terrorists revenge? None of those questions have been answered by this Administration to date.

Obama has been in office for over a year and the American people know no more about his background then we did before he was elected. Why isn't this President an open book? What are they hiding and why? To date, we have seen no birth records except forgeries, no school records, no papers he has written, no medical records, no passport records, no adoption records, no comment that he used foreign student status to get aid at Columbia,and to top it off no one remembers Obama at Columbia even though they would have been in the same clases.

His two books so highly touted by the media turned out to be written by others and how much are facts about Obama or someone else we may never know. How can you believe anything he has to say when he took credit for writing the books and you discover later he didn't write them. In fact, some of the passages pertain to Bill Ayers who ghost wrote the first book not Obama. The first tip off he didn't write the books should have come from how he speaks without a teleprompter not to mention we don't see any of his recent writings if he has done any. He taught constitutional law as an adjunct professor but preferred to talk about sports not law.

Why the secrecy? We are not even saying he wasn't born in the United States, but we do have a right to know who is this President and what is his background? Why did the media choose to ignore Obama's background when they delved into McCain's including where he was born with tenacity.

Is the reason that Obama is talking about being a one term President because states like Oklahoma are in the process of changing the laws to make a candidate for President provide proof they are a natural born citizen to get on their ballot for President?

So many questions and so few answers about the man who became President based on so little experience and voting 'present' most of his elected career. One thing that was evident during the campaign was the mantra that if you didn't vote for Obama then you must be racist totally ignoring the fact many people will not vote for a Democrat for President because they are too liberal.

We are sure tonight we will be left shaking our head as his head bounces from teleprompter to teleprompter trying to figure out what he means versus what he says. How much is he going to promise that he won't deliver on this year?

Today's commentary from Abe Greemwald of the New York Times sums up Obama perfectly:

Nowhere to Hide
Abe Greenwald - 01.27.2010 - 11:27 AM
The New York Times asks, “Are the missteps at the White House rooted in message or substance?”

The question is not quite right. A better one is: Was there ever substance behind the message? Every talking point Barack Obama has attempted to turn into policy went to dust in his hands. His missteps came from thinking that message is substance.

The funny thing is that the White House plans to make a comeback by digging in on the message front. The Times reports on tonight’s State of the Union address: “The speech will be punctuated with a handful of new ideas — calling for a spending freeze on a portion of the domestic budget — but aides said it would largely be an opportunity for Mr. Obama to return to the proposals that swept him into office.”

What proposals? To close Gitmo, ram through universal health care, rally against Wall Street, dismantle the War on Terror, apologize for America’s sins at every turn, and blame George W. Bush for everything? He can’t very well “return to” the bad ideas he’s held fast to all along. The problem is that what swept him into office is exactly what fails as policy: vague, naive, left-wing children’s stories

Excerpt: Read More at New York Times

We will have reports tomorrow from various sources around the Net on the Obama reading the State of the Union from his loyal teleprompters as well as our own comments. We leave you today with this political cartoon from Lucianne.com which sums what is expected from Obama and his teleprompters tonight:

Democrats Retiring from Sinking Ship?

UPDATE: 2:00 p.m., Jan 26, 2009
Rumors out of Arksansas were wrong as Lincoln is not retiring but announcing how much money she raised for her race. Big mistake -- Lincoln will be a major target for supporting Obama's agenda from Red State Arkansas in 2010!
*****
Yesterday afternoon word leaked that Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat from Arkansas, was going to announce her retirement. One year ago all these Democrats were giddy about the prospects of controlling all three branches of Government and ramming the Obama agenda of the Stimulus, Cap and Trade, and Obamacare trifecta through the Congress for signature.

The first major piece of legislation was the Stimulus they railroaded through the House with some Democrats now wishing they had voted NO, passing in the Senate, and Obama signing the bill. Some Republicans in both Houses foolishly voted for the stimulus because they were concerned that something had to be done. That was a mistake. What they voted for has turned into a nightmare as no one can give an accurate accounting where millions of dollars have gone. Why should we expect accounting when they couldn't even get zip codes right? Money was thrown at the problem with little to no additional jobs created. Saving the jobs of state employees isn't exactly what most people would have expected out of a stimulus package.

Next Pelosi rams Cap and Trade through the House with eight (8) Republican votes (one from NY-23 resigned later to take a job in the Administration). Why any Republican voted for this bill is beyond comprehension. That said if the eight (8) Republicans would have voted NO, Pelosi would have cracked her whip and found eight (8) more YES votes among the Blue Dogs. The Cap and Trade bill is still waiting to be heard in the Senate. After the Global Warming fraud which has turned into a debacle we expect no further action in an election year and maybe never. Now Republicans and Democrats are working together under the leaderhsip of Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska fighting to keep the EPA from stepping in with new rules and regulations by trying to do an end run around legislation that is stalled.

