The Cambridge Fiasco

Have we taken leave of our senses? We have a card caring intellectual showing us there is no relationship between brains and maturity. Apparently anybody can act like a meathead. I would expect more of a man of his station in life.

We have a cop that has been trained to the point that he teaches the exact type of sensitivity that was called for in this situation that ended up past his tipping point.

And the leader of the free world making a boneheaded comment that any lawyer is taught better than in law school 101. Instead of a simple mea culpa he is unable to accept personal responsibility and blames the “media frenzy”.

It’s strange to me that racism appears to be a one way street in America. It was the white cop that was accused here even though there was also an African American cop involved in the event and arrest. He is also corroborating the Sergeant’s side of the story although that’s not getting much news play. Looks to me that the argument can easily be made that the real racism is on the other foot.

Now the most powerful man in America has nothing better to do with his time than to mediate between the parties. Huston, we have a problem.

My Democrat Friends We're Right After all!

Much as it pains me to say this, I have to admit it - my Democrat friends were right.

They told me if I voted for McCain, the nation's hope would deteriorate, and sure enough there has been a 20 point drop in the Consumer Confidence Index since the election, reaching a lower point than any time during the Bush administration.

They told me if I voted for McCain, the US would become more deeply embroiled in the Middle East, and now, tens of thousands of additional troops are scheduled to be deployed into Afghanistan.

My Democrat Party friends told me if I voted for McCain, that the economy would get worse and sure enough unemployment is exceeding 9.5% and the stimulus packages implemented has sent the stock market lower than at any time since the Islamic Terrorists attacks of 9-11.

They told me if I voted for McCain, we would see more "crooks" in high ranking positions in Federal government and sure enough, several recent cabinet nominees and Senate appointments revealed resumes of scandal, bribery and tax fraud.

They told me if I voted for McCain, we would see more "Pork at the trough" in Federal government and sure enough, 9,500 "Pork Barrel Earmarks" showed up in bills passed by Congress since January 2009....

I was also told by my Democrat friends that if I voted for McCain, we would see more deficit spending in Washington D.C. , and sure enough, Obama has spent more in just 30 days than all other Presidents together - in the entire history of the good old USA.

Well, I voted for McCain in November and my Democrat friends were right, all of their predictions have come true!

History of The Department of Energy

First, let me say, the new plan is we cannot drill the oil we have and must buy our oil from others. What if, we used only or mostly our oil, while we really pushed alternate energy.

MAYBE THE GOVERNMENT CAN HELP US DO IT.

Absolutely the funniest joke ever......ON US!!!
• Let it sink in.
• Quietly we go like sheep to slaughter.
Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ..... during the Carter Administration?
• Anybody?
• Anything?
• No?
• Didn't think so !

Bottom line .. we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency..the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember.

Ready?

It was very simple.. and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate...

The 'Department of Energy' was instituted on August 4,1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. Hey, pretty efficient, huh?????

AND NOW IT'S 2009, 32 YEARS LATER... AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT$24.2 + BILLION A YEAR IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE!

THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY "WHAT WAS I THINKING?"

Is This How Obama Is Going To Cut Health Care Costs?

Say it ain't so, Mr. President . . .

Citing the U.K. as an example, Mr Obama praised them for spending half (or less) than we do on health care. How do they do it you might ask, try their National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ( another progressive code word(S) for "you're gonna get screwed again").

The British officials who established NICE claimed that it was a body that would ensure that the government-run National Health System used "best practices" in medicine. Health ministers are setting up NICE designed to ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best. It will root out under-performing doctors and useless treatments, spreading best practices everywhere.

NICE has now become a rationing board. As health costs have exploded in Britain NICE reduces spending by limiting the treatments that 61 million citizens are allowed to receive through the NHS.

Here's some frightening examples:

NICE removed two drugs from their approved list, Lapatinib and Sutent. They prolong life of those with forms of breast and stomach cancer.
They also ruled against drugs that would help terminally ill kidney-cancer patients.
Peter Littlejohns, NICE's public health director, said that "there is a limited pot of money,"and the money might be better spent elsewhere. Nice guy . . . Very thoughtful and empathetic.

