Obamacare Fine Print

Does a health care plan offering better health care coverage, lower costs, and more options, all run by the government, sound too good to be true? Congratulations! You have a brain! Despite repeatedly promising that Americans can keep their current health care plan if they are happy with it, without incurring additional costs, Obi-One is now considering a mandate to force us to accept government insurance, or incur a financial penalty. But don't worry, it gets worse. John Fund from the WSJ reports:

In a desperate scramble to pay for the soaring costs of President Obama's health care plan, the Senate Finance Committee is contemplating taxing for the first time the health insurance benefits workers get from their employers...But the taxes wouldn't be applied equally. Union members serving under collective bargaining agreements would be exempt, even though they often have the richest and most extensive packages of benefits.

There's a reason the Obama health care plan is being rushed through Congress this summer -- because the American people would likely never support it if given time to absorb and understand such fine print. If the union carve-out isn't sufficient to excite public anger, wait till you hear about the version of the Obama plan prepared by Senator Edward Kennedy, which would specifically exempt Members of Congress from many of its provisions.

As the U.S. Office of Personnel Management notes, Members of Congress "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country." According to page 114 of the Kennedy bill, a similar array of choices would not be available to other Americans in the future. Instead, they would be shunted into health insurance plans under the straightjacket of whatever the government decides is a "basic" plan.

The goal would be to restrict care for the general public in order to control costs, while making sure Congress gets the gold-plated attention it's accustomed to. Ultimately, the rest of us would be asked to trade a private insurance company as gatekeeper for a government gatekeeper. The difference, of course, is that most of us can fire our insurance gatekeeper. Just try to do that once the government fills that role.

Well said, John.

Just in Case You Need Another Reason to Love Our Miliatry

Nothing much needs to be said about this clip, other than that Paul, this could be you!

Obama Flip-Flops on Mandatory Health Care

Way back when Obama was on the campaign trail (has he ever really left it?), he battled with Hillary Clinton repeatedly over health care. Both candidates were promoting health care reform, but allegedly differed on how to implement it. For example, while in Iowa, Obama criticized Hillary's plan: "Senator Clinton is arguing that the only way to get every American covered is if you force every American to buy health care." Then during a contentious debate in NV, he said this:

The only difference between Senator Clinton's health care plan and mine is that she thinks the problem for people without health care is that nobody has mandated -- forced -- them to get health care. That's not what I'm seeing around Nevada. What I see are people who would love to have health care. They -- they desperately want it. But the problem is they can't afford it.

He underlined again during the debate: "I don't think that the problem with the American people is that they are not being forced to get health care.

So compare then to now. During Diane Sawyer's interview with Obama that aired this morning Good Morning America, she asked the One about his health care reform plans. Here's what he says (emphasis mine):

Mandates are an example of... something that I was resistant to during the campaign... this is an area where people have made some pretty compelling arguments to me that if we want to have a system that drives down costs for everybody, then we've got to have healthier people not opt out of the system. And I think that you have to be careful to make sure that there's a waiver. So that if we haven't made health care affordable yet, you're not punishing people, not only because they can't afford health care, but -- now giving 'em an additional fine. Any program that we put in place, I think there will be some phase-in period. So that we can calibrate and adjust to make sure that there really is affordability there before we start trying to penalize people. But I think my thinking on the issue of mandates has evolved. And I think that that is typical of most people who study this problem deeper.

Forcing people to accept the care? Penalize people for opting out? Gee, that sounds awful contradictory to what Obama's own website says: "Q. I like my current insurance coverage. Will I have to change plans? A. No, you will not have to change plans. For those who have insurance now, nothing will change under the Obama plan – except that you will pay less." But will anyone call him on it, other than the "right-wing extremists" at Fox News and conservative blogs? That's a rhetorical question, btw. No need to answer.

h/t: jpt

Is the Obamanation the next stop for Fehr?

Donald Fehr, the most powerful union boss in America, has announced he will retire no later than the end of March 2010. Fehr has been the head of the Baseball Player's Union since taking over the position in 1983. Under his direction, the league has seen the baseball strikes of 1985 and 1994 (during which the World Series was canceled), and the lockout of 1990; the average salary has risen from $289,000 to $2.9 million (that's an increase of over 900%; the average American salary only increased about 165% over that same timeframe), and steroids have ravaged the sport because of Fehr's refusal to cooperate with virtually any and all forms of drug testing. His opposition to the implementation of a salary cap has also devastated many of the smaller market teams (former Kansas City Royals players like David Cone, Jose Offerman, Carlos Beltran, and Johnny Damon, all left the team for more lucrative markets).

All of these traits would seem to make him a remarkably qualified candidate for the Obamanation. To recap, he is the most powerful union boss in America, and he vehemently pursues his own agenda and the agenda of those who pay his salary, regardless of the wake of destruction he leaves in his path. He opposes any attempts at transparency in his industry, and he is more concerned about big business than small business. Yup, sounds like a lock to me. (It may also be worth noting that the 1994 stoppage ended only when the National Labor Relations Board, at the union’s request, obtained an injunction to restore work rules from US District Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated last month by O for the Supreme Court).

