A Link From My Liberal Aunt and Some Thoughts...

Here's a link to an article my aunt sent to me today.  You all (left and right) should find this disturbing and very educational.  It's long, but not boring.

http://daviddegraw.org/2010/06/af-pak-war-racket-the-obama-illusion-comes-crashing-down/

This is what the right wing kooks like Glenn Beck and the others who were derided as "haters" have been saying since the campaign. President Obama is disingenuous at best, and an out and out liar at worst. He is not the man he wants us to believe he is.

He is nothing that he and the cooperative "mainstream" media portrayed him to be - an anti-war proletariat, a common man, a poor kid from a single-parent home who pulled himself up by the bootstraps - a sort of snapshot of America. He's none of those things. It can't even be argued effectively that he is an environmentalist.

He is changing the future of the country, setting it on a more left-leaning track with his appointments of judges and sponsorship of legislation that stifles the (illusion of) free markets in America. His antagonistic attitude toward business and contracts (bonuses on Wall Street and General Motors) has made America a less stable (more like Venezuela or China) place to do business because contracts may or may not be upheld by the state.

George Bush's bailout of Wall Street was a travesty that some may still argue was necessary, but it was a gigantic lurch to the left. The debt alone from that one act was enough to mortgage the future of the next two generations of Americans. Now we face litterally TRILLIONS MORE in debt that economists agree will NEVER be paid off because it is impossible to do so without completely dismantling the country.

Obama is a pawn to the same people that George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Bush Sr. were pawns to - the military-industrial complex and its masters. He's just not smart enough to know that, 18 months late, we've figured it out. Or he's too arrogant in his power to care.

I take no satisfaction in seeing this. I had hoped that he would be a leader. A real leader. Who would guide us through the last struggles of racial animosity and who would be diplomatic enough to maintain our friendships in the world, and heal the rough relationships we've developed in the past 20 years. I had hoped that he would be good for our country on both domestic and foreign fronts.

He's been disappointing to me most of the time, and scarry to me other times.

And the fact that our CONGRESS and SUPREME COURT allow this sort of behavior to continue makes me really worried. What happened to the checks and balances? It seems we've given away so many of them because it seemed like a good idea at the time, that we don't have many left. When congress gave George Bush (the presidency) war powers, it was a clear violation of the Constitution. But it seemed like a good idea to everyone (including Hillary Clinton) at the time. Now we see that a new president lacks the self control to give those powers back to the congress, and the congress lacks the spine to take them.

But still, the press gives this president a pass. Look at the BP disaster! This happened under an administration that actually had control of the industry!

George Bush was crucified for his bungling of Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. No federal agency had control over hurricanes or what path they were allowed to take. That disaster was almost entirely an act of God, as the insurance agency puts it. The only part government had was to neglect the dikes around the city and to give misinformation and incorrect instructions regarding evacuation. Nature started the disaster and government compounded the effects. (Why do we trust these people with our retirement savings and our healthcare?)

No one even dares to suggest that the Obama administration was so cozy with Big Oil that they turned a blind eye to the built-in problems that led to this mess. The Obama Minerals Management Service was asleep at the wheel. Some would argue that they were literally in bed with the companies they were supposed to be regulating. And his personal response time and obvious lack of engagement are pathetic. But he's discussed as "cool" and "reflective" and he's given the excuse that the presidency really doesn't have the skill or the tools to actually go and stop the leak. Few will point out that the Dutch oil skimming ships that could have saved billions of dollars and millions of sea creatures were kept out of US waters by the Obama EPA because they might not have captured 100% of the oil they skimmed out of the Gulf of Mexico. (Isn't any amount better than nothing?!)

Escalating the wars to points beyond those of President Bush, without any end in sight and, in fact, no visible progress in a year and a half has to be disappointing to many who elected President Obama. Although, in his defense, the president is consistent as he continues to show the contempt for the American fighting man that he did during the campaign. However, increasing the use of military contractors is an interesting inconsistency, as he was so adamantly opposed to their presence in war theaters during the campaign.

My bottom line is this: I hope that President Obama can pull his head out, get his act together, find the nerve to govern the country for the good of the country, and start to show some real leadership. I believe this will be difficult for him to do, as he has subjected himself to high doses of revolutionary rhetoric, low doses of reality, and has no moral compass. By that, I mean that he is a person who does not have a strong internal sense of what he believes is right and wrong. He is not guided by any principle that comes from a source higher than his own mind. Most of us have a moral compass that is informed by our belief systems, be they environmental, theological, or cosmic. President Obama is a firm believer in man, and man alone. That means that as man's society evolves, so does the value set that guides man's behavior. In other words, his belief system is laid on shifting sands.

