Thursday, June 24, 2010
Nearly half of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Adults see the government today as a threat to rights. Thirty-seven percent (37%) hold the opposite view. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.
Most Republicans (74%) and unaffiliateds (51%) consider the government to be a threat to individual rights. Most Democrats (64%) regard the government as a protector of rights.
Additionally, most Americans (52%) say it is more important for the government to protect individual rights than to promote economic growth. Just 31% say promoting economic growth is more important. But again a sizable number (17%) of Adults aren't sure which is more important.
This nationwide survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on June 18-19, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Men strongly believe it is more important for the government to protect individual rights, while women are almost evenly divided on the question.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of whites feel the emphasis should be on protecting individual rights. African-Americans are closely divided over which is more important.
There is little partisan disagreement when it comes to individual rights versus economic growth.
Data released earlier this week shows that 62% believe politicians want the government to have more power and money. At the same time, 58% think most voters want less power and money for the government.
This gap helps explain why just 21% believe that government today has the consent of the governed.
The Declaration of Independence asserts that governments are instituted among men to protect certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Link to this article on Rasumssen Reports is HERE
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Degeration of Democracy
Thomas Sowell - Syndicated Columnist - 6/22/2010 7:55:00 AM
When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics. Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.
"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.
Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive. In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.
The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.
Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated. But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men." If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion -- or $50 billion or $100 billion -- then so be it.
But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law." Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.
With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.
If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in Constitutional government. And, without Constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" -- which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.
That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.
At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people." That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people -- indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.
If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.
The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.
Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power -- versus the rule of law and the preservation of freedom -- are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics. Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.
"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.
Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive. In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.
The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.
Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated. But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men." If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion -- or $50 billion or $100 billion -- then so be it.
But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law." Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.
With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.
If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in Constitutional government. And, without Constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" -- which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.
That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.
At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people." That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people -- indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.
If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.
The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.
Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power -- versus the rule of law and the preservation of freedom -- are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Can someone explain to me how this works??
And much more importantly... How it is even remotely considered to be LEGAL???
Residents Get 6 Votes Each in Suburban N.Y. Election
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
By Jim Fitzgerald, Associated Press
Port Chester, N.Y. (AP) - An unusual election in a New York City suburb is allowing residents to vote early and often.
Port Chester is electing village trustees for the first time since 2006, when the federal government alleged the existing election system discriminated against Hispanics.
The court-ordered remedy was a system called cumulative voting. The system allows residents six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. They can give all six to one candidate or spread them around.
Voters also could go to polling places on any of six days over the past week. The election wraps up Tuesday.
An extensive education effort seems to have worked. Voters say they found the balloting strange but not difficult.
(Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
Residents Get 6 Votes Each in Suburban N.Y. Election
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
By Jim Fitzgerald, Associated Press
Port Chester, N.Y. (AP) - An unusual election in a New York City suburb is allowing residents to vote early and often.
Port Chester is electing village trustees for the first time since 2006, when the federal government alleged the existing election system discriminated against Hispanics.
The court-ordered remedy was a system called cumulative voting. The system allows residents six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. They can give all six to one candidate or spread them around.
Voters also could go to polling places on any of six days over the past week. The election wraps up Tuesday.
An extensive education effort seems to have worked. Voters say they found the balloting strange but not difficult.
(Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Can some one tell me WHY
With all the other issues that SHOULD be being delt with by Congress, they are spending time in a hearing on this???
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
I have read some very frightening things before, but this...
Diane Macedo
- FOXNews.com
- June 09, 2010
Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution
A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.
Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”
The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."
Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, says the company may be trying to ensure that oversensitive people don't pull its works off bookstore or library shelves.
"Any idea that’s 100 years old will probably offend someone or other," Olson told FoxNews.com. "…But if there’s anything that you ought to be able to take at a first gulp for yourself and then ask your parents if you're wondering about this or that strange thing, it should be the founding documents of American history."
The warning seems to be offending more people than the documents themselves.
Amazon.com’s customer reviews of Wilder’s copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation show an overwhelming number of people speaking out against the disclaimer, describing it as “insulting,” “sickening” and “frankly, horrifying.”
Another review for Wilder’s edition of the Federalist Papers calls for an all-out boycott of the publisher, sarcastically pointing out the "dangerous ideas" it’s trying to protect children from: "limited government, checks and balances, constrained judicial review, dual sovereignty of states and federal government, and deliberative democracy."
And though warning labels are usually posted to protect a company from potential lawsuits, constitutional attorney Noel Francisco says this disclaimer has no legal benefits.
"Would it ever be a legal concern that selling the Constitution would expose you to some kind of liability? No. Never,” Francisco told FoxNews.com. "The Constitution is the founding document of the country, an operative legal document."
As for the idea that this warning label might help keep these works from being yanked off bookshelves, Francisco says it is more likely to have the opposite effect: people not carrying the book because it has the disclaimer.
"By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence," he said.
Amazon customers appear to agree. Almost all of the reviews discussing the disclaimer end with the same thought: don't buy from this publisher.
Efforts to reach the publisher were unsuccessful.
Copyright 2010 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
- FOXNews.com
- June 09, 2010
Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution
A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.
Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”
The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."
Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, says the company may be trying to ensure that oversensitive people don't pull its works off bookstore or library shelves.
"Any idea that’s 100 years old will probably offend someone or other," Olson told FoxNews.com. "…But if there’s anything that you ought to be able to take at a first gulp for yourself and then ask your parents if you're wondering about this or that strange thing, it should be the founding documents of American history."
The warning seems to be offending more people than the documents themselves.
Amazon.com’s customer reviews of Wilder’s copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation show an overwhelming number of people speaking out against the disclaimer, describing it as “insulting,” “sickening” and “frankly, horrifying.”
Another review for Wilder’s edition of the Federalist Papers calls for an all-out boycott of the publisher, sarcastically pointing out the "dangerous ideas" it’s trying to protect children from: "limited government, checks and balances, constrained judicial review, dual sovereignty of states and federal government, and deliberative democracy."
And though warning labels are usually posted to protect a company from potential lawsuits, constitutional attorney Noel Francisco says this disclaimer has no legal benefits.
"Would it ever be a legal concern that selling the Constitution would expose you to some kind of liability? No. Never,” Francisco told FoxNews.com. "The Constitution is the founding document of the country, an operative legal document."
As for the idea that this warning label might help keep these works from being yanked off bookshelves, Francisco says it is more likely to have the opposite effect: people not carrying the book because it has the disclaimer.
"By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence," he said.
Amazon customers appear to agree. Almost all of the reviews discussing the disclaimer end with the same thought: don't buy from this publisher.
Efforts to reach the publisher were unsuccessful.
Copyright 2010 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
More Authority???
He wants MORE AUTHORITY??? How about we make him stick to what the US Constitution says that he has? The Constitution, in Articles 1 through 4 says very plainly what authority each group has, Article 1 is Legislative Powers (Congress), Article 2 is Executive Powers (President), Article 3 is Judicial Powers (The Supreme Court), and Article 4 is States' Powers and Limits. Then there are the amendments... and the 10th Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So how about we make them stick to that?
Friday, June 4, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Some More Info on the "Peace Flotilla"
Initial photos of some of the weapons found aboard the flotilla terror ships:
Channel 1 reporting. 50 flotilla terrorists turn out to be suspected Al Qaeda mercenaries. Over $1 million dollars in cash found on the boat.
Israel TV reports that some of the flotilla terrorists were equipped with night vision equipment and ceramic vests.
May 31, 2010 — Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the 'Free Gaza' Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.
Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.
The 'Free Gaza' Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.
Where are the retractions or corrections? Even apoligies?
EDITORIAL: The Freedom Flotilla fraud
Supposed peace activists were fixing for a fightBy THE WASHINGTON TIMES
7:59 p.m., Tuesday, June 1, 2010
What was supposed to be a routine Israeli maritime boarding and inspection operation is turning into a propaganda victory for the Islamist terror group Hamas. The main lesson learned from the incident on the ship Mavi Marmara is: Don't bring a paintball gun to a knife fight.
The initial frenzy of denunciations of the operation in which nine people died - using words like piracy, slaughter, genocide and so forth - is fading in the cold light of facts. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay claimed that the Israeli operation had no legal justification, which only betrays her ignorance of maritime law. Navies routinely stop, board and search suspicious vessels, and Israel has intercepted blockade runners headed to Gaza for years. The difference this time is that the "peace activists" on board were armed and looking for a fight.
The Israelis boarded with paintball guns, tasers, tear gas and other nonlethal weapons. They expected the usual highly choreographed dance in which they board the ship and take control of it while the activists link arms, sing the Palestinian terrorist equivalent of "We Shall Overcome," take photos and issue press releases about the latest "Zionist atrocity." That's the usual Mahatma Gandhi/Martin Luther King Jr. passive-resistance theater.