I'm not predicting anything...I'm just sayin'...

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's SuperO!

I guess I've been on a video kick. Maybe because it requires less thought than writing a meaningful post. :) Enjoy this video by JibJab.

h/t: jpt

Obama = Snake Oil Salesman

The 912 Project had this posted to their website the other day. It explains very succinctly the dangers of communism, fascism, and every other "ism".

Socialism: If you have two cows, you give one to your neighbor.

Communism: If you have two cows, you give them to the government and the government gives you some milk.

Fascism: If you have two cows, you keep the cows and give the milk to the government; then the government sells you some milk.

New Dealism: If you have two cows, you shoot one and milk the other; then you pour the milk down the drain.

Nazism: If you own two cows, the government shoots you and keeps the cows.

Capitalism: If you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull.

h/t: 912

Bill Whittle Eviscerates Jon Stewart

You may have seen the interview that Jon Stewart had with Cliff May, the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. Stewart appeared to get the better of May during their heated, yet cordial discussion about torture. Then along comes Bill Whittle from PJTV. He wholly and absolutely eviscerates Stewart for his "logic" and "facts".

The most irritating thing about the whole interview was how representative it was of MSM/liberal media bias in general. There is no fact-checking anymore because everyone is in the same political bed, and subsequently everyone is regurgitating the same garbage as everyone else. Who's going to call them out on misinformation when they're all saying the same freaking thing? I do feel that at some point there will be a reckoning, though, and then guys like Keith Olbermann will be out of job. And if the ratings are any indication, that may be sooner than later.

I'm Back from the Dead

Ok, so I didn't die. I just took a much needed vacation. I have to be honest, I didn't read or watch a single thing about politics. And you know what? It was refreshing! Unfortunately, I'm back in the real world now, and mad as ever about the state of our nation. Glenn Beck read the following letter on his radio program yesterday that he received from a woman in Arizona. I think this sums up how a lot (I would even wager most) Americans are feeling.

I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when he will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Al Qaeda Kidnaps TOTUS!

The People's Cube has just broken this story!

In an audacious raid Friday, al-Qaeda terrorists managed to slip past White House security and seize President Obama's teleprompter. Their demands were released in a grainy video, which apparently showed the president's teleprompter, bound and blindfolded but unharmed, while heavily armed masked men stood behind it, quoting from the Qur'an. The content of their demands is not being released.

President Obama, visibly shaken, attempted to address the White House press corps on his own. "Words, uh, um, I, uh, heh-heh, well..."

h/t: jawa

Terrorists Neither Innocent nor Victims

I'm sure you're aware of former VP Dick Cheney's address to AEI today. I've attached the video in its entirety below. It's about 35 min long, but I think it is well worth the time to watch (I say that a lot, don't I?). TWS has a copy of the transcript here.

Just a couple of thought-provoking quotes from the speech:

The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “Truth Commission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.”

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemy combatants,” as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.

Utah Representin'

Just wanted to send a holla' out to this kid from Sandy, Utah. Way to represent my hometown.

An 11-year-old boy got slimed on his birthday.

Fin Keheler allowed 43 snails to be put on his face for 10 seconds in a gross effort to surpass the Guinness World Record of 36 set in 2007.

Friends and family helped Fin, of Sandy, Utah, make his four attempts at his birthday party Saturday.

He broke the record with 38 on the third try, but faced off with the slimy mollusks gathered from a neighbor's garden for a fourth attempt.

His family submitted video and witness statements to Guinness for verification.

Fin explained his technique.

"I closed my eyes and covered up my mouth with ... well, I sucked my lips in so that they could crawl on that."

Yup. This is why I'm proud to say I'm a Utahn. Out.

Sensible Global Warming Expert?

No, dear reader, you did not misread that headline. And no, I did not mistype. I believe I've stumbled across the first and only sensible global warming "expert" on earth.

Most of you should know my stance on the myth of "global warming" by now. Let me be clear. I fully support maintaining a clean environment, reducing pollutants, increasing energy efficiency, etc. But I wholeheartedly denounce the concept that humans possess the ability to significantly alter the climate of the earth through things like CO2 emissions, and that we should destroy our economies in pursuit of the ethereal and vague definition of "earth-friendly." Just for fun, let's review one of my favorite climate-related graphs, reflecting actual scientific research, not just speculation.

This graph shows virtually no correlation between temperatures and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but a very good correlation between earth temperatures and a little something I like to call THE SUN!!!!! Sorry for shouting. I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page.

So I stumbled across this article in Barron's today. It's an interview with Bjorn Lomborg (don't feel bad, I had no idea who he was either), who is apparently a global warming "expert." In fact, the UK's The Guardian has called him one of the "50 people who could save the planet." I guess he's like Superman, only instead of synthetic spandex he wears a bamboo jumpsuit. Surprisingly, though, Lomborg feels the same way I do about the upcoming climate change summit to be held in Copenhagen in December.