The Tea Party movement is an interesting thing. In most cases, I believe that the people who participated in those rallies in 2009 were not saying that we needed a "third party". They were saying that today's Republicans and today's Democrats are essentially the same party, beholden to the same powers - the military-industrial complex, if you will. They were saying that we need a real SECOND party!

I agree. If the Republicans want to step up and be the ones who say "enough is enough", then they'll have my vote. If the Democrats are the first ones to do it, they'll have the same.  And if no existing party does, I'll be tempted to give - and will seriously consider giving - my vote to a third party.  After all, if the two traditional parties are esentially the same, then the "throwing away your vote" argument doesn't hold much sway.

Democrat Congressman. In Touch With The Common Man...

Oh, don't forget that he has your interest at heart and will compassionately stand between you and your greedy health care provider ensuring you are treated in just the way you deserve!

Unbelievable that we trust these egos to do anything right, let alone to do the right thing....

No Cla#%!...

Okay, I'll weigh in on the President's recent use of coarse language on a morning talk show.

I think it was not classy and showed Mr. Obama's continuing ability to grasp neither the true role of the president nor the part the presidency can play in being a unifying force to focus diverse groups' energies on solving problems.

BP Gusher In Gulf of Mexico...

I was just watching the live camera feed of the broken deepwater oil well head in the Gulf of Mexico.  BP is trying desperately to cap the well or to stop its flow.  On the surface hundreds of boats and thousands of people are trying to contain the oil that is escaping.

And a thought occurred to me:  Man! The earth seems almost desperate to give us that oil.  There's no hint of scarcity in the rate at which the oil is gushing out of that well head.  It's almost like mankind is supposed to have oil and to use it to improve the quality of our life. 

A Poem Read To Me On An Airplane This Week...

I had a strange and wonderful conversation with a man who made me comfortable and, at the same time, uncomfortable on an airplane this week. 

In the course of our discussion he paused and asked if I liked poetry.  I told him I did and he asked if I would mind if he read me a poem.  I told him I would like that. 

(What else do you say to a man who asks you if he can read you a poem on an airplane when he is in the aisle seat and you are by the window?)

I thought this was a beautiful poem.  It spoke to me.  I'm not sure of everything it said to me, but I felt like I could understand a little.  And that perhaps the author understood me a little, too.

The House of Belonging

I awoke
this morning
in the gold light
turning this way
and that

thinking for
a moment
it was one
day
like any other.

But
the veil had gone
from my
darkened heart
and I thought

it must have been the quiet
candlelight
that filled my room,

it must have been
the first easy rhythm
with which I breathed
myself to sleep,

it must have been
the prayer I said
speaking to the otherness
of the night.

And
I thought
this is the good day
you could meet your love,

this is the black day
someone close
to you could die.

This is the day
you realize
how easily the thread
is broken
between this world
and the next

and I found myself
sitting up
in the quiet pathway
of light,

the tawny
close grained cedar
burning round
me like a fire
and all the angels of this housely
heaven ascending
through the first
roof of light
the sun has made.

This is the bright home
in which I live,
this is where
I ask
my friends
to come,
this is where I want
to love all the things
it has taken me so long
to learn to love.

This is the temple
of my adult aloneness
and I belong
to that aloneness
as I belong to my life.

There is no house
like the house of belonging.

~ David Whyte ~

Why Law?...

Frederic Bastiat said that the purpose of Law - and by extension, Government - is to do nothing except to secure citizens in their persons, liberty, and property, and to prevent injustice.

Can you imagine a country where that was the case? 

One Argument For Marriage...

Here's an interesting note.

Being in a family where your parents are married to each other is good for children under 5 years of age in at least one way: they are less likely to live in poverty.

Just over 8.5% of children whose parents are married live in poverty, while more than 43% of children in single parent homes live in poverty in the US. 

Single-parent families are 5 times more likely to raise their small children in poverty.  And the figures are similar for children ages 5 to 17. 