The final leg of the trifecta was to be Obamacare which has NO Republican support and received NO Republican votes when separate bills passed both Houses. Now with Senator-Elect Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts, the outcome of negotiations between the House and Senate members are not going well. Obama has signaled they might want to back down to a smaller version but that is not selling either. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have managed something that is hard to do on a bill. They have both liberals and conservatives mad at them on Obamacare.

With Republicans taking the Governors races in Virginia and New Jersey and winning the Senate seat in Massachusetts once held by Ted Kennedy, the hand writing is on the wall for 2010. Any Democrat after the MA Senate race is now vulnerable as voters from all parts of the Country and political ideology are disgusted with lack of transparency, voting without reading because bills are rammed through by Democrat leadership, and complete arrogance that the Democrats in leadership 'know what is best' for the American Taxpayers.

These Democrats who are retiring understand that "We The People" are the ones who vote them into office. They have been non-responsive and refused to stand up to their Democrat leadership of Obama/Reid/Pelosi as they continued putting the Democrat Party over the will of their own constituents. Rather then get defeated on Nov 2nd 2010, they are jumping off a sinking ship.

The latest from Gateway Pundit: Senator Joe Lieberman told Eyewitness News 3 that it is possible that he could run as a “good old-fashioned New England Republican” in 2012. Lieberman says he was kicked out of the Democratic party in the 2006 primary after his stance on the Iraq War. (Lieberman was right -- surge worked)

The bottom line is that in the final analysis, the voters of America will have the last say on 2 November 2010 when they go to the polls. Right now those voters are mad at what they are seeing out of DC and disgusted with the "Hope and Change" of Obama.

This article from the Washington Examiner gives an excellent assessment of where Republicans stand in their quest to take back the House and why Democrats are bolting from races.

With majority at risk, Democrats bolting from races
By: Susan Ferrechio Chief Congressional CorrespondentJanuary 26, 2010

In the wake of Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, two Democratic candidates have decided against running for office and more are likely to bow out in the weeks to come.

The shifting political winds, signaled in November by Republican victories in both the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections, have for the first time put the House majority within reach of the Republicans and the Senate within a few seats of a GOP takeover. "The special election in Massachusetts and the elections in New Jersey and in Virginia certainly indicate that the prospects are pretty strong for Republicans this year," said James Campbell, political science professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo.

Vice President Biden's son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, disappointed the party Monday when he announced he will not seek the Senate seat held by his father for 36 years.

The announcement came shortly after Rep. Marion Berry, a fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrat from Arkansas, announced he would not seek an eighth term.

Biden's decision is expected to make the Delaware Senate race an easy victory for Republican candidate Mike Castle, a moderate who currently serves in the House. Berry is the sixth House Democrat to abandon a competitive race this cycle, and that list will likely grow.

"I think you will see more retirements this week," said Dave Wasserman, who edits the coverage of House races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Wasserman said that he lists about 60 Democratic seats as competitive, which means that it is at least a possibility a Republican could win.

The GOP needs to win 40 seats to take over the majority, and Wasserman said the most likely outcome will result in Republicans picking up 25 to 35 seats in November. But some political analysts believe that number could be higher, particularly in light of Brown's victory. "If you had to say what is possible, I would not discount the possibility of Republicans regaining the majority," Wasserman said.

Read more at the Washington Examiner

Madison County GOP Wins the First Annual Krusty Konservative Award

This morning I received the link to this story in my email from a friend in Iowa and couldn't quit laughing. How perfect to do an ice sculpture of Al Gore of Global Warming fame after we were all hit by the blizzard during Christmas. The blizzard was then followed by extremely cold temperatures near zero or below. Madison County GOP has came up with the best originality and the funniest idea on how to raise money that we have witnessed to date.

Great job of bringing humor to everyone!

Madison County GOP Wins the First Annual Krusty Konservative AwardKrusty Konservative
January 2010

For a long time I’ve pondered the idea of giving out awards doe various things. I’m serious about this. There are other great bloggers and other Iowans who deserve to be recognized.

I’ve decided that the first Krusty award should be awarded to the Madison County GOP.

The Madison County GOP commissioned a chainsaw ice sculptor to come down from Waterloo and transform a 900-pound block of ice into a frozen likeness of Vice President & Global Warming Grand Poobah Al Gore.

This is hands-down the funniest thing I’ve ever seen come out of a Republican Central Committee.