But extremists have learned a key lesson of our age - violent resistance is better than passive submission when they know they will not be held accountable. In this case, the pro-Hamas activists sought a confrontation. Israeli troops rappelling onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara were immediately set upon with clubs, knives and other weapons. Pundits who reflexively denounced Israel for "disproportionate force" were blaming the wrong side. Had the terrorist sympathizers on the ship not incited the violence, no one would have been killed. There were no casualties on other ships in the flotilla where people did not resist.
Backers of the illegal blockade-running effort portray themselves as humanitarians, but this claim is dubious. They had rejected an Israeli offer to send the supplies they were carrying to Gaza overland, joining the tons of supplies that flow to Gaza daily, but this would not have fulfilled the organizers' goal of having a splashy, made-for-media event. So they went ahead with their voyage, fomented the incident, and international organizations, governments and the press fell for it, as expected.
This is the beginning of a high-seas intifada aimed at the hearts and minds of the global community, an attempt to isolate Israel and make heroes of Hamas. The campaign continues this week as the blockade runner Rachel Corrie will make an attempt to reach Gaza. The ship is named after an American peace activist who was killed accidentally in 2003 when she attempted to block an Israeli bulldozer, and it is a much more media savvy moniker than Mavi Marmara.
There will be no more routine inspection operations; Monday's events raised the stakes. It is certain that the Hamas supporters on board will not yield to Israeli requests that the ship halt, and if troops attempt another boarding, it will be met with violence. This poses a quandary for Israel's navy, but a few well-placed shells fired at the stern of the Rachel Corrie to disable her rudder and propulsion system may offer a satisfactory solution.
Meanwhile, extremists in Gaza continue to attack civilians in Israel with mortars and rockets, and in one recent incident attempted a terror attack with a donkey-pulled cart-bomb. The world awaits the United Nations' expression of outrage.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/1/the-freedom-flotilla-fraud/
Supposed peace activists were fixing for a fightBy THE WASHINGTON TIMES
7:59 p.m., Tuesday, June 1, 2010
What was supposed to be a routine Israeli maritime boarding and inspection operation is turning into a propaganda victory for the Islamist terror group Hamas. The main lesson learned from the incident on the ship Mavi Marmara is: Don't bring a paintball gun to a knife fight.
The initial frenzy of denunciations of the operation in which nine people died - using words like piracy, slaughter, genocide and so forth - is fading in the cold light of facts. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay claimed that the Israeli operation had no legal justification, which only betrays her ignorance of maritime law. Navies routinely stop, board and search suspicious vessels, and Israel has intercepted blockade runners headed to Gaza for years. The difference this time is that the "peace activists" on board were armed and looking for a fight.
The Israelis boarded with paintball guns, tasers, tear gas and other nonlethal weapons. They expected the usual highly choreographed dance in which they board the ship and take control of it while the activists link arms, sing the Palestinian terrorist equivalent of "We Shall Overcome," take photos and issue press releases about the latest "Zionist atrocity." That's the usual Mahatma Gandhi/Martin Luther King Jr. passive-resistance theater.
But extremists have learned a key lesson of our age - violent resistance is better than passive submission when they know they will not be held accountable. In this case, the pro-Hamas activists sought a confrontation. Israeli troops rappelling onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara were immediately set upon with clubs, knives and other weapons. Pundits who reflexively denounced Israel for "disproportionate force" were blaming the wrong side. Had the terrorist sympathizers on the ship not incited the violence, no one would have been killed. There were no casualties on other ships in the flotilla where people did not resist.
Backers of the illegal blockade-running effort portray themselves as humanitarians, but this claim is dubious. They had rejected an Israeli offer to send the supplies they were carrying to Gaza overland, joining the tons of supplies that flow to Gaza daily, but this would not have fulfilled the organizers' goal of having a splashy, made-for-media event. So they went ahead with their voyage, fomented the incident, and international organizations, governments and the press fell for it, as expected.
This is the beginning of a high-seas intifada aimed at the hearts and minds of the global community, an attempt to isolate Israel and make heroes of Hamas. The campaign continues this week as the blockade runner Rachel Corrie will make an attempt to reach Gaza. The ship is named after an American peace activist who was killed accidentally in 2003 when she attempted to block an Israeli bulldozer, and it is a much more media savvy moniker than Mavi Marmara.
There will be no more routine inspection operations; Monday's events raised the stakes. It is certain that the Hamas supporters on board will not yield to Israeli requests that the ship halt, and if troops attempt another boarding, it will be met with violence. This poses a quandary for Israel's navy, but a few well-placed shells fired at the stern of the Rachel Corrie to disable her rudder and propulsion system may offer a satisfactory solution.
Meanwhile, extremists in Gaza continue to attack civilians in Israel with mortars and rockets, and in one recent incident attempted a terror attack with a donkey-pulled cart-bomb. The world awaits the United Nations' expression of outrage.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/1/the-freedom-flotilla-fraud/
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Politics of Personal Intimidation
By Nina EastonMay 19, 2010: 6:15 AM ET
(FORTUNE) -- Every journalist loves a peaceful protest-whether it makes news, shakes up a political season, or holds out the possibility of altering history. Then there are the ones that show up on your curb--literally.
Last Sunday, on a peaceful, sun-crisp afternoon, our toddler finally napping upstairs, my front yard exploded with 500 screaming, placard-waving strangers on a mission to intimidate my neighbor, Greg Baer. Baer is deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), a senior executive based in Washington, D.C. And that -- in the minds of the organizers at the politically influential Service Employees International Union and a Chicago outfit called National Political Action -- makes his family fair game.
Waving signs denouncing bank "greed," hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer's steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer's teenage son Jack -- alone in the house -- locked himself in the bathroom. "When are they going to leave?" Jack pleaded when I called to check on him.
Baer, on his way home from a Little League game, parked his car around the corner, called the police, and made a quick calculation to leave his younger son behind while he tried to rescue his increasingly distressed teen. He made his way through a din of barked demands and insults from the activists who proudly "outed" him, and slipped through his front door.
"Excuse me," Baer told his accusers, "I need to get into the house. I have a child who is alone in there and frightened."
When is a protest not a protest?Now this event would accurately be called a "protest" if it were taking place at, say, a bank or the U.S. Capitol. But when hundreds of loud and angry strangers are descending on your family, your children, and your home, a more apt description of this assemblage would be "mob." Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked-even on the police. A trio of officers who belatedly answered our calls confessed a fear that arrests might "incite" these trespassers.
What's interesting is that SEIU, the nation's second largest union, craves respectability. Just-retired president Andy Stern is an Obama friend and regular White House visitor. He sits on the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission. He hobnobs with those greedy Wall Street CEOs -- executives much higher-ranking than my neighbor Baer -- at Davos. His union spent $70 million getting Democrats elected in 2008.
In the business community, though, SEIU has a reputation for strong-arm tactics against management, prompting some companies to file suit.
Now those strong-arm tactics, stirred by supposedly free-floating (as opposed to organized) populist rage, have come to the neighborhood curb. Last year it was AIG executives -- with protestors met by security guard outside. Now it's any executive -- and they're on the front stoop. After Baer's house, the 14 buses left to descend on the nearby residence of Peter Scher, a government relations executive at JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500).
Targeting homes and families seems to put SEIU in the ranks of (now jailed) radical animal-rights activists and the Kansas anti-gay fundamentalists harassing the grieving parents of a dead 20-year-old soldier at his funeral (the Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on the latter). But that's not a conversation that SEIU officials want to have.
When I asked Stephen Lerner, SEIU's point-person on Wall Street reform, about these tactics, he accused me of getting "emotional." Lerner was more comfortable sticking to his talking points: "Millions of people are losing their homes, and they have gone to the banks, which are turning a deaf ear."
Okay, fine, then why not continue SEIU protests at bank offices and shareholder meetings-as the union has been doing for more than a year? Lerner insists, "People in powerful corporations seem to think they can insulate themselves from the damage they are doing."
Other reasons why SEIU might protest
Bank of America officials dispute Lerner's assertion about the "damage they are doing," citing the success of workout programs to help distressed homeowners, praise received from community groups, the bank's support of financial reform legislation, and the little-noticed fact that Bank of America exited the subprime lending business in 2001.
SEIU has said it wants to organize bank tellers and call centers -- and its critics point out that a great way to worsen employee morale, thereby making workers more susceptible to union calls, is to batter a bank's image through protest. (SEIU officials say their anti-Wall Street campaign has nothing to do with their organizing efforts.) Complicating this picture is the fact that BofA is the union's lender of choice -- and SEIU, suffering financially, owes the bank nearly $4 million in interest and fees. Bank of America declined comment on the loans.
But SEIU's intentions, and BofA's lender record, are ripe subjects to debate in Congress, on air, at shareholder hearings. Not in Greg Baer's front yard.
Why the media wasn't invited
Sunday's onslaught wasn't designed for mainstream media consumption. There were no reporters from organizations like the Washington Post, no local camera crews who might have aired criticism of this private-home invasion. With the media covering the conservative Tea Party protesters, the behavior of individual activists has drawn withering scrutiny.
