Obama's Pseudo Kindness to the States: Opt Out of Obamacare, but Run Your Own Obamacare
Obama says he now favors states opting out of Obamacare, but there is a condition. In Obama's strange and convoluted world, he is okay with the states opting out as long as they participate in something resembling Obamacare. I guess Obama really doesn't understand that 10th Amendment. He has no Constitutional authority to tell the states what laws to pass in their state legislatures.
John Boehner Saves the Federal Government From Shutting Down, and Look How He Did It
John Boehner is looking more like a joke with each passing day. Rather than stand up to a crazy federal budget and play hardball, Boehner is all but conceding to the demand of the Democrats who are spreading fear the federal government my shut down. My friends, that isn't a bad thing, especially if it slows down federal spending.
“This is very simple: Americans want the government to stay open, and they want it to spend less money,” Boehner will say.
Let's look at why Boehner is a joke. In basically what appears to be a compromise to keep the full federal government operating, Boehner basically negotiated a 1.5% spending cut over a couple of weeks.
Actually Mr. Boehner, we want many of us want many of the out of control federal bureaucracies closed, and you just ensured they will continue to function without interruption.
“This is very simple: Americans want the government to stay open, and they want it to spend less money,” Boehner will say.
Let's look at why Boehner is a joke. In basically what appears to be a compromise to keep the full federal government operating, Boehner basically negotiated a 1.5% spending cut over a couple of weeks.
Actually Mr. Boehner, we want many of us want many of the out of control federal bureaucracies closed, and you just ensured they will continue to function without interruption.
Billy Long Looks Unhealthy and Winded at Springfield/Greene County Lincoln Day Event:
The video above was filmed at the 2011 Springfield/Greene County Lincoln Day event. Obviously, there is a lot to be said about this video as in traditional Billy Long fashion, he says very little and has clever sound bites prepared. As well, Long continues to lie about the $100 billion in spending cuts. The Republicans only managed to get $61 billion in cuts.
I want you to notice in this video (put some ear buds in for the full effect), how winded Billy Long sounds. His walk to the stage was short. The great auctioneer's voice paused many times to catch his breath--winded, out of shape, and appearing very unhealthy. Not that Long was ever the model of perfect health, but I don't think I have seen him this winded before has he has given a speech. I mean during the Republican primary last year, Long could whip out a speech and barely take a breath. That's just the opposite in the video above. (Perhaps he was just nervous about having to lie about the $100 billion in cuts.)
One has to wonder of life in DC is taking its toll on Billy Long. Is this a healthy occupation where the temptation for free treats and being locked up in an office or on the House floor and the various social events each night lead to more temptations. Should Southwest Missouri be concerned about their Congressman's health?
On another note, it has been written the Southwest Missouri GOP had a record crowd in Springfield yesterday for Lincoln Day. Notice the lack of enthusiasm for winded Congressman Long--even as he pushes the lie of the $100 billion in cuts. The applause is minimal--and it isn't encouraging or exciting. It's obligatory.
Is Obama Pushing for War in Libya?: Tells Gadhafi to Leave Libya Now
One has to wonder if the rhetoric Barack Obama uses against Colonel Moammar Gadhafi is a hint he is willing to go to war. Obama is issuing a warning to Gadhafi, leave Libya now.
Or what?
I guess that's the real question. Will the United States attack another oil rich country and begin another endless war? It's a real possibility. You have to wonder what are the consequences if Gadhafi doesn't leave? When you make a statement like this, there has to be something that backs it up, right?
Obama made the comments to German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a private telephone conversation Saturday as they discussed the violence in Libya. The White House says Obama told Merkel that when a leader’s only means of holding power is to use violence against his people, then he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what’s right for his country by “leaving now.”
Now, remember, Obama is more of a hawk than his supporters would have you believe. Since he took office, US deaths on the battlefield have risen. As well, Obama promised in October 2007, the first thing he would do as president is end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, he has escalated those wars.
Now we look at the very real possibility of a war in Northern Africa. Do we really want Obama and his cronies leading us in a new occupation?
Or what?
I guess that's the real question. Will the United States attack another oil rich country and begin another endless war? It's a real possibility. You have to wonder what are the consequences if Gadhafi doesn't leave? When you make a statement like this, there has to be something that backs it up, right?
Obama made the comments to German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a private telephone conversation Saturday as they discussed the violence in Libya. The White House says Obama told Merkel that when a leader’s only means of holding power is to use violence against his people, then he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what’s right for his country by “leaving now.”
Now, remember, Obama is more of a hawk than his supporters would have you believe. Since he took office, US deaths on the battlefield have risen. As well, Obama promised in October 2007, the first thing he would do as president is end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, he has escalated those wars.
Now we look at the very real possibility of a war in Northern Africa. Do we really want Obama and his cronies leading us in a new occupation?
Billy Long Continues the $100 Billion Lie at Greene County Lincoln Day
[Billy] Long, of Springfield, touted the freshman class and credited his fellow members for a proposed $100 billion reduction in spending. He said it is a testament to the clout of the new members.