Sad....


http://www.naccrra.org/randd/docs/Children_under_5_in_poverty.pdf

National Head Start Spending

In 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services (federal welfare) spent $9,213,000,000 on the National Head Start program.  This spending was independent from state-funded programs and full-day kindergarten programs. 

In 2008 there were 796,740 children enrolled in nationally funded head start programs in America. 

That works out to $11,563 per child per year. 

If Head Start runs 180 days per year, like public school, then we are spending $64 per child per day.  If a family has 2 children in the program, that is $128 per day, or $540 per week, or $23,127 per year. 

Why not just send the family a check that would cover the rent on a very nice 3 bedroom apartment in the amount of $1,927 per month? 

Heck, if the family moved into a more modest home that amount would cover rent and groceries!  A single parent would be able to work a part time job and provide plenty for their family.  A two-parent household could easily afford to have Mom home and Dad could work a job that allowed him to be home more hours, too.  Or the parent(s) could devote some time and energy to education or vocational training that would allow them to become more independent and to enjoy the sense of self-worth and well-being that comes with providing for a family.

Let's dismantle the Head Start program and send each child currently enrolled in the program a check for $11,563 per year for the next 4 years.  Make it a one-time grant to the child in the interest of getting their parents trained, educated and productive. 

Ah, but then the State would not have so much access to young minds and so much control over families as it now has.  The the State would lose its hold on the future of its citizens.  Then the State would see its power slip from its hands, back into the hands of those who rightfully hold it:  The People.

And I see the flaw in my premise.  My premise assumes that government can legitimately take money from those who have and redistribute it to those who have less.  That right does not exist in Nature.  Government can only do that which the people delegate to it.  And the people can delegate to government only rights which they hold.  No person has the right to take from one the fruits of his labor and give those fruits to another simply on the basis that the latter has less than the former.  Therefore it is not in the legitimate scope of government to do the same. 

Nevertheless, it is interesting to imagine all of the government spending in "our interest" really being spent in our interest, isn't it?

http://www.hhs.gov/asrt/ob/docbudget/2011budgetinbrief.pdf
http://www.naccrra.org/randd/head-start/participation

Fatherhood...(dot gov???)

Yesterday I was driving and I heard a public service announcement on the radio.  I can't remember what it was saying, but the tone was sappy, sentimental and sincere. 

At the end of the spot, a voice said  I should visit http://www.fatherhood.gov/ for more information. 

That almost made my head spin around. 

I'm not opposed to learning truth from all sources, but it seems that intimate family relationships and anything ending in ".gov" are incompatible; and in today's reality they are diametrically opposed.

The proper function of government is to protect the individual liberties of citizens.

Some say that the Tea Party movement in America is misguided or misinformed.  They assert that the original Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxes.  They are the ones who misunderstand history and who seek to perpetuate misinformation.

The original movement toward American independence from British rule was inspired by the natural desire of mankind to be free from tyranny of any kind.  Britain had steadily ratcheted up its influence in North America and its control over its subjects living in the New World for more than 100 years.  The Crown had imposed laws and ignored them when it was in the Crown's interest to do so.  The influence of government (distinct from "law") could be seen and felt in virtually every aspect of American life.  Consider the Bill of Rights.  Why would the founders have written the clause about housing soldiers in private homes without compensation or cause if there hadn't been some kind of problem with that?

Government's place is to uphold the Law of the land, not to seek to influence or control the citizenry.  The Law, civil society, religion, and individual morality will control the citizenry.

Gadsden's flag bore the imgage of a coiled rattlesnake and the words, "Don't Tread On Me!"  The implied message was that if would-be tyrants stepped on the American people they would receive a wound that could be fatal. 

So, back to Boston.  The original tea party was simply a venting of frustration with the overreaching and oppressive hand of the British government.  Taxes were at best a secondary issue. 

So it is today.  The modern Tea Party movement is an expression of frustration with the US government.  So-called "Tea Partiers" do not want a revolution.  Rather they seek a reformation of the country.  A return to the limited government that allowed Americans to exercise their natural rights to life, liberty and property. 

Some, like Bill Maher, would twist this desire for true freedom and accuse "Tea Partiers" of longing for a time in American history when racism was institutionalized.  They would have others believe that the movement for restored freedom is simply a frustrated and angry white person's reaction to a black president.  This thought is simplistic at best and malicious at worst. 

This simply is not true.