Instead, a friendly Huffington Post blogger showed up, narrowcasting coverage to the union's leftist base. The rest of the message these protesters brought was personal-aimed at frightening Baer and his family, not influencing a broader public.
Of course, HuffPost readers responding to the coverage assumed that Baer was an evil former Bush official. He's not. A lifelong Democrat, Baer worked for the Clinton Treasury Department, and his wife, Shirley Sagawa, author of the book The American Way to Change and a former adviser to Hillary Clinton, is a prominent national service advocate.
In the 1990s, the Baers' former bosses, Bill and Hillary Clinton, denounced the "politics of personal destruction." Today politicians and their voters of all stripes grieve the ugly bitterness that permeates our policy debates. Now, with populist rage providing a useful cover, it appears we've crossed into a new era: The politics of personal intimidation.
Link to the story on CNN:Money is HERE
(FORTUNE) -- Every journalist loves a peaceful protest-whether it makes news, shakes up a political season, or holds out the possibility of altering history. Then there are the ones that show up on your curb--literally.
Last Sunday, on a peaceful, sun-crisp afternoon, our toddler finally napping upstairs, my front yard exploded with 500 screaming, placard-waving strangers on a mission to intimidate my neighbor, Greg Baer. Baer is deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), a senior executive based in Washington, D.C. And that -- in the minds of the organizers at the politically influential Service Employees International Union and a Chicago outfit called National Political Action -- makes his family fair game.
Waving signs denouncing bank "greed," hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer's steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer's teenage son Jack -- alone in the house -- locked himself in the bathroom. "When are they going to leave?" Jack pleaded when I called to check on him.
Baer, on his way home from a Little League game, parked his car around the corner, called the police, and made a quick calculation to leave his younger son behind while he tried to rescue his increasingly distressed teen. He made his way through a din of barked demands and insults from the activists who proudly "outed" him, and slipped through his front door.
"Excuse me," Baer told his accusers, "I need to get into the house. I have a child who is alone in there and frightened."
When is a protest not a protest?Now this event would accurately be called a "protest" if it were taking place at, say, a bank or the U.S. Capitol. But when hundreds of loud and angry strangers are descending on your family, your children, and your home, a more apt description of this assemblage would be "mob." Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked-even on the police. A trio of officers who belatedly answered our calls confessed a fear that arrests might "incite" these trespassers.
What's interesting is that SEIU, the nation's second largest union, craves respectability. Just-retired president Andy Stern is an Obama friend and regular White House visitor. He sits on the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission. He hobnobs with those greedy Wall Street CEOs -- executives much higher-ranking than my neighbor Baer -- at Davos. His union spent $70 million getting Democrats elected in 2008.
In the business community, though, SEIU has a reputation for strong-arm tactics against management, prompting some companies to file suit.
Now those strong-arm tactics, stirred by supposedly free-floating (as opposed to organized) populist rage, have come to the neighborhood curb. Last year it was AIG executives -- with protestors met by security guard outside. Now it's any executive -- and they're on the front stoop. After Baer's house, the 14 buses left to descend on the nearby residence of Peter Scher, a government relations executive at JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500).
Targeting homes and families seems to put SEIU in the ranks of (now jailed) radical animal-rights activists and the Kansas anti-gay fundamentalists harassing the grieving parents of a dead 20-year-old soldier at his funeral (the Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on the latter). But that's not a conversation that SEIU officials want to have.
When I asked Stephen Lerner, SEIU's point-person on Wall Street reform, about these tactics, he accused me of getting "emotional." Lerner was more comfortable sticking to his talking points: "Millions of people are losing their homes, and they have gone to the banks, which are turning a deaf ear."
Okay, fine, then why not continue SEIU protests at bank offices and shareholder meetings-as the union has been doing for more than a year? Lerner insists, "People in powerful corporations seem to think they can insulate themselves from the damage they are doing."
Other reasons why SEIU might protest
Bank of America officials dispute Lerner's assertion about the "damage they are doing," citing the success of workout programs to help distressed homeowners, praise received from community groups, the bank's support of financial reform legislation, and the little-noticed fact that Bank of America exited the subprime lending business in 2001.
SEIU has said it wants to organize bank tellers and call centers -- and its critics point out that a great way to worsen employee morale, thereby making workers more susceptible to union calls, is to batter a bank's image through protest. (SEIU officials say their anti-Wall Street campaign has nothing to do with their organizing efforts.) Complicating this picture is the fact that BofA is the union's lender of choice -- and SEIU, suffering financially, owes the bank nearly $4 million in interest and fees. Bank of America declined comment on the loans.
But SEIU's intentions, and BofA's lender record, are ripe subjects to debate in Congress, on air, at shareholder hearings. Not in Greg Baer's front yard.
Why the media wasn't invited
Sunday's onslaught wasn't designed for mainstream media consumption. There were no reporters from organizations like the Washington Post, no local camera crews who might have aired criticism of this private-home invasion. With the media covering the conservative Tea Party protesters, the behavior of individual activists has drawn withering scrutiny.
Instead, a friendly Huffington Post blogger showed up, narrowcasting coverage to the union's leftist base. The rest of the message these protesters brought was personal-aimed at frightening Baer and his family, not influencing a broader public.
Of course, HuffPost readers responding to the coverage assumed that Baer was an evil former Bush official. He's not. A lifelong Democrat, Baer worked for the Clinton Treasury Department, and his wife, Shirley Sagawa, author of the book The American Way to Change and a former adviser to Hillary Clinton, is a prominent national service advocate.
In the 1990s, the Baers' former bosses, Bill and Hillary Clinton, denounced the "politics of personal destruction." Today politicians and their voters of all stripes grieve the ugly bitterness that permeates our policy debates. Now, with populist rage providing a useful cover, it appears we've crossed into a new era: The politics of personal intimidation.
Link to the story on CNN:Money is HERE
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Watch and wise up...
OK People... Watch this, and listen to what he is saying... "This is a WAR AGAINST CAPITOLISM"... The very thing that made it so that he can stand there and say that, and allows him the standard of living that he has...
Also, the LA School District has said that it is OK for him to continue to teach...
Also, the LA School District has said that it is OK for him to continue to teach...
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Republicans Ask For Citizens’ Opinions On Spending Programs
I hope that everyone will make use of this idea, and make them make it work...
May 20, 2010 by Personal Liberty News Desk
In an effort to connect with conservative activists and help curb Federal spending, House Republicans announced last week the creation of a new project designed to allow citizens to vote on what they think should be cut from the Federal budget.
The new initiative, called YouCut, will enable voters to choose from one of five possible cuts each week. The winning suggestion will be brought to the floor the following week and will be voted on by members of the House.
"What we’re saying here is we’re going to listen," House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Fox News. "Vote on your priority, and we’ll take it to an up-or-down vote on the floor."
Meanwhile, Democrats are calling the program a simple public relations gimmick that has no realistic chance of trimming the Federal budget.
"It’s not surprising that they are resorting to another gimmick for a round of press rather than a substantive idea for lasting solutions," said Hari Sevugan, the Democratic National Committee’s press secretary. "But if they actually listened to the American people, Republicans would know that knee-jerk opposition, obstruction, delay and gimmicks are not a substitute for leadership."
In response to the program, the Democrats created their own project called GOPSpent, where Americans can vote on the most irresponsible Republican initiatives that favor special interest groups.
May 20, 2010 by Personal Liberty News Desk
In an effort to connect with conservative activists and help curb Federal spending, House Republicans announced last week the creation of a new project designed to allow citizens to vote on what they think should be cut from the Federal budget.
The new initiative, called YouCut, will enable voters to choose from one of five possible cuts each week. The winning suggestion will be brought to the floor the following week and will be voted on by members of the House.
"What we’re saying here is we’re going to listen," House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Fox News. "Vote on your priority, and we’ll take it to an up-or-down vote on the floor."
Meanwhile, Democrats are calling the program a simple public relations gimmick that has no realistic chance of trimming the Federal budget.
"It’s not surprising that they are resorting to another gimmick for a round of press rather than a substantive idea for lasting solutions," said Hari Sevugan, the Democratic National Committee’s press secretary. "But if they actually listened to the American people, Republicans would know that knee-jerk opposition, obstruction, delay and gimmicks are not a substitute for leadership."
In response to the program, the Democrats created their own project called GOPSpent, where Americans can vote on the most irresponsible Republican initiatives that favor special interest groups.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Just a few comments about what is going on...
In the press about Arizona...
Ex-NYT Reporter Rues Arizona “Police State,” Reminds of Nazi-Occupied Denmark
“I’m glad I’ve already seen the Grand Canyon. Because I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state....Everyone remembers the wartime Danish king who drove through Copenhagen wearing a Star of David in support of his Jewish subjects. It’s an apocryphal story, actually, but an inspiring one. Let the good people of Arizona — and anyone passing through — walk the streets of Tucson and Phoenix wearing buttons that say: ‘I Could Be Illegal.’”