"They know we're there, and we know they know we're there," he said.
So now Long is using the verbiage "proposed $100 billion in reduction of spending." That's about as misleading as saying Obama is a great president who follows the Constitution. You see, the proposed $100 billion in spending cuts shrank to $61 billion in spending cuts, and Long knows this. Yet he still throws around the $100 billion like its fact, hoping all the minions in Southwest Missouri won't notice the Republicans didn't even come close to meeting their goals.
Why? Well perhaps it was Billy Long's opposition to cancel federal funding for NASCAR teams and other wasteful federal spending that got in the way of achieving the $100 billion in cuts.
Let's look at the second part of this quote. Long tries to blend into the collective of freshman signatures claiming to have this big voice. "They know we're there, and we know they know we're there," he said.
Looking at the proposed spending cut amendments of HR1, no one knew Billy Long was there. He didn't have the courage to propose on amendment that offered any spending cuts--not one. What happened to the guy who was "fed up" and was going to Washington to do something? I mean I am not sitting in Washington collecting a huge federal check, but if Long had called me up, I could have offered a number of amendments for federal programs that need to be cut so the Republicans would have been successful at achieving their goal of $100 billion and then some, and Long could have put his name on it. (He seems pretty good at that).
"We got the $100 billion cut. It's like Bette Davis said, 'Fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy ride."
No Billy, you only cut 61% of your promise, and that equals a D- in my grade book--barely passing.
Social Security Cuts Coming from Congress: Where Does Billy Long Stand?
I am hearing solid reports, Social Security is on the chopping block. Republicans like the Young Guns aren't pushing to end entitlements, but they are pushing entitlement reform. To save Social Security, there may be some big cuts coming. I am going to explain to you first of all why this is wrong and secondly why Social Security needs to be phased out rather than reformed.
First of all, the money that has been confiscated from you for Social Security was supposed to be set aside in a special fund as a retirement account. This of course, wasn't a solid plan from the beginning when Social Security was signed into law in 1935. Some thirty years later, Lyndon B. Johnson ensured Social Security was on the path to destruction--like everything else the federal government touches.
The federal government DOES NOT fund Social Security! Social Security funds the federal government.
Since the Johnson Administration of the ’60s, the S.S. fund has been plundered and the surplus from the fund used to finance wars and the daily operations of the federal government. This came as a result of Johnson declaring that these surplus funds would be added to the general fund. Once there, the funds could be used for anything and everything.
And that has been the case. In recent years, as Congress has no problem voting themselves pay raises, while padding their lifestyle with lobbyists' generous contributions, the nation's seniors are now dealing with this fact as the cost of living skyrocket, but seniors aren't getting their annual cost of living allowance increases to reflect these rises.
If you have seen your Social Security account statement, you know the statement that tells you what your monthly check will be at retirement, you may have noticed they give you an inflated number and then tell you because Social Security is broken, you will only receive a percentage of this number.
The thing to remember here is Social Security is supposed to be your money. However, the federal government, as you can see hasn't respected that little fact. It hasn't been put into a lock box and they are treating it like your retirement account. In fact, the unfunded liability of Social Security, if most American would just wake up out of their stupor, would be enough to sicken you--many claim over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
So, Republicans look, from the words of the Young Guns (Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan) are looking at reforming programs like Social Security, which means they still want to confiscate your money and then make promises that are going to fail. This isn't acceptable anymore.
Let's totally phase out Social Security. Let's pass a law that says if you are born on January 1, 2012, you will no longer have money confiscated from you in the guise of F.I.C.A. This would not only prevent this confiscation of wealth for a program the government mismanages, it would free up money in small businesses to hire. Of course, it will never happen. Your benefits will be cut, but you will be promised something because Cantor and Ryan have a plan to fix the impossible--all as they take more of your money.
Now I would try to fight for the average F.I.C.A. contributor, but there would be a huge hole in my plan--a hole I couldn't even try to fix. I would argue the federal government needs to ensure that every American who paid into the system will get a return on their investment equal to the amount they invested. The problem is with that, all the federal government would have to do is start the printing presses, and your investment would be worth nothing.
So instead, they will continue to take money from you--probably at a higher rate in coming years, and they will give you less and less. In fact, the Social Security cuts could be coming as early as next year. I wonder what Congressman Billy Long thinks about this. Remember his answer from above--"for now."
Fok News Channel: Olbermann Hits Rock Bottom in the Gutter
He calls his new Web site the Fok News Channel, and you can see by the name he clearly would up in the gutter. Just when you thought Olbermann hit rock bottom, he proves he in fact can go lower.
2011 Dodge Charger RT: One Beautiful Piece of Attitude
I am going to break a rule here. While I am not happy with the billions of taxpayer dollars that Chrysler took, I have to say I admire their vision that is the 2011 Dodge Charger. I saw my first 2011 Dodge Hemi Charger RT today, it and it once beautiful piece of attitude. It is pure muscle car, but I fear with gas prices rising as fast as they are, both the muscle car and Chrysler may be an endangered species.