The participating nations will again agree to spend quite a bit of money to cut carbon emissions and again achieve virtually nothing. We already tried that twice -- in Rio in 1992, and in Kyoto in 1997. Both of these treaties failed. We will see a lot of posturing, but presumably this isn't about having a lot of environmental ministries or even presidents and prime ministers come out and claim credit for making costly commitments that we won't be able to live up to, and which would barely make a dent in the problem anyway. When I first started in the global-warming debate, I was struck by the fact that the world was going to pay $180 billion a year for a protocol that could at best reduce the temperature by 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st century. The U.N. estimates that for less than half that amount, we could provide clean drinking water, sanitation, and basic health care and education to every single human being on the planet. The same warped sense of priorities will continue to bedevil us this December in Copenhagen.

He also had this to say about taxing carbon emissions, cap-and-trade, and the like.

The main difficulty with global warming is that fossil fuels are not only fairly cheap, they also make this world so rich and so good to live in by providing us with all the amenities that we see around us: light, heat, the ability to propel ourselves to many different places. So we aren't going to give up fossil fuels without having a great alternative. Right now there is no good alternative to fossil fuels...Everybody seems to be saying, let's make carbon-emitting fossil fuels so expensive, nobody will want to use them. But that is bound to fail.

Cap-and-trade is essentially a system for trading permits to emit gases, like carbon dioxide, that are blamed for global warming. The problem is that it makes possible immense amounts of gaming the system through political lobbying. Because typically, most of these permits are given away, which is one of the big things the Obama Administration is talking about right now. The companies that had the most benefit from Kyoto in Europe were the energy companies. That is because, at least for the first three or four years, these companies got all the permits to pollute, but the companies still charged their customers -- me and everybody else. So they made tens of billions of euros each year from climate-change policies. Not surprisingly, they are very much in favor of these policies, but it doesn't mean that they are smart policies.

That sums up the carbon tax/cap-and-trade issue as succintly as I've heard any progressive or conservative do yet. Then Lomborg gets asked this idiotic question: "But isn't it smart to prevent global warming as soon as possible -- to avoid seeing Manhattan under 20 feet of water in ten years?" Seriously? I would love to see the scientific data that supports that. Here is his response.

That makes for vivid imagery, but it isn't what the science is telling us. According to the thousands of scientists the U.N. asked to evaluate the data, the sea-level rise between now and 2100 will be somewhere between six inches and two feet -- not 20 feet -- with most estimates around one foot. Now, we have already seen a foot of sea-level rise over the last 150 years, so it will be a bit faster by 2100. But it certainly gives you perspective. Was the 20th century marked particularly by the fact that the sea level rose? Well, there were two world wars, the suffrage of women, the internal-combustion engine, the IT revolution -- and the sea level rose. Let's hope the 21st century sees no world wars, but do you think the sea-level rise will be any more important? That doesn't mean it isn't a problem, but it's a problem we can deal with...And if it really were true that Manhattan will be 20 feet underwater in 10 years, there would be no time to reverse global warming anyway.

The fact that he sites UN scientists and estimates as grounds for refuting that claim is great, considering that most UN climate change estimates are politically charged fodder for the liberal/progressive movement. So if the UN estimates debunk that assumptions, you can rest assured that actual scientific data will be even more convincing. Lomborg goes on to trash anti-capitalist/free market concepts of environmental protections.

The United Nations science consensus expects temperature increases of three to seven degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, which the world can deal with, especially if the world is allowed to grow richer between now and then...We do know that rich, well-structured, robust societies deal much better with catastrophe than weak, poorly structured societies. We also know the way to build those societies isn't to cripple the global economy by forcing it off fossil fuels before viable alternatives are available. Meanwhile, three-fourths of the world's people live in abject poverty, while some sit and fret about the possible end of the world in 100 years. For too many of those others, the world ends tomorrow.

Once again, he does a nice job of putting the "climate crisis" in perspective. He also addresses the issues of increased climate-related deaths by saying, "While warming will mean about 400,000 more heat-related deaths globally, it will mean 1.8 million fewer cold-related deaths." But he also states that those numbers are based off of the only study that has been done on that particular issue. He advocates more sensible measures to control temperature-related deaths, like planting trees and increasing access to water supplies, instead of reducing CO2 emissions, which would have virtually no effect. Lomborg then addresses the concern that many environmentalists have about the effects of global warming on our oceans' marine life.

There is some validity to that concern. But the claim that this could be catastrophic for marine life seems greatly exaggerated, since we know there have been vastly higher carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere some 50 to 500 million years ago, at a time when the ocean was very rich in marine life. And even if we imagine such a catastrophe could happen, let's get a grip on its human impact. We get about 1% of our calories from the seas and about 5% of our protein.

He also explains why what he is saying is so contradictory to everything you see and read in the media.

Well, there are several reasons. It is partly because they don't read the U.N. reports, which on many of these issues confirm what I am saying very clearly. And since the sensational always goes over better than the merely sensible, stories in the media play into the stereotype of global warming.

And last of all, he takes a quick jab at Al Gore.

Al Gore talks about global warming as our generational mission. He asks how we want to be remembered by our kids and grandkids. Well, why would anyone want to be remembered for having spent $180 billion to do virtually no good a hundred years from now, when less than half that sum could fix virtually all major problems today? With better information, most of us would have no difficulty choosing how we want to be remembered.