The board also restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration. Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, only about 20% that needed it, then they are only going to allow it in ONE EYE!. Go blind in the other! We don't care! Thanks again Peter Littlejohns. Let's nominate him for humanitarian of the Year.

Wait . . . . It gets better.

NICE has limited the use of Alzheimer's drugs, including Aricept, for patients in the early stages of the disease. Doctors in the U.K. argued loudly that the most effective way to slow the progress of the disease is to give drugs at the first sign of dementia. NICE ruled the drugs were not "cost effective" in early stages. See a pattern here?

Other NICE rulings include the rejection of Kineret, a drug for rheumatoid arthritis;
Avonex, which reduces the relapse rate in patients with multiple sclerosis; and
lenalidomide, which fights multiple myeloma.
Private U.S. insurers often cover all, or at least portions, of the cost of many of these NICE-denied drugs.

Folks, the list goes on:

Including denying pap smears for all women under 25. Restrictions on surgical procedures such as back pain surgery and fertility treatments.

They even have a dollar formula for the end of life that says it cannot cost more than $22,000 per 6 months or you are denied and get to die! Wow! that's enlightened. also, That figure has remained fairly constant since NICE was established and doesn't adjust for either overall or medical inflation. The last six months of life are a particularly difficult moral issue because that is when most health-care spending occurs. But who would you rather have making decisions about whether a treatment is worth the price -- the combination of you, your doctor and a private insurer, or a government board that cuts everyone off at $22,000?

It comes as no surprise that Britain has the lowest cancer survival rate in all of Europe.

Needless to say the savings is being overwhelmed by the cost of the law suits, and people are still suffering and dying.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats claim that they can expand the care to millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can't be done. The inevitable result of their plan will be a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for. And that may well be the future of American health care.

And if you think things are any better in Canada, think again. The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada .
It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. There were NO medivac helicopters anywhere near the ski resort.
If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today.
In the United States, we have medical evacuation helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes. It took them 8 HOURS to drive her down a mountain to a facility. Aparently THEY couldn't help her . . . They sent her to New Your. And by then . . . Well, we all know the rest of the story.

Have a nice day.

More on Climate Change . . . You Just Can't Ignore it.

No climate debate? Yes, there is
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
July 1, 2009

IN HIS weekly address on Saturday, President Obama saluted the House of Representatives for passing Waxman-Markey, the gargantuan energy-rationing bill that would amount to the largest tax increase in the nation's history. It would do so by making virtually everything that depends on energy -- which is virtually everything -- more expensive.
The president didn't describe the legislation in those terms on Saturday, but he made no bones about it last year. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008, he calmly explained how cap-and-trade -- the carbon-dioxide rationing scheme that is at the heart of Waxman-Markey -- would work:
Actually, there hasn't been any for 10 years
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket . . . because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas, you name it. . . . Whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, and they will pass that [cost] on to consumers."
In the same interview, Obama suggested that his energy policy would require the ruin of the coal industry. "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can," he told the Chronicle. "It's just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
The justification for inflicting all this financial misery, of course, is the onrushing catastrophe of human-induced global warming -- a catastrophe that can be prevented only if we abandon the carbon-based fuels on which most of the prosperity and productivity of modern life depend. But what if that looming catastrophe isn't real? What if climate change has little or nothing to do with human activity? What if enacting cap-and-trade means incurring excruciating costs in exchange for infinitesimal benefits?
Hush, says Obama. Don't ask such questions. And don't listen to anyone who does. "There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy," he declared in his Saturday remarks. "It's happening."
No debate? The president, like Humphrey Bogart, must have been misinformed. The debate over global warming is more robust than it has been in years, and not only in America. "In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming," Kimberly Strassel noted in The Wall Street Journal the other day. "In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. . . . Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the 'new religion.'"
Closer to home, the noted physicist Hal Lewis (emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara) e-mails me a copy of a statement he and several fellow scientists, including physicists Will Happer and Robert Austin of Princton,Laurence Gould of the University of Hartford, and climate scientist Richard Lindzen of MIT, have sent to Congress. "The sky is not falling," they write. Far from warming, "the Earth has been cooling for 10 years" -- a trend that "was notpredicted by the alarmists' computer models."
Fortune magazine recently profiled veteran climatologist John Christy, a lead author of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and co-author of the American Geophysical Union's 2003 statement on climate change. With his green credentials, Fortune observed, Christy is the warm-mongers' "worst nightmare -- an accomplished climate scientist with no ties to Big Oil who has produced reams and reams of data that undermine arguments that the earth's atmosphere is warming at an unusual rate and question whether the remedies being talked about in Congress will actually do any good."
No one who cares about the environment or the nation's economic well-being should take it on faith that climate change is a crisis, or that drastic changes to the economy are essential to "save the planet." Hundreds of scientists reject the alarmist narrative. For non-experts, a steadily-widening shelf of excellent books surveys the data in laymen's terms and exposes the weaknesses in the doomsday scenario -- among others, Climate Confusion by Roy W. Spencer, Climate of Fearby Thomas Gale Moore, Taken by Storm, by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick, and Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, by S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery.
If the case for a war on carbon dioxide were unassailable, no one would have to warn against debating it. The 212 House members who voted against Waxman-Markey last week plainly don't believe the matter is settled. They're right.