— The New York Times’s Linda Greenhouse, formerly the paper’s Supreme Court reporter, in an April 27 op-ed.
NBC Pretends Snide Liberal Comics Are Real News
Correspondent Andrea Mitchell: “It’s now gone beyond protest to threats of a boycott, as Arizona becomes a laughingstock to some.”
Seth Myers on Saturday Night Live: “Can we all agree that there’s nothing more Nazi than saying, ‘Show me your papers’?...”
The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart: “It’s not unprecedented, having to carry around your papers. It’s the same thing free black people had to do in 1863.”
Mitchell: “Anger over the law has gone viral. On Facebook today, pages like this one: ‘Arizona, the Grand Canyon State, welcomes you — unless you’re a Mexican or look like one.’”
— NBC Nightly News, April 27. [Audio/video (0:55): Windows Media | MP3 audio]
Nothing Gets by These Einsteins
“Law Makes it a Crime to Be Illegal Immigrant.”
— On-screen graphic during a noon-hour segment about Arizona’s new immigration law, MSNBC Live, April 26.
AND HERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF THE TRUTH...
“Critics have focused on the term ‘reasonable suspicion’ to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics. What fewer people have noticed is the phrase ‘lawful contact,’ which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. ‘That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,’ says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure.”
— The Washington Examiner’s Byron York, April 26
Tea Party = Oklahoma City Bombing?
Smearing Like It’s 1995
“Watch your words: Former President Clinton warns harsh anti-government talk could lead to violent acts, like the Oklahoma City bombing....There is a lot of attention tonight on comments made by former President Bill Clinton, who has weighed in on the angry anti-government rhetoric, ringing out from talk radio to Tea Party rallies. He warns that sometimes firing people up with caustic comments can have unintended and dire consequences.”
— Fill-in anchor Elizabeth Vargas on ABC’s World News, April 16. [Audio/video (0:08): Windows Media | MP3 audio]
“In so many ways, this moment feels like that same moment from McVeigh’s era, from Timothy McVeigh’s era in Oklahoma City. You know, you have this profound sense of change going on in the country — it’s cultural, it’s social, it’s technological, embodied in many ways by President Obama that scares a lot of people about the fact that are, think they’re losing their country. You have a right-wing media that is encouraging a lot of this behavior. And you have a right, a Republican Party that, if not encouraging it, is certainly tolerating it at this moment. And I think it’s a very combustible and very dangerous moment for the country in that regard.”
— New York magazine writer John Heilemann on The Chris Matthews Show, April 18.
“What was the more likely cause of the Oklahoma City bombing: talk radio or Bill Clinton and Janet Reno’s hands-on management of Waco, the Branch Davidian compound?...Obviously the answer is talk radio. Specifically Rush Limbaugh’s hate radio....Frankly, Rush, you have that blood on your hands now and you have had it for 15 years.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann naming Rush Limbaugh the “Worst Person in the World,” April 19 Countdown.
“The pitched attacks by some Republicans and conservatives during the health care fight have drawn criticism as incendiary, as have the use of terms and imagery like the placing of target cross hairs over the districts of vulnerable Democrats who backed health care.”
— New York Times reporter Carl Hulse in an April 15 story.
“I looked up the definition of sedition, which is ‘conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state.’ And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck, and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right next — right up close to being seditious.”
— Time’s Joe Klein on The Chris Matthews Show, April 18. [Audio/video (0:29): Windows Media | MP3 audio]
And Finally... Money
Time for a Surgeon General Warning Against Profits?
“Should average Americans think about big Wall Street institutions the way that some have come to think about tobacco companies, that is, companies whose core activities are harmful to the country?”
— CNBC’s John Harwood to President Obama in an interview segment aired on NBC’s Today, April 20. [Audio/video (0:19): Windows Media | MP3 audio]
And the most frightening comment recently...
Sam’s Fantasy: Supreme Court Justice Al Gore
ABC’s Sam Donaldson: “Let’s go further. The Constitution does not say you have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court.”
Co-host George Stephanopoulos: “That’s right.”
Donaldson: “I give you Al Gore.”
Stephanopoulos: “Al Gore?”
Donaldson: “All right, he’s 62. But, he’s still a few years kicking. I think he’s confirmable, although there would be a fight to some extent. I think he might make a very good Justice.”
— ABC’s Good Morning America, April 22. [Audio/video (0:35): Windows Media | MP3 audio]
Ex-NYT Reporter Rues Arizona “Police State,” Reminds of Nazi-Occupied Denmark
“I’m glad I’ve already seen the Grand Canyon. Because I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state....Everyone remembers the wartime Danish king who drove through Copenhagen wearing a Star of David in support of his Jewish subjects. It’s an apocryphal story, actually, but an inspiring one. Let the good people of Arizona — and anyone passing through — walk the streets of Tucson and Phoenix wearing buttons that say: ‘I Could Be Illegal.’”
— The New York Times’s Linda Greenhouse, formerly the paper’s Supreme Court reporter, in an April 27 op-ed.
NBC Pretends Snide Liberal Comics Are Real News
Correspondent Andrea Mitchell: “It’s now gone beyond protest to threats of a boycott, as Arizona becomes a laughingstock to some.”
Seth Myers on Saturday Night Live: “Can we all agree that there’s nothing more Nazi than saying, ‘Show me your papers’?...”
The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart: “It’s not unprecedented, having to carry around your papers. It’s the same thing free black people had to do in 1863.”
Mitchell: “Anger over the law has gone viral. On Facebook today, pages like this one: ‘Arizona, the Grand Canyon State, welcomes you — unless you’re a Mexican or look like one.’”
— NBC Nightly News, April 27. [Audio/video (0:55): Windows Media | MP3 audio]
Nothing Gets by These Einsteins
“Law Makes it a Crime to Be Illegal Immigrant.”
— On-screen graphic during a noon-hour segment about Arizona’s new immigration law, MSNBC Live, April 26.
AND HERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF THE TRUTH...
“Critics have focused on the term ‘reasonable suspicion’ to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics. What fewer people have noticed is the phrase ‘lawful contact,’ which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. ‘That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,’ says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure.”
— The Washington Examiner’s Byron York, April 26
Tea Party = Oklahoma City Bombing?
Smearing Like It’s 1995
“Watch your words: Former President Clinton warns harsh anti-government talk could lead to violent acts, like the Oklahoma City bombing....There is a lot of attention tonight on comments made by former President Bill Clinton, who has weighed in on the angry anti-government rhetoric, ringing out from talk radio to Tea Party rallies. He warns that sometimes firing people up with caustic comments can have unintended and dire consequences.”
— Fill-in anchor Elizabeth Vargas on ABC’s World News, April 16. [Audio/video (0:08): Windows Media | MP3 audio]
“In so many ways, this moment feels like that same moment from McVeigh’s era, from Timothy McVeigh’s era in Oklahoma City. You know, you have this profound sense of change going on in the country — it’s cultural, it’s social, it’s technological, embodied in many ways by President Obama that scares a lot of people about the fact that are, think they’re losing their country. You have a right-wing media that is encouraging a lot of this behavior. And you have a right, a Republican Party that, if not encouraging it, is certainly tolerating it at this moment. And I think it’s a very combustible and very dangerous moment for the country in that regard.”
— New York magazine writer John Heilemann on The Chris Matthews Show, April 18.
“What was the more likely cause of the Oklahoma City bombing: talk radio or Bill Clinton and Janet Reno’s hands-on management of Waco, the Branch Davidian compound?...Obviously the answer is talk radio. Specifically Rush Limbaugh’s hate radio....Frankly, Rush, you have that blood on your hands now and you have had it for 15 years.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann naming Rush Limbaugh the “Worst Person in the World,” April 19 Countdown.
“The pitched attacks by some Republicans and conservatives during the health care fight have drawn criticism as incendiary, as have the use of terms and imagery like the placing of target cross hairs over the districts of vulnerable Democrats who backed health care.”
— New York Times reporter Carl Hulse in an April 15 story.
“I looked up the definition of sedition, which is ‘conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state.’ And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck, and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right next — right up close to being seditious.”
— Time’s Joe Klein on The Chris Matthews Show, April 18. [Audio/video (0:29): Windows Media | MP3 audio]
And Finally... Money
Time for a Surgeon General Warning Against Profits?
“Should average Americans think about big Wall Street institutions the way that some have come to think about tobacco companies, that is, companies whose core activities are harmful to the country?”
— CNBC’s John Harwood to President Obama in an interview segment aired on NBC’s Today, April 20. [Audio/video (0:19): Windows Media | MP3 audio]
And the most frightening comment recently...
Sam’s Fantasy: Supreme Court Justice Al Gore
ABC’s Sam Donaldson: “Let’s go further. The Constitution does not say you have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court.”
Co-host George Stephanopoulos: “That’s right.”
Donaldson: “I give you Al Gore.”