Now don't get me wrong, there are plenty of issues on which I disagree with Lomborg (principally, the fact that global warming is a significant problem), but I fully respect his right to his own opinion. What is admirable about his view is that it is based in reality and hard facts, unlike that of most eco-nuts.

And maybe that's why I'm so drawn to this article. I think that we, in general, and Americans in particular, have lost the ability to come to rational, reasonable conclusions that are not emotionally charged (i.e. tree sitters). We have forgotten what it is like to work toward a common goal, even if we have different paths to get there. This is true now, more than ever, in the political realm, as well. Republicans and Democrats are in a power tug-of-war, each pulling in the opposite direction of the other. And those few politicians who are working toward a common goal are striving for something completely undesirable, and wholly independent of the needs and wishes of their constituency. Like SOCIALISM.

As Americans, we need to get back to the basics of cooperation. What are the things we have in common? We all want what's best for our family, financial security, high quality of life, to help those less fortunate, etc. We just may have different ideas on how to get there. And that's ok. In fact, that's healthy. The achievement of each of these goals is not a zero-sum game. It is possible to help the needy without bankrupting our country. We can obtain individual financial security while still helping our neighbors. We can preserve our natural resources without committing economic suicide through unsustainable eco-initiatives. What the world needs is more people like Bjorn Lomborg. People who hold firm to their beliefs, regardless of their popularity, but understand the importance of cooperation and seeing the whole picture. No, I don't agree with everything that Mr. Lomborg believes. But I firmly believe we need people like Lomborg to balance the scale of opinions and policies. We can all benefit from a little constructive dissent.

Crayons Cure Jihadism!

ABC's Jake Tapper (the same correspondent that reported on the latest development in the Pelosi-waterboarding scandal), reports that the Obamanation finally has a solution about what to do with the Gitmo detainees.

This morning in Riyadh, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he spoke to Saudi Assistant Minister of the Interior Muhammed bin Nayaf about sending the roughly 100 Yemeni detainees currently in the detainee center at Guantanamo Bay to Saudi Arabia to the Saudi government's rehabilitation program for jihadis.

How wonderful! These poor, misguided, terrorists can now attend the equivalent of a drug rehab program and be back on the streets after completing 12 easy steps that include psychological counseling, art therapy, sports and lessons in Islam.

So how carefully was this plan thought through by the Obamanation? About as carefully as it has vetted Obama's cabinet nominees.

Asked if, once through the program, the Yemenis would remain in Saudi Arabia and be monitored by Saudi authorities, Gates said, "I think that's further down the road than we went. It really was about getting them into the program, not getting them out."

I know what you are thinking at this point: what could possibly go wrong here? But before your unadulterated elation carries you away into a blissful state of nirvana, consider this: eleven out of the 85 most wanted terrorists in Saudi Arabia were former Gitmo detainees that went through this rehab program.

Check out this short documentary conducted by PBS on the rehab program. And yes, the reporter actually says, "Men who once set out to fight the infidel are now working out their problems with paper and crayons." Yup. This plan is definitely foolproof.

Also note that one of the "former" terrorists who's encouraged to abandon IEDs for crayons was responsible for murdering 12 civilians in Iraq in a failed suicide attack (he survived after being thrown from the fuel truck he blew up). Asked by the PBS reporter what it's like to have their deaths on his conscience, the terrorist replied, "It wasn't my fault. It's the fault of the people who planned the plot."

You betcha. I definitely feel safer knowing he's given up his Kalashnikovs for crayons.

Shocking Update: Nancy Pelosi Lied!

Remember this statement from Pelosi regarding her alleged knowledge about waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques?

Just in case you're hard of hearing, she said "We were not...let me repeat, not told that waterboarding, or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods, were used." That sounds almost as convincing as Rafael Palmeiro's vehement denial of steroids use. "I have never used steroids. Period. I do not know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never." We know how that story ended.

So it should come as no surprise now that the evidence is mounting against Pelosi's version of the truth. Porter Goss, the ranking Republican on the House committee at the time, distinctly remembers being briefed, along with Pelosi, on not only the existence of waterboarding, but that it was being used in interrogation sessions. "We were briefed, and we certainly understood what CIA was doing. Not only was there no objection, there was actually concern about whether the agency was doing enough."

The Washington Post ran a story in 2007 that described a virtual tour that Pelosi and 3 others were given of the detention center, including the harsh interrogation techniques being used.

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

And then ABC, of all people, broke this story yesterday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

The meeting is described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”

Brendan Daly, a Pelosi spokesman, said Pelosi’s recollection of the meeting is different than the way it is described in the report from the DNI’s office.

I'm sure it is, Mr. Daly. How convenient for you and Ol' Nancy that she "misremembered." To anyone with half a brain, this is complete horbgorble (yes, that's the family friendly version of the word that I want to say). Even if such crap were true, she never even bothered to register an objection about the techniques, which shows that if she was a concerned about them, she obviously didn't care enough to make it known. The article goes on to describe several other meetings that CIA had with members of both parties in Congress.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. My guess is that Pelosi will defend her recollection of the occasion in the face of the facts, and that the MSM will sweep it all under the rug as conservative, hate-mongering propaganda (although the fact that ABC reported this is a promising sign). And as for why she never lodged a complaint? My guess is that the big bad Bush administration threatened her into silence, so she had no choice.