Dems are not only looting our treasury again but subverting the Bill of Rights too

Senate Bill 2433....It's Already Started IT'S ALREADY STARTED FOLKS...BE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON! http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/text (SENATE BILL S. 2433) From David Bossie, President of the group 'Citizens United for American Sovereignty" based out of Merrifield, Virginia , website:
http://www.citizensunited.org/The above mentioned Senate Bill (S. 2433) is a piece of legislation in the works that all Americans need to know about...and know now! This Bill, sponsored by none other than our "President " former Sen. Barrack Obama, with the backing of now V/P Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, and liberal democrats in Congress, is nothing short of a massive giveaway of American wealth around the world, and a betrayal of the public trust, because, if passed, this bill would give over many aspects of our sovereignty to the United Nations.The noble sounding name of this bill, "The Global Poverty Act" is actually a Global Tax, payable to the United Nations, that will be required of all American taxpayers. If passed in the Senate, the House has already passed it, this bill would require the U.S. to increase our foreign aid by $65 BILLION per year, or $845 BILLION over the next 13 years! That's on top of the billions of dollars in foreign aid that we already pay out! In addition to the economic burdens this potential law would place on our precarious economy, the bill, if passed in the Senate, would also endanger our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms by obligating us to meet certain United Nations mandates. According to President Obama, we should establish these United Nations' goals as benchmarks for U. S. spending. What are they?The creation of a U.N. International Criminal Court having power to try and convict American citizens and soldiers without any protection from the U.S. Constitution.A standing United Nations Army forcing U.S. soldiers to serve under U.N. command. A Gun Ban on all small arms and light weapons...which would repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms.The ratification of the "Kyoto" global warming treaty and numerous other anti-American measures.Recently, the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations (where Sen. Joe Biden was) approved this plan by a voice vote without any discussion! Why all the secrecy? If President Obama and Biden are so proud of this legislation, then why don't they bring it out into the light of day and let the American people have a look at it instead of hiding it behind closed doors and sneaking it through Congress for late night votes? It may be only a matter of time before this dangerous legislation reaches a floor vote in the full body of the Senate.Please write or call, email your representatives, the White House, the media, or anyone you think will listen, and express your opinions regarding this Global Tax giveaway and betrayal of the American people at a time when our nation and our people are already heavily burdened with the threats of our freedom and economic prosperity.Please send this email to as many folks out there on your networks as you can ASAP! Find out more, just do a search for Senate Bill 2433.

Global Warming is a Farce

I try and be as original as I can here, but this article was too good to pass up. We are being hoaxed by the progressive movement who is and always have suffered from a terminal case of Cranial Rectitus.

Written by Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal on June 24th 2009.

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Associated Press

Steve Fielding

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.