Stephanopoulos: “Al Gore?”
Donaldson: “All right, he’s 62. But, he’s still a few years kicking. I think he’s confirmable, although there would be a fight to some extent. I think he might make a very good Justice.”
— ABC’s Good Morning America, April 22. [Audio/video (0:35): Windows Media | MP3 audio]
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Awesome
A palindrome reads the same backwards as forward . This video reads the exact opposite backwards as forward . Not only does it read the opposite, the meaning is the exact opposite..
This is only a 1 minute, 44 second video and it is brilliant. Make sure you read as well as listen...forward and backward.
This is a video that was submitted in a contest by a 20-year old. The contest was titled "u @ 50" by AARP. This video won second place. When they showed it, everyone in the room was awe-struck and broke into spontaneous applause.
So simple and yet so brilliant.
Take a minute and watch it.
This is only a 1 minute, 44 second video and it is brilliant. Make sure you read as well as listen...forward and backward.
This is a video that was submitted in a contest by a 20-year old. The contest was titled "u @ 50" by AARP. This video won second place. When they showed it, everyone in the room was awe-struck and broke into spontaneous applause.
So simple and yet so brilliant.
Take a minute and watch it.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Obamacare "OOPS" in a BIG way...
You're going to love this one, from the New York Times--unless, that is, you work on Capitol Hill:
In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the "personal health insurance coverage" of senators, representatives and their staff members.
For example, it says, the law may "remove members of Congress and Congressional staff" from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available. . . .
The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.
But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.
The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible "drafting error," the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.
Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, "a law takes effect on the date of its enactment" unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.
That means that congressmen and their staffers may be afoul of the law right now.
ObamaCare is proving to be even more of a shambles than critics had expected. Is this because the Democrats who currently run Congress are unusually incompetent? Tempting as it is to say yes, probably not. Put it down, instead, to hubris and haste. In their mad rush to outrun public opinion and impose "universal health care" on their unwilling constituents, Harry Pelosi, Nancy Reid & Co. simply didn't bother paying attention to the details.
If CRS is right and congressmen and their staffers are now forbidden to be insured as federal employees, this may turn out to be ObamaCare's fatal flaw. The Times observes that Congress "could try for a legislative fix," and it quotes Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, as urging just that: "After the committee completed its work, the coverage provision was redrafted by others, and that's where mistakes were made. Congress can and should act to correct the mistakes."
Good luck with that, guys. Are congressmen really going to pass legislation to rectify the harm ObamaCare did to them, while continuing to subject everyone else to this awful, hated law? Leaving the law in place isn't a politically attractive option either, for the reason National Review's Yuval Levin points out: "If you had your own research service to help you figure out what the law will do to your insurance, the answer would likely be just as confusing and discouraging." The CRS's findings are a powerful reminder that ObamaCare likely holds horrible surprises for everyone.
The logic of the situation inexorably points toward repeal--though we expect President Obama and this Congress will defy logic as firmly and for as long as they can.
In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the "personal health insurance coverage" of senators, representatives and their staff members.
For example, it says, the law may "remove members of Congress and Congressional staff" from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available. . . .
The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.
But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.
The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible "drafting error," the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.
Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, "a law takes effect on the date of its enactment" unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.
That means that congressmen and their staffers may be afoul of the law right now.
ObamaCare is proving to be even more of a shambles than critics had expected. Is this because the Democrats who currently run Congress are unusually incompetent? Tempting as it is to say yes, probably not. Put it down, instead, to hubris and haste. In their mad rush to outrun public opinion and impose "universal health care" on their unwilling constituents, Harry Pelosi, Nancy Reid & Co. simply didn't bother paying attention to the details.
If CRS is right and congressmen and their staffers are now forbidden to be insured as federal employees, this may turn out to be ObamaCare's fatal flaw. The Times observes that Congress "could try for a legislative fix," and it quotes Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, as urging just that: "After the committee completed its work, the coverage provision was redrafted by others, and that's where mistakes were made. Congress can and should act to correct the mistakes."
Good luck with that, guys. Are congressmen really going to pass legislation to rectify the harm ObamaCare did to them, while continuing to subject everyone else to this awful, hated law? Leaving the law in place isn't a politically attractive option either, for the reason National Review's Yuval Levin points out: "If you had your own research service to help you figure out what the law will do to your insurance, the answer would likely be just as confusing and discouraging." The CRS's findings are a powerful reminder that ObamaCare likely holds horrible surprises for everyone.
The logic of the situation inexorably points toward repeal--though we expect President Obama and this Congress will defy logic as firmly and for as long as they can.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Gotta Say I Love IT!!!
However, if I were either of these guys, I would make sure that I had a GOOD lawyer, and was ready for the IRS, ATF, and the rest of the Government Alphabet Soup to come and kick down their door...
Friday, March 26, 2010
Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner' - Times Online
Can anyone explane this to me? Why would ANY head of state be treated this way?
Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner' - Times Online
Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner' - Times Online
Monday, March 22, 2010
In light of recent events...
I thought that this was a rather appropriate time to post this...
An address to American posterity, totally relevant to today's issues!
George Washington's Farewell Address
September 17, 1796
Friends, and Fellow-Citizens:
The period for a new election of a Citizen, to Administer the Executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be cloathed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made.
I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation, which binds a dutiful citizen to his country, and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.
The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your Suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I am not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I have been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last Election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our Affairs with foreign Nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.
I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; and am persuaded whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.
The impressions, with which I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the Organization and Administration of the government, the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the encreasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.
In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country, for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that, under circumstances in which the Passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of Success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your Union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its Administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and Virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.
Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments; which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a People. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.
Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.
The Unity of Government which constitutes you one people, is now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence; the support of your tranquility at home; your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed; it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can, in any event, be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations,--northern and southern--Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.
Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only, that you steadily discountenance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system; and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.
In all the changes to which you may be involved, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions;--that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country;--that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular references to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism my look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent it bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department, to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it, which predominate in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.
The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasion of the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it should be enlightened.
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering, also, that timely disbursements, to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions, in time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.
The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes, that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper object (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt but, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it; can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It leads also to concessions, to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessary parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interest.
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith:--Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient Government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation, when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments, on a respectable defense posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, and a liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations, but if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.
Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service, with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.
Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government--the ever favorite object of my heart,and the happy reward, as I trust,of our mutual cares, labors and dangers.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note how truly relevant, the admonitions of America's first Soldier, first Statesman; how many, the Clinton, Bush & Obama Administrations have ignored. And what a contrast to these recent holders of Presidential office, the affirmation that honesty is always the best policy.
Note: Washington gives reasons--reasons based upon human history & experience--for every admonition--none of the ex cathedra pronouncements in the Clinton Farewell. Note, finally, that we became the formidable power that he predicted by following his recommended course. Dare we continue to deviate from it?
An address to American posterity, totally relevant to today's issues!
George Washington's Farewell Address
September 17, 1796
Friends, and Fellow-Citizens:
The period for a new election of a Citizen, to Administer the Executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be cloathed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made.
I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation, which binds a dutiful citizen to his country, and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.
The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your Suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I am not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I have been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last Election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our Affairs with foreign Nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.
I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; and am persuaded whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.
The impressions, with which I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the Organization and Administration of the government, the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the encreasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.
In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country, for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that, under circumstances in which the Passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of Success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your Union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its Administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and Virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.
Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments; which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a People. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.
Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.
The Unity of Government which constitutes you one people, is now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence; the support of your tranquility at home; your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed; it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can, in any event, be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations,--northern and southern--Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.
Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only, that you steadily discountenance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system; and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.
In all the changes to which you may be involved, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions;--that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country;--that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular references to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism my look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent it bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department, to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it, which predominate in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.
The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasion of the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it should be enlightened.
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering, also, that timely disbursements, to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions, in time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.
The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes, that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper object (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt but, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it; can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It leads also to concessions, to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessary parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interest.
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith:--Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient Government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation, when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments, on a respectable defense posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, and a liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations, but if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.
Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service, with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.
Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government--the ever favorite object of my heart,and the happy reward, as I trust,of our mutual cares, labors and dangers.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note how truly relevant, the admonitions of America's first Soldier, first Statesman; how many, the Clinton, Bush & Obama Administrations have ignored. And what a contrast to these recent holders of Presidential office, the affirmation that honesty is always the best policy.
Note: Washington gives reasons--reasons based upon human history & experience--for every admonition--none of the ex cathedra pronouncements in the Clinton Farewell. Note, finally, that we became the formidable power that he predicted by following his recommended course. Dare we continue to deviate from it?
Friday, March 12, 2010
Remember This?