UPDATE: Fox News just ran this story. Let's see if the rest of the MSM pick it up, or if it will die a slow, ignominious death as Obama proclaims some other emergency to get our attention away from the issues that matter.

Andrea Mitchell Strikes Again

Just in case you need any more evidence that Andrea Mitchell should be fired, check out this in-depth reporting of breaking news. The whole broadcast actually takes over 5 min. I guess it's right up Andrea's alley, though. Grab your airsickness bag and enjoy.

Americans Deputized to Bail Out Incapable Government

Remember way back when President Obama promised that Americans would be able to track "every dime" of the $787 billion stimulus bill? Well, rest assured, he has every intention of keeping his promise. It just won't happen in the near future. And by "every dime", he means "every dime that we on Capitol Hill decide you need to see." Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which manages www.recovery.gov, said the government's website currently shows the programs being funded by the stimulus money, but won't actually show where exactly the money is going until at least October. And that projected date is optimistic at best. Devaney told a House subcommittee on Tuesday that it will be a challenge to have the information available and online in just 5 months (he actually said that they don't have enough storage capacity to track all the information).

But even if the White House can manage to find a server powerful enough to track the equivalent of a 689 mile high stack of $100 bills, you and I won't be able to see exactly who gets the money. As it stands, the administration is only requiring the first 2 recipients of funding to report the usage of stimulus money. So if a state gets funding, and then gives it to a city, that's all you get to see. You won't be able to find out which contractors or agencies will actually be getting the money. Nice, huh?

So who's going to fill in the gaps in tracking government spending? Why, you and I are, of course!

"We are, in essence, deputizing the entire American citizenry to help with the oversight of this program," said Rep. Brad Miller, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee on investigations and oversight.

I'm going to have millions of citizens to help me," he said, comparing run-of-the-mill Americans to inspectors general, the high-ranking officials charged with ferreting out waste and abuse in federal agencies.

"I'm going to have a million little IGs running around," the chairman said Tuesday after his testimony before the subcommittee.

And perhaps that's just as well, given the turnout of the panel tasked with keeping track of thousands of millions of dollars. Just three of the 10 members bothered to show up for the subcommittee's second meeting.

Wow. It's great to know that the Obamanation is taking its job so seriously. And since we're all a bunch of "little IGs running around," does that mean we're going to get subpoena power? Be able to execute search warrants? Make arrests? Just call me Deputy Dawg.

On a side note, when asked at the hearing how the board would be able to verify Obama's claim that the stimulus money will create of save 4 million jobs, Devaney responded, "Sir, we haven't really received any information about that on the Web site." What? The government is clueless? Simply shocking.

Celebrating 100 Days of Ineptitude

So the Great One hosted his 3rd prime-time press conference in as many months last night to commemorate his 100th day in office. I find it mildly amusing (read: hysterical) that Obama is so concerned about people knowing what a great job he's doing in office that he needs a press conference to remind us. If he were such a successful and effective president, would he really need to tie up prime-time television slots to tell us about it? Shouldn't we all just inherently know what a great president he is? Shouldn't his works speak for themselves? The obvious answer is yes, his body of work does speak for itself, which explains why Obama was so desperate to ram his twisted perception of reality down our throats.

Now I have to admit that I think I've developed an allergic reaction to the sound of Obama's voice, because I can only listen for so long before I get nauseated and break out in hives. Subsequently, I was unable to force myself to listen to his whole press conference. The parts that I did catch, however, were filled with hope and change.

For example, take Jeff Zeleny's (NY Times) question to the president. Now take a moment to think what kind of question you might ask if you were Mr. Zeleny. You represent a major "news" source (for the sake of debate we're not going to argue the veracity of that statement). You're on national television during prime-time. What kind of question do you ask? Do you ask a question about the economy? The growing size of government? Swine flu? How about the idiotic decision to buzz lady liberty with Air Force One without telling New Yorkers? There are a plethora of great, hard-nosed questions that you could ask. So which of these to Zeleny choose to direct to our Commander-in-Thief? The answer is D: none of the above. Instead, he chose to go with this tough, hard-nosed question: What has surprised, troubled, enchanted, and humbled you the most about being president? Seriously? Enchanted? WTF!? This guy writes for the NY Times? His question was so bad that he actually got laughed at by his fellow reporters! No wonder the NY Times stock price is less than the cost of the Sunday paper!

With in-depth, probing questions like this one, it should be obvious to my one reader that Obama would have to omit some reporters' questions in the interest of time. So who would you skip over if you were in his swanky, italian leather shoes? BET? Maybe Telemundo? Wrong again. Try Fox News. Wednesday's press conference marked the second of 3 pressies were Obama has snubbed Fox News. I'm sure he was more than a little peeved at the Fox Network for refusing to air the press conference because it conflicted with their prime-time network sweeps (they did show it on their news and business channels). But Obama's actions shouldn't surprise anyone, as his vitriolic hatred of Fox is a matter of common knowledge. In fact, he said this leading up to the press conference:

Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I'm not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security...but let's not play games and pretend that the reason is because of the Recovery Act.