The Tea Party movement began before President Obama was elected.  It began before any of the participants were even born.  It began before 1776 and before 1621.  It began before Jesus was born.  It began before cavemen and dinosaurs. 

This is a truth that those who would oppress their fellow man seek deep to hide from the world. 

Nature and Nature's God designed and destined man to be free to enjoy life, liberty and the fruits of his labor.  It is a violation of Natural Law to oppress man or to take the fruits of his labor without his consent and without just compensation. 

Whether a man is hanged with a silken rope or one of coarse hemp, the end is the same.  Whether government interference in the life of man is well-intentioned or nefarious, the result is the same. 

Which brings me back to fatherhood.gov.  On its face it is preposterous.  And it disturbs me.

Is Health Care Reform Constitutional? It Doesn't Matter...!

In memoriam of the US Constitution I am linking to this interesting exchange between an Illinois representative to the US House of Representatives and some of his constituents.

http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display_mobile.php?id=486688

This is a perfect example of two things.  First, a liberal will always put feeling before reason.  And second, some members of Congress do not engage in independent thought, and when pressed they cannot speak intelligently or honestly.

My Thoughts on Health Care Reform and the Future...

So, what's my take on the health care reform act?

It alone has fundamentally changed the US Government's approach to individual liberties.  Combined with the enormous expansions of government power and involvement in the business sector such as TARP, financial and industrial bailouts, the voiding of contracts by interfering in private citizens' compensation on bonuses, and the regulation of a harmless naturally occurring gas, this could signal the end of Americanism.

"Are you crazy?!" you say.  "That's just a little extreme, I think!"

No.  That's not extreme.  That's clear. 

The beginning of the end of Americanism began almost before the ink was dry on the Constitution.  But the American people and the system of government they had established were resilient, aware, and active enough to resist the pressure to change.  For nearly a century the country remained as the founders intended it.  Then the Civil War or War Between the States changed forever the way Americans viewed themselves.  For the first time there was a strong federal government and the people were okay with that.  They were, after all, Unionists - Americans - and not Vermonters, Michiganders, or citizens of other states. 

Since then the federal government has expanded its power and influence over states and individuals.  Don't misunderstand this to be some pro-slavery, anti-government rant.  I'm just talking you through the progression of things.

Sometimes the federal government has used courts to interpret the laws to give it more power than it previously had.  Sometimes the government has used constitutional amendments to do the same.  Sometimes it has used financial coercion - either the threat of withholding funding or the promise of providing funds - to subdue the states.

Now we see the threat of federal retribution delivered at a personal and individual level.  Should I choose not to take the advice of the federal government as it relates to my family's health care I am subject to a personal fine of up to 2% of my income. 

Why is the fine related to my income and not held at some rationally calculated number? 

Anyway, let me get back to the progressive loss of individual liberties. 

While there is not a solid government or public option for health care coverage in the current act, that will not be far away.  After all, how can the government order all citizens to purchase something.  And how can they continue to require that purchase with the cost of coverage spiraling out of control?  Isn't it only right that the government provide an affordable option for people to buy into so that they can have at least some level of coverage?  Think of the children who will suffer most from their parents' inability to pay the premiums demanded by these greedy insurance companies.  It's only right....

And so, we sign onto the government option.  Which really is no option at all in just a few years.  It soon becomes the only game in town. 

And the government administrators and actuaries do the math.  People who engage in risky lifestyles will have to pay more because they have more health problems.  Interestingly, "risky" will not include the consumption of alcohol or promiscuous behavior.  But those who eat fatty foods, those who choose not to exercise, and those who drive their own cars, rather than take public transit, will be charged more for their health coverage.  After all, they're the ones who consume most of the resources.  It's only right....

And "risky" won't stop there.  It will extend to other areas. 

And you may say, "Yeah, but those things are just good sense."  You may be right, but remember that Natural Law gives the individual liberties that are not restricted by what you may think is "good sense". 

And America and Americanism were founded on Natural Law; the primacy of the individual being the foundation of the country.  We live now in an age where most Americans accept the premise of primacy of the state, or the idea that the interests of the state are superior to the interests of the individual. 

We must return to the basis of our country's founding before it is too late.  And, given the track record of repealing entitlement programs, I am worried that it IS too late.  But we must not go quietly into that dark night.  We must go down swinging.  In November of this year we have an opportunity to change the composition of the US Congress.  We must send representatives and senators who are committed to repealing this one act and to setting our country's house in order.