Probably the LAST time he tried to say anything without a teleprompter. And what would have happend to President Bush, had he done this? Would it STILL be on the TV? I think we know the answer to that.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Hearing Delayed for Obama Judicial Nominee Who Supported Serial Killer
Judson Berger
- FOXNews.com
- March 09, 2010
The Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the hearing for a controversial Court of Appeals nominee after the panel received a letter from a home-state prosecutor blasting him as a judicial loose cannon and Republicans raised concerns about his alleged bias in favor of sex offenders.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the hearing for a controversial Court of Appeals nominee after the panel received a letter from a home-state prosecutor blasting the candidate as a judicial loose cannon and after Republicans raised concerns about bias in favor of sex offenders.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chatigny gained notoriety in 2005 for his role in trying to fight the execution of convicted serial killer and rapist Michael Ross, also known as The Roadside Strangler, whom Chatigny had described as a victim of his own "sexual sadism."
His conduct in that case, which included threatening to go after Ross' attorney's law license, as well as his ruling in 2001 against sex offender registries created under Megan's Law, has caused a commotion among Republicans on the judiciary panel.
"I've never seen conduct like this," said a Republican source. "I'm shocked that the White House vetted this guy ... and still put him up for a judgeship."
The nomination is relatively fresh. President Obama submitted his name Feb. 24 for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, calling him a "first-rate" legal expert and "faithful" public servant.
With the hearing originally set for Wednesday, Republicans led by their ranking member, Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said they wanted more time.
"Senator Sessions and the Judiciary Republicans have asked for a delay in light of the nominee's extremely lengthy record and the fact that he was brought up so unusually quickly," Sessions spokesman Stephen Miller said.
Behind the scenes, Republicans are taking a hard look at Chatigny's role in the Ross proceedings which they say could be disqualifying -- particularly on the Court of Appeals, the last line of review before the Supreme Court.
"You're letting him be the final review for a lot of people, and he's shown this alarming bias in sex crime cases," a GOP committee aide said.
Chatigny's office declined a request for comment. The White House could not be reached.
Chatigny stunned those involved in the serial killer case in early 2005 by pressuring Ross' attorney on a conference call to challenge his scheduled execution even though Ross had said he did not want to fight.
The judge had raised concerns about whether Ross was mentally unfit and whether prison isolation had led to despair -- at the time of the conference call, federal appeals courts had overturned two prior orders from him postponing the execution.
According to a transcript of that Jan. 28 call, the judge threatened to go after the law license of Ross' attorney, T.R. Paulding.
"So I warn you, Mr. Paulding, between now and whatever happens Sunday night, you better be prepared to live with yourself for the rest of your life," Chatigny said. "And you better be prepared to deal with me if in the wake of this an investigation is conducted and it turns out that what Lopez says and what this former program director says is true, because I'll have your law license."
Ramon Lopez was an inmate who had written a letter to Chatigny saying Ross had been brainwashed by mental health professionals.
Ross was convicted of killing four women but had confessed to killing eight, raping most of them. He was sentenced to death in 1987 and had been on death row nearly two decades when Chatigny engaged in the last-minute battle with others on the case.
On the conference call, the judge repeatedly stuck up for Ross, saying he suffered from "this affliction, this terrible disease" and suggesting Ross "may be the least culpable, the least, of the people on death row."
"Looking at the record in a light most favorable to Mr. Ross, he never should have been convicted," Chatigny said. "Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death because his sexual sadism, which was found by every single person who looked at him, is clearly a mitigating factor."
In the end, the execution was temporarily delayed and ultimately carried out. But in the aftermath, seven prosecutors from Connecticut filed a complaint against the judge with the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit. Among the complaints were that the judge had threatened Paulding and that he had not disclosed that in 1992 he filed an application to file a legal brief in support of Ross' appeal -- though the judge never ended up filing that brief. He was later cleared of misconduct.
This year, in a letter dated March 5 to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Sessions, one of those prosecutors wrote that Chatigny's actions in the run-up to the execution "call into question his suitability" for the Court of Appeals seat.
"Judge Chatigny completely abandoned the role of neutral and detached magistrate and instead became an advocate for the position held by the parties who were seeking to stop the execution of Michael Ross," wrote Michael O'Hare, an assistant state's attorney in Connecticut. He described the Jan. 28 conference call as a "tirade" in which the judge was "threatening and intimidating" others.
After receiving the letter, as well as a request from committee Republicans to postpone, Leahy canceled the Wednesday hearing. According to Leahy's office, the hearing was postponed because of the GOP request and will be held at some point, though it's not clear when.
A Democratic committee aide said Leahy was "happy to accommodate" the Republicans' request. The aide did not discuss whether Democrats share the Republicans' concerns.
"The information related to that case has been in the public domain for quite some time, so it's not like something that's been kept from public view. ... This is why we have nomination hearings," the aide said.
A few years before the standoff over the execution, Chatigny had also issued a ruling that Connecticut's sex offender registry was not constitutional. Though the federal appeals court upheld the ruling, it was later unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court.
The judge does have his supporters. Connecticut Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman issued a joint statement late last month saying Chatigny had "consistently demonstrated his impressive legal abilities and a profound commitment to the rule of law."
They called him an "outstanding addition" to the Court of Appeals and pledged to work toward his "swift confirmation" through the Senate.
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
foxnewsonline@foxnews.com; For FOX News Channel comments write to
comments@foxnews.com
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2009 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes. .
- FOXNews.com
- March 09, 2010
The Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the hearing for a controversial Court of Appeals nominee after the panel received a letter from a home-state prosecutor blasting him as a judicial loose cannon and Republicans raised concerns about his alleged bias in favor of sex offenders.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the hearing for a controversial Court of Appeals nominee after the panel received a letter from a home-state prosecutor blasting the candidate as a judicial loose cannon and after Republicans raised concerns about bias in favor of sex offenders.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chatigny gained notoriety in 2005 for his role in trying to fight the execution of convicted serial killer and rapist Michael Ross, also known as The Roadside Strangler, whom Chatigny had described as a victim of his own "sexual sadism."
His conduct in that case, which included threatening to go after Ross' attorney's law license, as well as his ruling in 2001 against sex offender registries created under Megan's Law, has caused a commotion among Republicans on the judiciary panel.
"I've never seen conduct like this," said a Republican source. "I'm shocked that the White House vetted this guy ... and still put him up for a judgeship."
The nomination is relatively fresh. President Obama submitted his name Feb. 24 for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, calling him a "first-rate" legal expert and "faithful" public servant.
With the hearing originally set for Wednesday, Republicans led by their ranking member, Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said they wanted more time.
"Senator Sessions and the Judiciary Republicans have asked for a delay in light of the nominee's extremely lengthy record and the fact that he was brought up so unusually quickly," Sessions spokesman Stephen Miller said.
Behind the scenes, Republicans are taking a hard look at Chatigny's role in the Ross proceedings which they say could be disqualifying -- particularly on the Court of Appeals, the last line of review before the Supreme Court.
"You're letting him be the final review for a lot of people, and he's shown this alarming bias in sex crime cases," a GOP committee aide said.
Chatigny's office declined a request for comment. The White House could not be reached.
Chatigny stunned those involved in the serial killer case in early 2005 by pressuring Ross' attorney on a conference call to challenge his scheduled execution even though Ross had said he did not want to fight.
The judge had raised concerns about whether Ross was mentally unfit and whether prison isolation had led to despair -- at the time of the conference call, federal appeals courts had overturned two prior orders from him postponing the execution.
According to a transcript of that Jan. 28 call, the judge threatened to go after the law license of Ross' attorney, T.R. Paulding.
"So I warn you, Mr. Paulding, between now and whatever happens Sunday night, you better be prepared to live with yourself for the rest of your life," Chatigny said. "And you better be prepared to deal with me if in the wake of this an investigation is conducted and it turns out that what Lopez says and what this former program director says is true, because I'll have your law license."
Ramon Lopez was an inmate who had written a letter to Chatigny saying Ross had been brainwashed by mental health professionals.
Ross was convicted of killing four women but had confessed to killing eight, raping most of them. He was sentenced to death in 1987 and had been on death row nearly two decades when Chatigny engaged in the last-minute battle with others on the case.
On the conference call, the judge repeatedly stuck up for Ross, saying he suffered from "this affliction, this terrible disease" and suggesting Ross "may be the least culpable, the least, of the people on death row."
"Looking at the record in a light most favorable to Mr. Ross, he never should have been convicted," Chatigny said. "Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death because his sexual sadism, which was found by every single person who looked at him, is clearly a mitigating factor."
In the end, the execution was temporarily delayed and ultimately carried out. But in the aftermath, seven prosecutors from Connecticut filed a complaint against the judge with the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit. Among the complaints were that the judge had threatened Paulding and that he had not disclosed that in 1992 he filed an application to file a legal brief in support of Ross' appeal -- though the judge never ended up filing that brief. He was later cleared of misconduct.
This year, in a letter dated March 5 to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Sessions, one of those prosecutors wrote that Chatigny's actions in the run-up to the execution "call into question his suitability" for the Court of Appeals seat.