One thing that the press conference did do was assuage all my fears that Obama wants to convert our country to a European-style social welfare state.

You know, I don't want to run auto companies. I don't want to run banks. I've got two wars I've got to run already. I've got more than enough to do. So the sooner we can get out of that business, the better off we're going to be...

I don't think that we should micromanage, but I think that, like any investor, the American taxpayer has the right to scrutinize what's being proposed and make sure that their money is not just being thrown down the drain....

So I just want to help them get there. But I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy, you know, meddling in the private sector, if -- if you could tell me right now that, when I walked into this office that the banks were humming, that autos were selling, and that all you had to worry about was Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, getting health care passed, figuring out how to deal with energy independence, deal with Iran, and a pandemic flu, I would take that deal.

And -- and that's why I'm always amused when I hear these, you know, criticisms of, "Oh, you know, Obama wants to grow government." No. I would love a nice, lean portfolio to deal with, but that's not the hand that's been dealt us.

So you see? Obama doesn't want to socialize this country...he has no choice. It's all Bush's fault, and Obama is just trying to pick up the pieces. But isn't it great to know that he doesn't want to nationalize the auto and banking industries? That he doesn't want to socialize the country? I know I'll sleep better tonight.

Oh, btw, Fox says suck it. Their ratings on 29 April 2009 killed NBC, ABC, and CBS.

And I'm sure that I'm the only one that finds it ironic Fox showed it's drama "Lie to Me", and the rest of the networks showed Obama opening his mouth. Maybe all the networks are on the same page, afterall.

Your Transparent Government...

You've probably heard about about the scandal involving Jane Harman and a couple of individuals accused of espionage. The case can get kind of messy, so here to clear things up is Jon Stewart.

Happy 100th Day-iversary, Mr. Obama!

Congratulations, Mr. Obama! You made it! Your first 100 days in office are finally complete! And what a busy 100 days they have been! You have done more to jeopardize our national security, destroy our international reputation, and annihilate the economy than all 43 previous presidents combined. And you've done it all in less than 100 days, and all while saving the environment! Hooray! Now that's something to really hang your hat on!

The NY Post ran a fitting tribute to our Dearly Beloved today commemorating this momentous occasion. It's entitled "100 Days, 100 Mistakes," and is worth the read of you have the time. But don't fret, Mr. President. At least Chavez and Castro still love you.

Fat People Cause Global Warming

The Sun is reporting that fat people contribute more to global warming than those of us who have chiseled bodies, rock-hard abs, and extraordinary physiques. The report says that fat people may eat more than non-fatties. The increased food production required to feed these overweight monstrosities is literally destroying the planet, since food production accounts for about 1/5 of all greenhouse gases. And since fat people obviously loathe exercise the way that vampires loathe the sun, they drive more than the rest of us more athletic types. Not to mention all that extra methane gas they must be omitting. So you see? Al Gore is right! Humans are destroying the planet! And not just any humans, but fat humans! I think the solution is obvious. Government-sponsored food rationing for fat people. Or maybe we should implement our own "fat tax."

Happy Earth Day!

In honor of Earth Day, I wanted to share with you the following thought, courtesy of Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. It is read by the one and only Charlton Heston.

Iran Trains Crack Team of Military Commandos

The US military has been put on high alert today after footage of an elite team of Iranian soldiers was leaked. These soldiers possess skills and abilities that far surpass our own. It is obvious that they are a select few chosen for their unique talents. The US military better start playing catch up!

This skill set will be particularly handy when the soldiers get caught stealing food because they're starving, and have their hands cut off under Iranian law. Go Team!

h/t: The Jawa Report

Tea Party Smear

Hundreds of thousands of people turned out at tax day tea parties in 800 cities across America yesterday to protest anything from the increased taxes to big federal government. So how much coverage to the rallies get from the mainstream media? (That was a rhetorical question, and you don't actually have to answer it). It is truly inspiring to see such a grass roots (no, Pelosi, not astroturf...that would your man Axelrod) movement, all propelled by Americans who are concerned about the direction this country is going. So it is especially revolting to see how the MSM is covering it...when they decide to cover it at all (that's for you, NY Times). Michelle Malkin levels Pelosi in this video, as well as Susan Roesgen for her openly contemptuous coverage of the tea parties. WARNING: You may want to grab your air sickness bag before viewing this.

GASP! Green Jobs Bad for the Economy?!

The word is starting to leak out that Obama's drive to create more green jobs might just actually end up costing the economy more than it helps it. I know, I know. That's crazy. I mean, the Messiah himself said it would help the country, so it has to be true, right?

The Big O has often used Spain as an example of how a nation can use federal funds to stimulate the economy through green initiatives.

Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy. They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.

Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries. There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America...In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.

Don't see anything wrong with that plan? Maybe the Great One should have actually looked at the result of these projects before committing to them. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, PhD, a researcher from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has issued a report entitled, "Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy sources," that identifies the green projects that Spain has undertaken, and their economic consequences. Even if you only read the table of contents, you get a great idea of how successful their green initiatives have been. My favorite quote? Here you go (emphasis mine).