Russ from Winterset managed to get a few snapshots of the sculpture during the carving process on Friday; he also came back on Saturday with an AoSHQ approved snack food. Dude, that’s hilarious.




The County Committee is selling raffle tickets for one dollar, and the person who guesses the date and time that the last little piece of this ice block is reduced to liquid form wins 50% of the net proceeds of the raffle (the other 50% will be donated to the local non-profit charity of the winner’s choice).

I suggest that you reward the Madison County GOP for their creativity. Send them a contribution via PayPal.

I now need to figure out what the “Krusty Award” is…



Source: http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2010/01/26/madison-county-gop-wins-the-first-annual-krusty-konservative-award/

Obama Administration to CA -- Fish over People

Water rights are an issue in many states but no other state has the problems of Californians concering water rights. It affects small towns to large cities and everything in between in this huge state. Northern California has been fighting Southern California for years over water rights of the Sierra Nevadas.

In Southern California, there are cities in the valley that own water rights in the Mountains versus the foothill communities. The water coming out of the 'hills' in Yucaipa goes to Orange County first. It is also the same water that Arrowhead Bottling company would get their water when we lived there in the 80's and try to sell it to people who lived in Yucapia for drinking water. We found it strange that water in our town's backyard belonged to Oranage County and frankly still do. But then, we also found Arrowhead Bottling Company trying to sell bottled water to residents of Yucapia strange when it was the water we drank out of our faucets.

We went through the water rationing soon after we had planted a new yard but watering in the early morning before the sun came up saved the lawn as the water did the most good. We planted a garden that took watering every day as the ground just soaked it in and the sun would dry it out. Watering also seemed to encourage the gophers who would take a whole plant into their hole as you watched from the patio. Finally figured out how to do a garden in Southern Calilfornia that looked like the books, and we moved after solving the water and the gopher problem.

Cannot even fathom trying to grow crops in the Central Valley without the necessary water after what it took to figure out a small garden. I guess the Obama Administration wants the food prices to rise considerably by denying the farmers their right to water. Farmers and ranchers have made great strides with the water they use to irrigate so the water can be captured and recycled to use again. How is that rewarded? The water is turned off by the Federal Government to ranchers and farmers in favor of the commercial salmon fishing industry.

What bothers us is that don't even know if adding water will help the fish or if it is a another problem that is causing the fish to decrease in numbers. Instead of studying the problem, this group of environmentalists automatically choose more water for the fish and less for the farmers and ranchers. Why do Democrats always choose the fish or animals over people?

Just finished reading a Report to the Governor on California's Drought, Water Conditions and Strategies to Reduce Impact, March 30, 2009, which details strategies to deal with the drought. This has been a long standing problem in California and various groups and people need to work together to find a solution not have the Department of Interior step in without regard to the situation on the ground. Seems when the Federal Government gets involved it goes from bad to worse especially with this Administration and their deep ties to the far left environmentalists.

California isn't the only place with major water problems in drought years that the Federal Government has inserted themselves. We lived in the San Antonio area where there are periodic droughts which cause water rationing, but one major reason they put pumping limits on the Edwards Aquifier is to protect the Salamander of the Comal Springs. The pumping limits go into effect when the Aquifier reaches a certain level even though during droughts the Salamander burrows into the mud, hibernates, and comes back to life when water flows back in the springs. They put pumping limits on the Acquifier saying Comal Springs was the ONLY place this endangered species Salamander was found but turns out it is found in other parts of the region. That didn't stop the Sierra Club and other far left environmental groups of the Democrat Party from demanding pumping limits and water rationing on humans.

Salazar may go down in history as one of the worst Secretary of the Interiors with his actions to date. He refuses to listen to reason but that sums up this entire Administration. Common sense has been thrown out the window in favor of the far left wing groups of the Democrats.

We would estimate that the vast majority of Americans favor Conservation of our Natural Resources but these far left environmental groups are not just about conservation but putting hardships on people in favor of little fish, birds, etc. without any basis in fact. Must admit after the Global Warming scam not sure we would trust any data out of scientists studying the problem. They would have to make public their results and how they obtained them after all the flawed data the scientists used to make a political point.

Time for Americans across the Country to stand with the people of the Central Valley of California, the bread basket of America, and ask our elected Senators and Representatives in Congress to turn on the water.

Obama to California “Water, Its Not a Right its a Privilege”

by John Loudon

On the list of insane public policy moves we have come to expect from the current administration, Cap and Tax, Obamacare and Union Card Check, a fourth has garnered relatively little attention, although the implications for all Americans may be among the most far-reaching. The recurring theme is centralized control.



On Monday, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California will host a rare Congressional “Field Hearing“. A Congressional delegation will venture out of the beltway and actually devote time to a problem in our country. Better yet, they will be listening to real citizens. Sort of.