"Judge Chatigny completely abandoned the role of neutral and detached magistrate and instead became an advocate for the position held by the parties who were seeking to stop the execution of Michael Ross," wrote Michael O'Hare, an assistant state's attorney in Connecticut. He described the Jan. 28 conference call as a "tirade" in which the judge was "threatening and intimidating" others.
After receiving the letter, as well as a request from committee Republicans to postpone, Leahy canceled the Wednesday hearing. According to Leahy's office, the hearing was postponed because of the GOP request and will be held at some point, though it's not clear when.
A Democratic committee aide said Leahy was "happy to accommodate" the Republicans' request. The aide did not discuss whether Democrats share the Republicans' concerns.
"The information related to that case has been in the public domain for quite some time, so it's not like something that's been kept from public view. ... This is why we have nomination hearings," the aide said.
A few years before the standoff over the execution, Chatigny had also issued a ruling that Connecticut's sex offender registry was not constitutional. Though the federal appeals court upheld the ruling, it was later unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court.
The judge does have his supporters. Connecticut Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman issued a joint statement late last month saying Chatigny had "consistently demonstrated his impressive legal abilities and a profound commitment to the rule of law."
They called him an "outstanding addition" to the Court of Appeals and pledged to work toward his "swift confirmation" through the Senate.
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
foxnewsonline@foxnews.com; For FOX News Channel comments write to
comments@foxnews.com
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2009 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes. .
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Canada On The Verge Of Approving Enviropigs – Millions Of Canadians Will Soon Be Eating Mouse/Pig Hybrids
Canada On The Verge Of Approving Enviropigs – Millions Of Canadians Will Soon Be Eating Mouse/Pig Hybrids
February 27th, 2010
The Canadian government is on the verge of approving the introduction of extremely bizarre genetically modified pigs into the Canadian food supply. These new mouse/pig hybrids have been dubbed “enviropigs” and are being touted as being much better for the environment. This new “breed” of Yorkshire pigs was created by scientists in Ontario at the University of Guelph, who spliced in genes from mice to decrease the amount of phosphorus produced in the pigs’ excrement. So soon millions of Canadians will be eating meat from mouse/pig hybrid creatures and most of them will not even realize it. It is expected that approval for this new “brand” of pigs will be sought in the United States as well. But this is hardly the first time that scientists have mixed two kinds of animals together in an attempt to create creatures that will be beneficial for humanity.
The truth is that scientists around the world are now creating bizarre hybrid “animals” on a regular basis. Over the past couple of decades the field of genetic modification has made extraordinary advances, and now researchers and scientists seem very eager to exploit these new technologies.
So what kind of weird, mysterious creatures have scientists been creating?
Well, what would you think of a cat that glows in the dark?
They really exist.
A genetically modified cat named Mr. Green Genes was the very first fluorescent cat created in the United States. Under an ultraviolet light, Mr. Green Genes puts off a very strange bright green glow.
So perhaps in the future not only can your cat cuddle up to you and keep you warm – it could also serve as a night light.
But U.S. researchers were not even the first ones to do this to cats. A team of scientists in South Korea had previously created a cat that glows red under ultraviolet light.
Now why in the world would scientists do this kind of a thing?
Well, because they can.
But scientists have created creatures that are even more bizarre than fluorescent cats.
One Canadian company is actually producing spider goats.
Yes, it is true. A Canadian company known as Nexia has created goats that are genetically modified to be part spider.
The reason for this bizarre genetic modification is to get goats that will produce spider silk protein in their milk. This spider silk protein is then collected, purified and spun into incredibly strong fibers.
Reportedly, the fibers that are produced are more durable than Kevlar, more flexible than nylon, and stronger than steel.
This substance has industrial and military applications that are apparently extremely valuable.
But when you tell most people that spider goats exist they will just laugh at you.
If that is the response that you get when you tell someone about spider goats, just show them the following video.
The YouTube video posted below contains a television news report that discusses how these spider goats are created and what this company is doing with the spider silk that these spider goats are producing….
So does all of this tampering with the environment disturb you?
After all, at least scientists are not creating human/animal hybrid creatures, right?
Wrong.
The truth is that human/pig hybrid creatures will soon be legally grown inside of the United States.
This is being publicly announced and almost nobody is getting upset about it.
What is being described as a “cutting edge” new program will actually produce pigs with human genes in them. These hybrid pigs will be “grown” in order to produce organs for transplants into humans.
Does this bother you?
Perhaps it would bother you more if you knew exactly where these pigs are to be grown.
In Missouri.
That’s right – human/pig hybrids are going to be raised right in the middle of the United States.
So is it possible that such creatures could end up in our food supply?
No?
You don’t think they would ever do that to us?
Don’t be so sure.
The FDA has already announced that the offspring of cloned animals could be in our food supply right now and that there is nothing that they can do about it.
Of course they have plenty of time to conduct military style raids of Amish farmers, but apparently they have no time to figure out if our food supply is tainted by cloned animals.
Yes, this is really happening.
In fact, the FDA has said that it is basically a non-issue to them.
Of course most Americans eat tomatoes with roach genes in them and most Americans eat corn with insecticide grown inside of it on a regular basis, so why should we get upset about what is in our meat?
So does any of this seem incredibly evil to you?
It should.
That is because all of this is incredibly evil.
Creating bizarre hybrid creatures is not a new thing.
Did you know that the 3000 year old book of Jasher (a book of ancient history that is quoted in the Biblical books of Joshua and II Samuel) speaks of genetic engineering that was going on in the days of Noah?
It is true. How they did it remains a great unexplained mystery, but according to ancient sources this is apparently what was going on.
Jasher 4:18 tells us this….
“and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord”
According to the book of Jasher, God was not pleased at all that they were corrupting the wonderful environment that He had created for all of us.
This mixing of animals is also reflected in the ancient book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is directly quoted by the book of Jude in the New Testament, and it tells us a great deal about what was going on in the world before the Flood. Enoch 7:14 tells us this….
And they began to sin against birds, beasts, reptiles, and fish, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.
So apparently they were not only mixing animals together – they were eating them too.
Just like we are starting to do.
But instead of learning the lessons of the past we are making the same mistakes.
We think that we are so “technologically advanced”, but the reality is that we are just indulging in the same foolishness as they did in the ancient world.
So what is so wrong with genetic modification?
The truth is that once you let the genie out of the bottle you can’t put it back in.
We have found that out with genetically modified crops. Natural strains can literally be bred into extinction once strains of genetically modified crops become widespread enough.
We may think that we are improving the environment through our reckless experimentation, but what if our best efforts go horribly, horribly wrong?
The unintended consequences of our reckless genetic meddling may be far worse than any of us ever imagined.
The reality is that God said not to mix plants and animals together like this.
But we are doing it anyway.
Hopefully we are not completely destroying the one and only earth that we have in the process.
In fact, the FDA has said that it is basically a non-issue to them.
February 27th, 2010
The Canadian government is on the verge of approving the introduction of extremely bizarre genetically modified pigs into the Canadian food supply. These new mouse/pig hybrids have been dubbed “enviropigs” and are being touted as being much better for the environment. This new “breed” of Yorkshire pigs was created by scientists in Ontario at the University of Guelph, who spliced in genes from mice to decrease the amount of phosphorus produced in the pigs’ excrement. So soon millions of Canadians will be eating meat from mouse/pig hybrid creatures and most of them will not even realize it. It is expected that approval for this new “brand” of pigs will be sought in the United States as well. But this is hardly the first time that scientists have mixed two kinds of animals together in an attempt to create creatures that will be beneficial for humanity.
The truth is that scientists around the world are now creating bizarre hybrid “animals” on a regular basis. Over the past couple of decades the field of genetic modification has made extraordinary advances, and now researchers and scientists seem very eager to exploit these new technologies.
So what kind of weird, mysterious creatures have scientists been creating?
Well, what would you think of a cat that glows in the dark?
They really exist.
A genetically modified cat named Mr. Green Genes was the very first fluorescent cat created in the United States. Under an ultraviolet light, Mr. Green Genes puts off a very strange bright green glow.
So perhaps in the future not only can your cat cuddle up to you and keep you warm – it could also serve as a night light.
But U.S. researchers were not even the first ones to do this to cats. A team of scientists in South Korea had previously created a cat that glows red under ultraviolet light.
Now why in the world would scientists do this kind of a thing?
Well, because they can.
But scientists have created creatures that are even more bizarre than fluorescent cats.
One Canadian company is actually producing spider goats.
Yes, it is true. A Canadian company known as Nexia has created goats that are genetically modified to be part spider.
The reason for this bizarre genetic modification is to get goats that will produce spider silk protein in their milk. This spider silk protein is then collected, purified and spun into incredibly strong fibers.
Reportedly, the fibers that are produced are more durable than Kevlar, more flexible than nylon, and stronger than steel.
This substance has industrial and military applications that are apparently extremely valuable.
But when you tell most people that spider goats exist they will just laugh at you.
If that is the response that you get when you tell someone about spider goats, just show them the following video.