Thus, on average, the subsidized green job destroys the resources required to have created 2.2 jobs in the economy.

Consequently, through the use of both methods [two different calculations] we have reached a similar conclusion: for every green job, we can be highly confident that 2.2 jobs are destroyed elsewhere in the economy [or about 9 jobs destroyed for every 4 created], to which we have to add those jobs that the non-subsidized investment would have created.

Yup. Sounds like a great model. I'll bet the Obamanation was as thorough in researching this hair-brained ideas as they were in vetting so many cabinet-level candidates. Calzada goes on to say,

The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil.

But what does a Spaniard know about the environment and economic progress? We should ask American who specializes in these things, like Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the CATO Institute. What's that? We already did? He said that he was not surprised with the findings, and that we should expect similar results here.

But for the Obamanation, it has never actually been about benefiting Americans. Instead, it has always been about ramming the progressive, liberal, left-wing agenda down our throats while assuring us that this is really what we want (remember, you should never waste a good crisis!). Besides, those kooks over at the CATO Institute are just a bunch of Right-Wing Extremists, anyway. Off with their heads!

Terrorism Update

Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air has written a scathing critique of the DHS report that I wrote about yesterday. Well worth the read.

More Proof that I'm a Terrorist

After hearing that Missouri retracted its report linking militias and conservatives, I was questioning my status as an extremist/domestic terrorist. Well, never fear! DHS is here! DHS has issued a report (h/t: The Liberty Papers) entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." The report essentially amounts to a hit list on conservatives, and is the most disgusting, federally-issued document that I have read in recent memory. Here are a few nuggets from the report:

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, orrejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.

Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.

Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises.

Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty.

No, these are not legitimate concerns. These are the irrational fears of a paranoid, extremist, fringe group. Congratulations, you're probably a domestic terrorist.

The Fallacy of Equality

The term "equality" has been bothering me lately, especially as it has been slung around by the liberal media with regards to minorities, special interest groups, etc.

The founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, and yet it is obvious that no two human beings are identical in any respect. We come from different places, look different, act different, have varying degrees of strength (super-human, in my case), intelligence (yes, I am omniscient, too), and other abilities. So how, exactly, are we all equal?

According to Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, we are treated as equals in 3 ways: in the sight of God, in the sight of the law, and in the protection of our rights. Constitutional writer Clarence Carson described it this way:

First, there is equality before the law. This means that every man's case is tried by the same law governing any particular case. Practically, it means that there are no different laws for different classes and orders of men. The definition of premeditated murder is the same for the millionaire as for the tramp. A corollary of this is that no classes are created or recognized by law.

Second, the Declaration refers to an equality of rights...Each man is equally entitled to his life with every other man; each man has an equal title to God-given liberties along with every other.

But it seems that we've lost the original meaning of the term "equality." No longer is it about equal opportunity, but it is about equal things. As an example, I was reminded of a billboard that I saw a while ago here in Memphis that proudly proclaimed that if you couldn't afford to pay for a cell phone, the government would help you get one. Really? Is the right to a cell phone one of those unalienable rights that I slept through in my civics classes? If you can't afford a cell phone, guess what? TOUGH! If it is that important to you, go out and get a second job, or cut some of those trips to Mickey D's out (although we ARE very proud of our official status here in MS as the most obese state in the country). The argument here is that you need a cell phone in case of emergencies. Really? Where were the cell phones for the first 18+ years of my life? I seemed to manage just fine! We've become so accustomed to certain luxuries and amenities that we view them as "essential" to our survival. Of course, we are certainly not the first generation to confuse this definition, and we will undoubtedly not be the last. John Adams was in France when Jean Jacques Rousseau was teaching that all men were designed to be equal in every way. In response, Adams wrote:

That all men are born to equal rights is true. Every being has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred, as any other being has...But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people, as ever was practiced...

It should be obvious, then, to anyone who can objectively analyze a subject, that we are, in fact, created equal by God, and that we all have equal opportunities to succeed in this country based on our own merits. This also means that we are all subject to the same consequences as a result of our actions. Granted, the implication of this law (equality) has not always been executed justly. But an unjust application of the law does not make the law itself unjust. It just means we need to support those will more appropriately carry out the law as it is established.

Move over Jack Bauer: Meet Marcus Luttrell

If you haven't seen this video, or heard his interviews on the Glenn Beck radio program, you really need to. THIS is the epitome of what a hero should be. Marcus Luttrell is one of the baddest people on the planet. Glenn Beck said on his radio program said that Marcus makes Jack Bauer look like Screech from Saved by the Bell. This is the Navy SEAL that was the lone survivor (also authored the book Lone Survivor) of Operation Red Wing (for which he was awarded the Navy Cross and Purple Heart).