Liberal Bloggers Expose the Truth About Health Care Reform...

It seems to me that the President would have Americans believe that the right wing extremists in the country are distorting the truth about his health care reform act.

Here are some figures and "fact checking" from the left.  Fire Dog Lake is a fairly "progressive" blog and they've done some interesting research. 

Strangely, they came to the same conclusions the far right did regarding the negative impact of the act. 

In a court of law, if two witnesses recount the same series of events, and only one contradicts them, the stories that agree are lent more credibility than the one "outlier".  It seems that the President's story is the outlier in this case. 

But read the article and let me know your take....

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

A Discussion on The Second Amendment...

This is a good, rational discussion regarding the Constitution and its applicability to the individual.

A common refrain in conservative circles is the "primacy of the individual". The counter argument is the "primacy of the state".

There is an effective and convincing argument that the Second Amendment protects and individual right, and not one that is restricted to the "militias" of the various state.

Another Big Supreme Court Gun Ban Case…

President Obama Speaks Against Democrat Plan to End Filibuster...

President Obama speaks out against the "nuclear option" that would bar extended debate in the Senate.



Of course, what you hear from "back in the day" was the ranting of a party that did not control the Executive branch of our government.  Now that the Democrat party controls the Executive and Legislative branches (and still can't get anything accomplished) they are singing a different tune. 

According to Alan Fram of the Associated Press, "President Barack Obama urged Congress Wednesday to vote "up or down" on sweeping health care legislation in the next few weeks, endorsing a plan that denies Senate Republicans the right to kill the bill by stalling with a filibuster."

He's like, as he said in the video, Karl Rove....  What an interesting turn.  Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, right?

The End of Cronyism in Detroit...

The Obama Administration, Democrats in general, and some Republicans have repeatedly and vociferously expressed their disgust at huge executive compensation packages.

Remember when President Obama dismissed Rick Waggoner from his position as CEO at General Motors?  That was shortly after the federal government and UAW takeover of the company.  They installed in his place Fritz Henderson.  Fritz had tons of experience, but was forced out only 8 months into his term of service.

Well, he's back. 

Is there no end to the gall of these people?  I have NOTHING AGAINST a person making $3,000 per hour!  It's the hypocrisy I can't stand.  How can the President, his Pay Czar, and his appointed patsy at GM let this happen?  Don't they remember that they're for the "little guy"?

Fritz Henderson is back at GM, for $3,000 an hour

Democrats Explain Senate Rules...

Democrats have recently threatened to pass Health Care Reform v. 2.0 with a 51-vote majority in the Senate.  This has been called the "nuclear option" because it prevents the "extended debate" that the senate is famous for. 

The Founders had in mind a sort of House of Commons (Representatives) that would give voice to the people.  The House of Lords (Senate) would balance the often impulsive vox populi with deliberate consideration of the issues.  The two Houses would then serve to check the power of the Executive. 

Anyway, watch this video where several Democrat leaders articulate the matter much better than I could.  Then remember that it is this same group of people advocating for and threatening to use the "nuclear option" against the current Republican minority and their less liberal Democrat party mates. 

The Fruits of The Obama "Open Hand" Doctrine...

Remember when Candidate Obama chided Candidate Clinton because she was too tough on our enemies?  He lectured everyone in his patent condescending way that if we extended an open hand and engaged in dialogue without conditions our enemies would see we meant them no harm and would abandon their intentions to destroy us and our allies. 

Here's a short story from Reuters that ought to illustrate exactly how naive Mr. Obama's statement and world view are.

Ahmadinejad not taking Clinton comments "seriously"


Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:29am EST

TEHRAN, Feb 16 (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed on Tuesday U.S. accusations that Iran was moving toward a military dictatorship, saying the U.S. military budget was 80 times larger than that of the Islamic Republic.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that the United States believed Iran's Revolutionary Guards were driving the country towards military dictatorship and should be targeted in any new U.N. sanctions.

"We don't take her comments seriously," Ahmadinejad told a televised news conference, adding that the entire Iranian population of more than 70 million were protecting Iran's independence and its Islamic revolution.

He said the United States had some 300,000 troops stationed in the Middle East and was involved in wars in the region.

"These comments she (Clinton) is making are not wise," Ahmadinejad added.