The YouTube video posted below contains a television news report that discusses how these spider goats are created and what this company is doing with the spider silk that these spider goats are producing….
So does all of this tampering with the environment disturb you?
After all, at least scientists are not creating human/animal hybrid creatures, right?
Wrong.
The truth is that human/pig hybrid creatures will soon be legally grown inside of the United States.
This is being publicly announced and almost nobody is getting upset about it.
What is being described as a “cutting edge” new program will actually produce pigs with human genes in them. These hybrid pigs will be “grown” in order to produce organs for transplants into humans.
Does this bother you?
Perhaps it would bother you more if you knew exactly where these pigs are to be grown.
In Missouri.
That’s right – human/pig hybrids are going to be raised right in the middle of the United States.
So is it possible that such creatures could end up in our food supply?
No?
You don’t think they would ever do that to us?
Don’t be so sure.
The FDA has already announced that the offspring of cloned animals could be in our food supply right now and that there is nothing that they can do about it.
Of course they have plenty of time to conduct military style raids of Amish farmers, but apparently they have no time to figure out if our food supply is tainted by cloned animals.
Yes, this is really happening.
In fact, the FDA has said that it is basically a non-issue to them.
Of course most Americans eat tomatoes with roach genes in them and most Americans eat corn with insecticide grown inside of it on a regular basis, so why should we get upset about what is in our meat?
So does any of this seem incredibly evil to you?
It should.
That is because all of this is incredibly evil.
Creating bizarre hybrid creatures is not a new thing.
Did you know that the 3000 year old book of Jasher (a book of ancient history that is quoted in the Biblical books of Joshua and II Samuel) speaks of genetic engineering that was going on in the days of Noah?
It is true. How they did it remains a great unexplained mystery, but according to ancient sources this is apparently what was going on.
Jasher 4:18 tells us this….
“and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord”
According to the book of Jasher, God was not pleased at all that they were corrupting the wonderful environment that He had created for all of us.
This mixing of animals is also reflected in the ancient book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is directly quoted by the book of Jude in the New Testament, and it tells us a great deal about what was going on in the world before the Flood. Enoch 7:14 tells us this….
And they began to sin against birds, beasts, reptiles, and fish, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.
So apparently they were not only mixing animals together – they were eating them too.
Just like we are starting to do.
But instead of learning the lessons of the past we are making the same mistakes.
We think that we are so “technologically advanced”, but the reality is that we are just indulging in the same foolishness as they did in the ancient world.
So what is so wrong with genetic modification?
The truth is that once you let the genie out of the bottle you can’t put it back in.
We have found that out with genetically modified crops. Natural strains can literally be bred into extinction once strains of genetically modified crops become widespread enough.
We may think that we are improving the environment through our reckless experimentation, but what if our best efforts go horribly, horribly wrong?
The unintended consequences of our reckless genetic meddling may be far worse than any of us ever imagined.
The reality is that God said not to mix plants and animals together like this.
But we are doing it anyway.
Hopefully we are not completely destroying the one and only earth that we have in the process.
In fact, the FDA has said that it is basically a non-issue to them.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Gun Bans and Crime Rates --The Washington TimesShare
Gun Bans and Crime Rates --The Washington TimesShare
Today at 7:50pm
"The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city's murder rate plummeted 25 percent.
The high court should keep that in mind ... as it hears oral arguments about a Chicago handgun ban.
Gun controllers screamed to high heaven that impending disaster would follow the court's decision to junk some of the district's gun controls. One of those screaming the loudest was Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who incorrectly predicted more gun freedom would lead to more death and Wild West shootouts.
Instead, in Washington, murder rates rose when the handgun ban was in effect and fell once the regulations were removed.
Chicago's 1982 ban faired no better.
The forthcoming third edition of 'More Guns, Less Crime' shows that in the 17 years after a ban on new handguns went into effect, there were only two years when Chicago's murder rate was as low as it was in 1982. The Windy City's murder rate fell relative to America's other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose relative to them afterward. ... That increase in murder rates isn't surprising. Every time gun bans have been tried anywhere, murder rates have risen. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales, the experience has been the same. Not only did murder rates fail to decline as promised, but the rates actually increased following gun bans.
In general, gun-control laws disarm law-abiding citizens -- not criminals who don't care about the law.
The lesson is that freedom and safety go hand in hand." --The Washington Times
Today at 7:50pm
"The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city's murder rate plummeted 25 percent.
The high court should keep that in mind ... as it hears oral arguments about a Chicago handgun ban.
Gun controllers screamed to high heaven that impending disaster would follow the court's decision to junk some of the district's gun controls. One of those screaming the loudest was Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who incorrectly predicted more gun freedom would lead to more death and Wild West shootouts.
Instead, in Washington, murder rates rose when the handgun ban was in effect and fell once the regulations were removed.
Chicago's 1982 ban faired no better.
The forthcoming third edition of 'More Guns, Less Crime' shows that in the 17 years after a ban on new handguns went into effect, there were only two years when Chicago's murder rate was as low as it was in 1982. The Windy City's murder rate fell relative to America's other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose relative to them afterward. ... That increase in murder rates isn't surprising. Every time gun bans have been tried anywhere, murder rates have risen. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales, the experience has been the same. Not only did murder rates fail to decline as promised, but the rates actually increased following gun bans.
In general, gun-control laws disarm law-abiding citizens -- not criminals who don't care about the law.
The lesson is that freedom and safety go hand in hand." --The Washington Times
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
And one more... $25 Billion to provide Broadband Internet Access to...??
WSJ: FCC’s National Broadband Plan calls for up to $25 billion in new spending
According to a Tuesday report in the Wall Street Journal, the National Broadband Plan proposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski will entail up to $25 billion new federal spending, for boosting the Internet access of the Americans.
Scheduled to be released in mid-March, the National Broadband Plan will reportedly make fast and affordable Internet accessible to over 90 million Americans over the coming decade, via high-speed Internet lines; with a broader part of the plan also aiming at a wireless network for police and firefighters, at a cost of nearly $12-16 billion.
Though it is not clear whether Congress will give its consent to the proposal, especially in the face of the growing concerns over federal deficits; it is palpable that the plan would be a win for the wireless carriers – a fact that is evident from the Tuesday blog posts of AT&T and Verizon executives, who have appreciated Genachowski’s efforts.
Meanwhile, as per the WSJ report, the people who have reviewed the plan – which also underscores Genachowski’s endeavors to expand 100 megabit per second service to 100 million homes by 2020 - have opined that while it will help create jobs and provide faster Internet access to educational and healthcare services; it will also necessitate an appraisal of competition in the broadband market, along with the need for more specific pricing data.
According to a Tuesday report in the Wall Street Journal, the National Broadband Plan proposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski will entail up to $25 billion new federal spending, for boosting the Internet access of the Americans.
Scheduled to be released in mid-March, the National Broadband Plan will reportedly make fast and affordable Internet accessible to over 90 million Americans over the coming decade, via high-speed Internet lines; with a broader part of the plan also aiming at a wireless network for police and firefighters, at a cost of nearly $12-16 billion.
Though it is not clear whether Congress will give its consent to the proposal, especially in the face of the growing concerns over federal deficits; it is palpable that the plan would be a win for the wireless carriers – a fact that is evident from the Tuesday blog posts of AT&T and Verizon executives, who have appreciated Genachowski’s efforts.
Meanwhile, as per the WSJ report, the people who have reviewed the plan – which also underscores Genachowski’s endeavors to expand 100 megabit per second service to 100 million homes by 2020 - have opined that while it will help create jobs and provide faster Internet access to educational and healthcare services; it will also necessitate an appraisal of competition in the broadband market, along with the need for more specific pricing data.
Get Ready Everyone... Here is comes...
March 2, 2010, 6:35 pm
Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.
In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consumes 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.
Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.
In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.
“Tax credits don’t address how much people use their cars,” said Ross Morrow, one of the report’s authors. “In reverse, they can make people drive more.”
Dr. Morrow, formerly a fellow at the Belfer Center, is a professor of mechanical engineering and economics at Iowa State University
Researchers said that vehicle miles traveled will increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2030 unless policymakers increase fuel taxes.
Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.
In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consumes 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.
Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.
In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.
“Tax credits don’t address how much people use their cars,” said Ross Morrow, one of the report’s authors. “In reverse, they can make people drive more.”
Dr. Morrow, formerly a fellow at the Belfer Center, is a professor of mechanical engineering and economics at Iowa State University
Researchers said that vehicle miles traveled will increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2030 unless policymakers increase fuel taxes.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Comments from a friend
This just in from a neighbor in the oil business.........
Oilfield Math;
Working in the oilfield with others such as myself and a wealth of combined experience we understand the accuracy of the following.
Think of it this way:
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars. So, the government paid $3 Billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.
I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.
Oilfield Math;
Working in the oilfield with others such as myself and a wealth of combined experience we understand the accuracy of the following.
Think of it this way:
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars. So, the government paid $3 Billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.
I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