At issue is what residents are calling a government-made drought in the Central and San Joaquin Valleys of California. Legal and environmental regulations in the Endangered Species Act has resulted in the diversion of 200 billion gallons of water from the agricultural heartland of California into the Ocean. According to California farmer Rose Corona,

“Potentially over $20 billion of California’s $43 billion of agricultural revenue could be decimated in America’s greatest breadbasket as farmers lose their farms and residents are forced to import food from China. While the solutions are not simple, local government officials are not even able to attempt them.”

Two thirds of California’s water is in Northern California, but two thirds of the people live in Southern California. Over the last generation, a series of aquaducts and canals was built to divert some of the plentiful water in the North so that instead of raising the sea level (as Al Gore warns us is imminent) the fresh water will irrigate incredibly productive land. The five counties effected provide tens of thousands of jobs and a stunning $20 billion of food output.

So why would politicians in California, a state that is already bankrupt, do anything other that mount a united battle to find a solution? That is hard to say. Instead there are deep and often ugly divisions and battle lines such as radical environmentalist on one side and farmers and migrant workers on the other.

Officials are perplexed to find an explanation for the declining population of the delta smelt, a small bait fish. It is also true that the salmon industry is concerned. So it is understandable that regulators would force action. What is not understandable is why the game of man vs beast is tilted at every turn toward the beast.

Consider that the judicial solution holds that if the fish population is declining, we will leave more water in the river and see if that works. No one knows if it will. Maybe there is a chemical or biological explanation, but we will take a chance because the lives of fish are at stake.

So when a compromise solution is proposed, called the “Two Gates” project, that would restore water and possibly protect fish, the Obama administration’s Interior Secretary, Ken Salzar put the brakes on it. So we will experiment to put fish over people, but we will not experiment to put people over fish. How is that Hope and Change working for you?

As for the rest of us, the implications are huge, not just for our food bills, but for establishing the precedent of allowing the Federal government this level of control over water. When government takes your water, they take the value of your land nay, they steal the value of your land.

Excerpt: Read More at Big Government

White House Press Secretary Gibbs Spins Republican Win

This is the money quote of the article from the White House Press Secretary interview on Fox:

"More people voted to express their support for Barack Obama than to oppose him," said Gibbs.

Was Gibbs watching Baghdad Bob for pointers during the build-up to the Iraqi War because he is beginning to sound like him in so many ways. How anyone could do an interview and with a straight face say that the Massachusetts win by Scott Brown for Senator was support for Obama is beyond comprehension.

Exit polling showed voters not only repudiating Obama and the Democrats on healthcare but on Obama and his Administration handling of National Security. Two biggest issues in the campaign and Gibbs said it showed support for Obama? Maybe someone needs to tell Gibbs that Brown is a Republican not a Democrat. We wondered if Obama and members of his staff would understand what the MA Senate win by Brown meant and obviously they don't have a clue.

Bill Clinton understood what the defeat of healthcare meant and after the 1994 elections and Republican takeover he moved more to the center but then he never was as far left as Obama -- not even close. In fact without Hillary, we doubt if he would tackled healthcare like she did.

Obama gets more stubbon and angry with the Brown win in MA in addition to the GOP wins in NJ and VA Governor's races. Now his press secretary just spun a whopper on it was a 'win for Obama' which defies reality. Guess when you work for someone who acts like a spoiled brat when he (Obama) doesn't get his way, you will say and do anything to make Obama feel better because he got his feelings hurt that people actually didn't vote for his agenda.

Decided to look into Gibbs background and found out he worked for the Kerry for President campaign. What is interesting is what he did after there was a shake-up and he says he quit. He joined a 527 political group to stop the 2004 presidential campaign of Howard Dean. Did he quit Kerry or was his new job for Kerry to take control of the 527? With the way he spins, who knows!

Early in the 2004 presidential campaign, Gibbs was the press secretary of Democratic candidate John Kerry. On November 11, 2003, Gibbs resigned. Mr. Gibbs emphasized in an interview that he left the Kerry campaign, after a staff shake-up that left many embittered.

In 2004 after quiting Kerry, Mr. Gibbs became spokesman for a 527 political group, Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values. formed to stop the 2004 presidential campaign of Howard Dean which launched attack ads against Dean, sponsored by the new Democratic group,

In this 'transparent' White House we have one of the biggest spinners ever as Press Secretary which seems fitting because Obama and his White House Chicago cronies are anything but transparent.

White House Still Weighing Whether to Push Health Care Through Congress
Fox News Updated January 24, 2010

The White House is evaluating whether to take a breather on health care or try to push for passing legislation, but is not convinced Massachusetts voters were trying to block health insurance reform by voting last week to send Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.