(Reporting by Reza Derakhshi; writing by Fredrik Dahl; editing by David Stamp)

Dr. Jones Should Go To See The Principal...

Imagine being confronted by your professor and asked for the sources you used to write a research paper on the health benefits of drinking small doses of the industrial herbicide know as Agent Orange. 

Now imagine that you couldn't find the base data or your sources any more. 

Imagine further that you admit some of your data was fabricated by you in order to strengthen your case.

Imagine also that you admit that you ignored other data that did not support your case.

Now imagine what happens to your grade on that paper, your grade in the class, and your standing at the university you're attending.  Academic probation would be the best case scenario.  In all likelihood you'd be expelled from school.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Now Dr. Jones Admits He Was Wrong...

Follow the link below to read about Dr. Phil Jones' admission that he and others misled the world about global warming.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html

Backdoor Taxes To Hit Middle Class ...

Mon Feb 1, 4:09 PM
By Terri Cullen

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

An Open Letter to John McCain...

I sent this letter to John McCain via his website earlier today.

Senator McCain:

I want to let you know that I was disappointed to hear your negative radio ad attacking JD Hayworth.

I'm not disappointed because it was a negative ad. I expect a certain balance in any campaign of ads exposing one's opponent's weaknesses and ads extoling one's own virtues and strengths.

The disappointment - even the anger - I feel is because, when the Country's future was literally on the line, you refused to say anything negative about your then-opponent, Barack H. Obama!

I am seriously troubled by the inconsistency. You were unwilling to even point out Candidate Obama's legitimate red flags and you censured those associated with you who did. Yet you are willing to make misleading assertions about JD Hayworth, a conservative who is intent on putting the country back on the right and constitutional course.

I have previously been an active voter who did not affiliate himself with any party. I want you to know that I have registered "Republican" so that I can participate in the primary election and work to get you off the ballot in November.

I appreciate the service you've given the country for years. And I offer you all the gratitude and honor that is appropriate.

I think it is time for you to step aside, now.

Respectfully,

John N. Ellis

Huh???

Remember when President Obama tried to distance himself earlier this week from the unsavory and wildly unpopular back-room politicking that went on to sweeten the Health Care Reform Bill enough to make it palatable to the US Senate?

He told us that he was not involved in the negotiations. 

Rahm Emmanuel, the President's Chief of Staff, says otherwise.

It makes one wonder who is really running the country.  Who IS the puppet master?

(Another interesting comment he made in that interview was that he has not changed the legislative process into what he would like it to be.  Is that absolutely TERRIFYING to anyone but me?  Listen close when you watch the video.)

Rahm Emmanuel Contradicts President Obama's Claim

Another Example of Leftist Racism....

How about this little bit of elitist, racist, bigotted, condecending, socially-backward gushing from an icon of the Left?

This is disgusting. 

When will black Americans (and other minorities) wake up to how the Left really feels about them?  They are viewed as less than human.  Simple tools to use in winning elections.  The policies of the Left are DESIGNED to keep human beings in subjection and they have been ESPECIALLY damaging to the black community. 

Chris Matthews' "Unfortunate Racially Insensitive Comments"

Remember: This Is About YOU, And NOT The President

This 2-minute video summary of President Obama's recent campaign speech (delivered 22 Jan 2010) in Ohio really lets you know where his focus is. 

In the President's defense, 3 of the 132 self-references are to remind us that this is not about him.

Breitbart.tv » 132: The Number of Times Obama Refers to Himself in One Speech

Global Climate Update From My Neighborhood...

I understand that in the world of climate science doublespeak "global warming" can mean many things.  I know that "global" can also mean "local" or "regional".  I know that "warming" can also mean cooling.  I know it can result in more rainfall or less rainfall.  I know that it can lead to desertification or expansion of jungles.  I know that it can contribute to mass extinction and the discovery of new species.  I know it can have an adverse or a positive effect on physical and mental health of human beings.  I know that it can even contribute to more severe or milder reactions to certain stimuli.

Having acknowledged that, let me tell you what global warming is doing to us today.  In the high desert we had 6" of snowfall followed up by at least 3" of rain.  Temperatures are below normal - about 12 degrees low, as a matter of fact.  And by morning we will have at least 6 more inches of snow with temperatures a full 20 degrees below normal. 

I feel like Sid the Sloth, from the movie "Ice Age" when he said, "You know what I could really go for?  Global warming!"