Last week 4 low-life teenagers in TX were going around joyriding and shooting people's dogs (they had Michael Vick jerseys on, btw). First of all, you don't shoot people's dogs just for the hell of it. Second of all, you don't shoot the Lone Survivor's dog. Marcus chased them through 4 counties before the drivers were finally forced to pull over after hitting police rollers. Here's the thing. At one point he was able to ram them off the road into a ditch about 3 miles from his home. He had a gun leveled at the driver. No one was around. They just shot his dog (who, incidentally, was given to him as a coping mechanism after he retired from the SEALs, and is named DASY, with each letter representing him and his SEAL team). You know what he did? Nothing. He exhibited perhaps the greatest amount of self-control I have ever heard of. He was as a member of the most elite division of the most powerful military on earth. Every instinct he had must have been screaming at him to take them out. But he didn't. He trusted the justice system of the country to which he dedicated his life.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I very seriously doubt I would have been able to do the same. Those of you who know me and know how much we love our dogs and consider them part of our family will understand. And DASY meant so much more to Marcus than I can imagine. If it were me, I think I would have walked up to them and happily have shot them between the eyes. I don't even know that I would have been conflicted about it. I'm sure I would have had that moment of general human conscience where I asked myself if I really wanted to do this. But I believe that in my mind it would seem (at the moment) incredibly justifiable. (Especially in TX, and given that the criminal had discharged a gun on my property).

And here's where I see Marcus as miles above me. Marcus not only had to overcome the knee-jerk, reactionary, revenge-driven response that all of us average Joes would have faced. He's been trained to eliminate a threat at the first opportunity. Threat identified. Threat eliminated. Simple as that.

Please keep Marcus in your prayers. He has by no means forgiven these punks, and he may not be able to restrain himself the next time he runs into one of them. (In fact, he found out where to find one of the kids during the day, so he left town so that he wouldn't be tempted to take him out). He's trying to cope with losses and horrors that neither you nor I can ever imagine.

UPDATE: Just in case you need more evidence of what kind of man Marcus is, check out the video below. 'Nuf said.

Barackmobile

It's nice to see that the new Government Motors is actively seeking to overhaul its company in an attempt to make it more profitable. (I guess that to be "more profitable" would imply some previous level of profitability. So I suppose they're just trying to become profitable, period).

As part of that endeavor, GM is investing heavily in more fuel efficient and greener vehicles (you know, since there is such an enormous market for that in the US). Their latest project involves a partnership with NH based Segway to produce the Personal Urban Mobility & Accessibility (charmingly called PUMA) vehicle. Are you ready for these wicked specs? It will weigh 300 lbs and travel up to, *gasp*35 mph! Holy freaking crap! Where do I sign up?

Never mind that it looks like someone took a couple wheels off my old big wheel and threw them on a garbage can. Or that I've seen bar stools that can go faster. This is the wave of the future! We will all soon be trading our cars in for these babies! Especially when the government mandates that the banks cease to provide loans for evil polluting combustion vehicles, and can only provide loans for these glorious, eco-friendly, mobile chick-repellers. But who really needs to date, anyway? Certainly no one driving one of these bad boys. But I'm sure the crew of the Starship Enterprise would be impressed.

Unfortunately, the PUMA isn't scheduled to be available until Q1 2010. But this just-released photo show you the design planned for the final model:


All hail the Glorious Leader! Just one question, though. Where do you fit the teleprompter? ZING!

Even Microsoft Needs a Little Stimulus Love

The Microsoft Corporation is, by nearly any measure, the poster child for an efficient and effective business model. Whether or not you like the company or its products, it's tough to argue with the numbers. While the US economy grew just over 1% in 2008 (although it lost over 6% in Q4 alone), and many companies saw net losses last year, Microsoft still posted moderate gains. In 2008, Microsoft posted $60 bn in revenue, an operating income of $22 bn, and a net income of $17 bn. At the end of last year, Microsoft also reported $72 bn in total assets, and $36 bn in total equity. Granted, their earnings may have not been what they have in the past, but the company still netted a significant amount of money last year.

So it's no wonder that some residents of Redmond, WA are very upset about a plan for Microsoft to use $11 million of stimulus money to build a bridge that will connect 2 campuses at Microsoft's headquarters.

Here's the thing. Microsoft is spending $17.5 million of its own money to build the public access bridge, and studies have estimated that Microsoft would account for around 42% of the bridge's traffic. (For those of you mathematically challenged, they're paying about 49% of the bill). So that kind of seems fair, right? Opponents are arguing that while Microsoft's contribution is certainly significant, the public money that will be diverted could be better spent elsewhere.

I understand both sides of this debate. But here's the thing. The porkulus bill that was passed was one big pet project/earmark cesspool, so if you're going to get upset at anyone, be upset at your legislators and senators for voting for the thing (without reading it, I might add). Microsoft is simply doing what it does best; making decisions that are in the best interest of Microsoft and it's employees and investors. In fact, if you're a Microsoft investor, you should be grateful that the company has the common sense to take advantage of savings opportunities when presented to them (including laying off 5000 employees). Maybe the auto industry wouldn't be such a mess if they had the cajones to make tough decisions (curse you, UAW). At least this pet project is being partially funded (almost 50%) with private money and will benefit the community, and is only a drop in the $11 Trillion (that's Trillion with a capital T) bucket. Unlike a certain senator's maglev project.