(snip)

The Senate election Tuesday in Massachusetts gave Republicans the victory they needed to block the Democratic health care bill from passing the Senate as Brown becomes the critical 41st vote in procedural moves to end debate. Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded she did not have enough votes in the House to pass a Senate version that already has made it through that chamber. Doing so would avoid bringing Brown into the equation.

Gibbs said that Brown may have campaigned on stopping the health care bill but that's not why voters elected him over Democrat Martha Coakley.

"More people voted to express their support for Barack Obama than to oppose him," Gibbs said.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com

NFC and AFC Championship games

UPDATE: Colts versus Saints in the Super Bowl with the NFC game going into overtime and the former University of Oklahoma kicker, Garrett Hartley, kicking the winning field goal to send the Saints to their first ever Super Bowl.

*******

On the AFC side we have the legendary Peyton Manning versus Mark Sanchez, the rookie out of USC.

We pick the Colts to win this game although Rex Ryan is a sentimental favorite of Oklahoma as Ryan was the defensive coordinator here in 1998 which started the turn-around of the Oklahoma defense which laid the groundwork for Coach Bob Stoops and his staff who took over in 1999.


The AFC Championship game kicks off at 3:00 est.


Will Brett Farve and the Minnesota Vikings be able to go into New Orleans Superdome and defeat the New Orleans Saints led by Drew Brees?

We are having difficult in picking this game as we have been rooting for teams with Oklahoma Sooners on their roster during the playoffs. We have Andrian Peterson and Phil Loadholt versus Jammal Brown (injured reserve) and a real favorite Garrett Hartley, the Saints field goal kicker. It is great watching these players on Saturday and now see them in the NFC Championship. Sidenote on Brown -- Jammal came back to OU in his off seasons and graduated from OU in May 2009. AD sponsors a football camp for kids back in Norman every summer.

We have to go with the Saints on this one as we think the Louisiana Super Dome is going to be crazy today after all those years when some fans wore sacks to the game. That said we are hoping that AD (get that ESPN -- it is not AP) has a lot of yards in the game and is the difference maker. For those that don't understand like some of the ESPN announcers, AD stands for 'All Day' as he can run 'all day' long.

The NFC Championship game kicks off at 6:40 est.

Time to load up on food for the games this afternoon and evening, kick back and enjoy these Championship games. Only two more weekends of football games left in the season -- Pro Bowl next Saturday and the Super Bowl the following Saturday. We stil have the NFL draft and then College Spring Football, but it is not the same as having games on Saturday and Sunday to watch plus on week nights.

Good Luck to all four teams and hope the men in the black and white stripes have a good game as well!

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

The quote from this article, "the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air" by Dr. Murari cast doubts on anything we have been reading on Global Warming. What scientist on the environment can we trust?

Using flawed data when you suspect it is flawed, it so wrong on so many levels from any member of the scientific community. When did scientists become so political that they would use flawed data to make a point? How deep does this scandal go is a question we would like answered, but don't expect it any time soon as stories like this continue to drip, drip, drip. Every week we learn more about how they used flawed data in their analysis for a variety of issues dealing with the impact of Global Warming on the World. Yet they don't seem to think anything is wrong as it was for the 'good of the people.'

The environmental community of scientists may have cried wolf once too often as the people are disgusted at so much money Government's (aka taxpayers) from around the World gave grants to keep these research projects funded. How much money was given? Our guess is it would be astronomical.

Taxpayers of the world need to demand OUR money back from these university professors and others who were part of this scheme to make Global Warming a fact against the evidence. Why? Was it keep their funding coffers full when there is a strong competition for dollars? Time to shut off the valve of grant money to the professors/scientist involved in this Global Warming hoax until everything is made public.

All we know is that the Himalayan glaciers research that won Dr. Lal the Nobel Prize for a UN report on the glaciers melting by 2035 was done purely to put political pressure on World Leaders according to his own words. What kind of rationale is that? Lack of checking scientific data being used paints a picture of greed and manipulation to get the results they want not backed up by facts. These 'so-called' scientists using grants from our tax dollars to fraud the World on global warming should have everyone up in arms.

The Nobel Prize Committees seem to be making a habit of awarding their prizes to undeserving candidates. Al Gore comes to mind first on Global Warming. When is the Nobel Prize Committee going to demand their prize money be returned?

Bottom Line: How much of the data all these scientists have been using on how Global Warming affects our environment has been flawed? Sen Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is right to call all of this 'junk science.'

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified
By David RoseLast updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’



Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.


Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’


In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.


Excerpt: Read more at: Daily Mail

Senator Tom Coburn, MD (R-OK) Takes on Government Waste -- Will Obama Listen?

The runaway spending by the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled Congress shows no end in sight. Did they get the message the people of Massachusetts sent them on January 19, 2010, by electing Republican Scott Brown to the Senate? We are beginning to doubt they heard it all.

If you want to get even more angry read what Dr. Coburn has to say about the national debt limit and how it needs to be raised again after being raised right before Christmas. Senators Tom Coburn and John McCain have been fighting the abuse of taxpayer dollars but in the Halls of Congress too many of our Senators and Representatives are more interested in taking home the pork and earmarks to their district/State then spending our tax dollars wisely.

At one time President Obama was on board with Dr. Coburn in fighting waste when he was a Senator. What happened? Was it all a political ploy for his skinny resume? Time will tell if he tells the Congressional Democrats to get on board with Dr. Coburn's amendment he is submitting on the floor of the Senate today.

Message from Dr. Coburn (E-Newsletter)

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Hoping you will not notice, Congress is preparing to raise the national debt limit by nearly two trillion dollars, allowing itself to continue an out of control spending spree.

With other issues dominating the news, Congress is quietly working a plan to raise the federal debt ceiling by nearly two trillion dollars, allowing our national debt to rise above $14 trillion.

In Washington, raising the "debt ceiling" has become a fairly routine procedure that allows the federal government to continue to spend far beyond its means. For you and me, and the generations of taxpayers yet to come, it means a growing and nearly unbearable financial burden that threatens our way of life.

The upcoming vote to raise the debt ceiling is the clearest sign yet that Congress truly is not hearing the call from the American people. It signals that Congress is incapable of making priorities, of eliminating wasteful and fraudulent spending, and of ending its out-of control spending habits.

In the midst of the largest deficits in our history, Congress has recently completed appropriations bills for 2010 that increase federal spending across the board by an average of 12 percent.

You may have missed it, but this will actually be the second time in less than a month that Congress will have raised its borrowing limits. On Christmas Eve, as most Oklahomans were dealing with a historic blizzard, the United States Senate voted to raise the debt ceiling by $290 billion.

Sadly, in just a matter of weeks, that new limit is already insufficient.

Let me put this all in perspective:

• The debt limit increase will rank as the largest in American history, shattering the previous record nearly twice over.

• The federal deficit for 2009 surpasses our entire federal budget spending for 1999 by $200 billion.

• The deficit for 2009 is nearly three times our previous record for federal budget deficits.

• Our national debt in 2009 increased by a rate of $4 billion a day. That means every 1.5 days, the federal government is running a deficit equal to the entire annual budget of the State of Oklahoma.

• The national debt, not including obligations to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, now stands at $39,000 per man, woman, and child.

• Currently, Congress borrows 43 cents for every dollar it spends.

Dr. Coburn's op-ed on Government appears in the Washington Examinder and brings details to light that we had forgotten about candidate Obama and his rhetoric on the campaign trail. The American people were told by Obama in his speeches about a 'net spending cut' but it has never materialized. In its place is runaway spending by Obama and Congress.

Obama gets another chance to cut waste
Examiner Editorial January 22, 2010

Can you guess which prominent American politician made the following statement

in 2008:"I will conduct an immediate and periodic public inventory of administrative offices and functions and require agency leaders to work together to root out redundancy. Where consolidation is not the right strategy to improve efficiency, I will improve information sharing and use of common assets to minimize wasteful duplication." If you guessed Republican John McCain, you guessed wrong.

Those words were spoken by then-candidate Barack Obama as part of his promise of "a net spending cut" in Washington. But instead of going down, federal spending has skyrocketed, with the annual deficit tripling to more than $1.4 trillion. This extravagance is among the reasons Massachusetts voters just elected Republican Scott Brown, who promised to support lowering federal taxes and spending.

As Democrats come to grips with the Massachusetts returns, up steps Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican who collaborated with then-Sen. Obama on the Federal Financial Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, aka "Coburn-Obama." That law led to the creation of USASpending.gov, the searchable Internet site that puts most federal spending within a few mouse clicks for every citizen.


Coburn is offering an amendment today on the Senate floor that will help Obama make good on his promise in 2008 to root out duplication and redundancy in federal spending programs. As a step toward a renewed bipartisanship, Senate Democrats should support Coburn's amendment, as should Obama for the same reason.

Read more at the Washington Examiner

Here are more details from Dr. Coburns E-Newsletter on the details of the amendment:

There is a better way.

As a candidate for president in 2008, Barack Obama pledged to "spend taxpayer money wisely," and specifically to "eliminate wasteful redundancy," stating that "too often, federal departments take on functions or services that are already being done or could be done elsewhere within the federal government more effectively. The result is unnecessary redundancy and the inability of the government to benefit from economies of scale and integrated, streamlined operations."

Yet, for over a year, Congress and the President have been unwilling to consider the elimination of wasteful, duplicative spending.

It is not that hard to find. Over the past few weeks, my office has identified over 600 examples of costly duplication throughout the federal government. For instance:

• There are at least 21 different federal obesity programs located at multiple agencies.

• There are over a dozen federal agencies that maintain independent programs to research and monitor the impact of invasive species, with four independent commissions also added to the mix.

• The federal government maintains 69 programs for early childhood education, over 109 federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) federal programs, and at least 14 programs aimed at Americans studying abroad.

And as the debate to raise the debt ceiling occurs over the next several days, I intend to force the Senate to consider the consolidation of many of these programs.

I will offer an amendment to consolidate nearly 640 overlapping federal programs. These greater efficiencies will save taxpayers an estimated $120 billion.

Further my amendment will require government auditors to routinely scour federal agencies to identify overlapping programs. As hard as it is to believe, no one is performing this task currently.

Also, my amendment will require agencies to return unobligated funds that have been held for more than two years. At the end of the 2009 fiscal year, federal agencies sat on more than $650 billion in unobligated funds. Conservatively, this part of my amendment will save $100 billion.

Finally, I will also rescind the $245 million increase that Congress granted itself for its own internal operations, which included a $72,000 earmark for Congressional leadership staff to purchase new "cell phones and mobile data devices."

For more information on this debate, agency spending, and my amendment, please visit my website at: Click Here

The confidence of the American people in their Congress will never be restored until Members of Congress realize that leadership requires courage and sacrifice. Congress has a responsibility to eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending before it ever asks you and your children to assume still greater debt on its behalf.

Sincerely,

Tom A. Coburn, MD

Taxpayers of America need to get behind this Coburn amendment and let their members of Congress know that it is time to cut spending, duplication, earmarks, and pork. Will they listen? We have our doubts that the Coburn amendment will pass the Democrat Congress but we can always hope that the election of Scott Brown sent a wake-up call to the Democrats on spending our tax dollars. Only time will tell but we are not holding our breath.

Every taxpayer needs to tell their members of Congress to cut spending, duplication, pork projects and earmarks for starters. The American people continue to ask the President and members of Congress to spend our tax dollars wisely and be accountable to the taxpayers but are ignored by the Democrats. Did the Democrats not hear us in the Town Halls and Tea Party rallies starting this summer? The answer to that is "NO" since every member of the Senate Democrats voted for Obamacare which would lead to much higher deficits and less access to medical care.

One glaring example of why we are convinced the Congressional Democrat leadership has not heard the message is the paragraph (highlighted above) of Dr. Coburn's newsletter where they appropriated more money to get new and upgraded cell phones, etc. for leadership.

We have the answer to the Democrats and their runaway spending spree. 'We the People' will be the judge and jury on November 2, 2010, of how the Democrats in the White House and Congress spend our tax dollars in 2010. This also goes for any Republican who decides to participate in the runaway spending spree. Time to hold every member of Congress accountable for our tax dollars.

Thank you Dr. Coburn for representing the people of Oklahoma and America. We are truly to blessed in Oklahoma to have Senators (Coburn and Jim Inhofe) who believe in Government by the People and represent our interests in DC.

Scott Brown Goes to Washington Today!

What a week it has been so far for the Nation. Today the newly elected Senator-Elect Scott Brown makes his first trip to Congress to meet his colleagues. We hope that he will be sworn in very shortly as the Senator from MA and no more of the games that Reid wants to play.

The election of Scott Reid has brought the Senate full circle after Reid, Franken, and the Democrats stole the election in Minnesota to get their 60th vote. If anyone doesn't think that election was stolen, I have some swampland for sale in Arizona you might like.

Our hats are off to Massachusetts and their pulling off a fair election like New Jersey did for Governor Christi. When the MA Secretary of State threw out the bogus allegations of the Coakley campaign, you knew that for once the peopla of a state had gone to the polls and the old saying one man, one vote held true.

In this morning's email was an interesting article from Michael Zak, author of Back to Basics for the Republican Party , a history of the Republican Party. We found his history of the "People's Seat" from MA very interesting and surprising. It has been talked about around the Internet and on here how Scott Brown's victory was the 2nd shot 'fired round the world," but now that we are learning the history of this MA Senate seat, we might want to say the 3rd shot.

Scott Brown won the Charles Sumner seat in the U.S. Senate

As the new senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, said: "It's not the Ted Kennedy seat. It's not the Democrat seat. It's the people's seat."

Instead of Ted, let's remember an honorable and courageous Republican senator who once filled the seat to which Scott Brown was elected.

Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) was one of the founders of the Republican Party. Angered by Sumner's denunciations of slavery, a Democrat congressman beat him nearly to death on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Sumner responded with a classic denunciation of the Democratic Party for promoting The Barbarism of Slavery.

During the GOP's 1860 election campaign, Senator Sumner gave a speech that speaks to us today:

"If ever there was a moment when every faculty should be bent to the service, and all invigorated by an inspiring zeal, it is now, while the battle between Civilization and Barbarism is still undecided.

Happily, a political party is at hand whose purpose is to combine and direct all generous energies for the salvation of the country. The work must be done, and there is no other organization by which it can be done. A party with such an origin and such a necessity cannot be for a day, or for this election only.

If bad men conspire for slavery, good men must combine for freedom. And when this triumph is won, securing the immediate object of our organization, the Republican Party will not die, but, purified by long contest with slavery, and filled with higher life, it will be lifted to yet other efforts for the good of man.

Others may dwell on the past as secure; but to my mind, under the laws of a beneficent God, the future also is secure, on the single condition that we press forward in the work with heart and soul, forgetting self, turning from all temptations of the hour, and, intent only on the cause."

The day he died, Charles Sumner urged Republicans to stay true to the principles of our Grand Old Party: "My bill, the civil rights bill - don't let it fail." The Republican-controlled 43rd Congress honored his memory by passing the 1875 Civil Rights Act.

After reading this, we are reminded of the Republicans who stood up for Civil Rights over the years and how President Eisenhower sent the federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., to enforce integration of a city high school in 1957. The true Civil Rights movement came from Republicans not the Democrats who co-opted it for votes for John F. Kennedy. Since then the Democrats Party has paid lip service to the Civil Rights movement to get votes by using handouts to keep their votes.

The National Black Republican Association Chair Frances Rice in speaking out on the election of Scott Brown had this to say about those handouts for votes:

So, how did Obama and the Democrats respond to the Massachusetts earth-shattering vote that reverberated around our nation? They resolved to double down and cram down ObamaCare, gambling that Americans love entitlements more than they love freedom. A lesson Democrats learned from black Americans who consistently vote for Democrats in exchange for government handouts, even though the Democrats’ socialist policies have turned black communities into economic and social cesspools. A video posted on the Internet “Detroit in RUINS! (Crowder goes Ghetto)” provides a look at the type of devastation all of America will face, unless the voters in around the country rebel as urged in the video “America Rising: An Open Letter To The Democrats” and repeat in November the Massachusetts Miracle of January.

Excerpt: Read more at: NBRA Massachusetts Message

Once again this MA seat is filled by a Patriot who is bringing his beliefs and ideas as an Independent Scott Brown Republican to the Senate of the United States. Senator-Elect Brown is the Independent voice for the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. All our Senators, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, should be the voice of the people from their district/state and not the voice of the special interest groups.

One surprise from this special election campaign was the #1 issue for voters in MA was not healthcare althought it was ranked high but the National Security threat to this Country from terrorists. Brown has been outspoken critic of the Obama Administration's plan to bring the enemy combatants from GITMO to try them in federal court in the United States giving them rights, rather then trying them in military tribunals in GITMO. Brown is adamantly against closing GITMO and is also for tough interrogation methods for the terrorist who want kill us which resonated with the people whose ancestors were the Patriots of our Revolution.

From the towns and villages of the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, the patriotism of Massachusetts once again has come to the forefront. The voters of the Commonwealth of Massachuetts sent a clear message that they want our National Security as a priority and elected Scott Brown as their messenger to the United State Senate.

Our Nation's thanks goes to today's Patriots in Massachusetts for sending a clear message to the Country and the World.

Republicans also need to learn a lesson and return to the basics of the Repubican Party with fiscal conservatism and national security at the forefront on where we stand as a Party.

High taxes and other laws from the English King that were detrimental to the colonies (sound familiar?) finally created an uprising starting with the Boston Tea Party which led to the militia face-off with the British troops at Lexington on April 19, 1775, and the shot 'heard round the world' that began the Revolutionary War.

On July 4th, 1776, the Declartion of Independence was adopted by representatives of the 13 Colonies announcing the separation of the 13 Colonies from Great Britain. With that Declartion, the United States of America was born.

Scott Brown fired that 3rd shot 'heard round the world' with his win on April 19, 2010, and now it is up to all of us to make sure it is heard loud and clear in the halls of Congress, in the White House and in the November election.