For now, I do want to celebrate this beautiful car!
 |
| This is the color of the Charger I ran into, and it works. |
 |
| The lines in this car are beautiful, and check out that sporty rear end. |
I think the reason I can still stomach Chrysler, Dodge, and MOPAR, is unlike General Motors, they didn't try to lie to the taxpayers that Chrysler had paid back all their bailouts.
S299: Rand Paul Hopes to Pull the Reins on Obama's Executive Orders
Obama's plan is to bypass the new Republican House of Representatives as much as possible. We have already seen Obama pull the unpassed cap and trade legislation from the Senate and tell the EPA to begin regulating carbon emissions. Considering Obama's act against the Defense of Marriage Act this week, we see Obama acting more like a tyrannical dictator more than a President with limited powers.
Fortunately, one Republican continues to fight. That Republican of course is Rand Paul. Paul has introduced S299, also known as the REINS Act (Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011).
REINS is simple and it needs to be passed to keep Obama in line. From Campaign for Liberty:
Support the REINS Act Petition to:
U.S. Senators
Whereas: For decades, presidents of BOTH parties and their federal agencies have abused their power to "rule by decree" - bypassing Congress and shredding the U.S. Constitution; and
Whereas: During his two years in office, President Obama's administration alone has issued well over TWO HUNDRED new regulations and Executive Orders, all with price tags well over $100 million EACH; and
Whereas: After the results of the 2010 elections, the statists are looking even more to their pet bureaucracies to shove their agenda down the throats of the American people; and
Whereas: The REINS Act would prohibit presidents and out of control government agencies from imposing sweeping new regulations on American citizens without a congressional vote;
Therefore: I urge you to cosponsor and seek roll call votes on Senator Rand Paul's REINS Act (S. 299).
Campaign for Liberty has a petition in which you can sign that will be delivered to members of Congress. You can sign the petition by visiting: http://www.chooseliberty.org/reins.aspx?pid=nd2
Fortunately, one Republican continues to fight. That Republican of course is Rand Paul. Paul has introduced S299, also known as the REINS Act (Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011).
REINS is simple and it needs to be passed to keep Obama in line. From Campaign for Liberty:
Support the REINS Act Petition to:
U.S. Senators
Whereas: For decades, presidents of BOTH parties and their federal agencies have abused their power to "rule by decree" - bypassing Congress and shredding the U.S. Constitution; and
Whereas: During his two years in office, President Obama's administration alone has issued well over TWO HUNDRED new regulations and Executive Orders, all with price tags well over $100 million EACH; and
Whereas: After the results of the 2010 elections, the statists are looking even more to their pet bureaucracies to shove their agenda down the throats of the American people; and
Whereas: The REINS Act would prohibit presidents and out of control government agencies from imposing sweeping new regulations on American citizens without a congressional vote;
Therefore: I urge you to cosponsor and seek roll call votes on Senator Rand Paul's REINS Act (S. 299).
Campaign for Liberty has a petition in which you can sign that will be delivered to members of Congress. You can sign the petition by visiting: http://www.chooseliberty.org/reins.aspx?pid=nd2
How Billy Long Failed to "Get 'er Done": Promised $100 Billion in Spending Cuts Falls Way Short
Billy Long promised conservatives at CPAC on the $100 billion in spending cuts promised by Republicans, "we got 'er done." The facts are Billy Long helped prevent getting the $100 billion in tax cuts done. The man who claimed he was fed up with wasteful government spending often voted to keep keep wasteful government spending. Here's how Long voted the spending cut amendments for HR1, which was the spending cuts bill John Boehner promised Americans in the Pledge to America.
You will see some of these votes were worthy of a nay, while others, like his vote to continue federal funding of NASCAR race teams leave you scratching your head thinking, "I thought he was fed up with wasteful federal spending."
In the end Billy Long and the Republicans failed to get the promised $100 billion in spending cuts. They got $61 billion. The following are the budget cuts 'fed up' Bill Long voted against:
Amendment No. 1—Rep. Cravaack (R-MN): The amendment would reduce funds to the United States Institutes of Peace by $42.6 million and increase funds to State, Foreign Operations and related programs by $42.6 million.
Amendment No. 2—Rep. Rooney (R-FL): The amendment would reduce funding for the Navy and Air Force (Research, Development, Test and Evaluation) by $225 million each. The funds would be transferred into the Defense spending reduction account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment No. 3—Rep. Tonko (D-NY): The amendment would strike the provision restricting certain funds from being used by the EPA to implement, administer, or enforce a change to a rule or guidance document pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Amendment No. 4—Rep. Tonko (D-NY): The amendment would strike a provision restricting the use of certain funds for the Weatherization Assistance Program.
Amendment No. 7—Rep. Campbell (R-CA): The amendment would reduce the total amount otherwise made available by this Act for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs by $14 billion.
Amendment No. 8—Rep. Stearns (R-FL): The amendment would restrict funds made available in this
Amendment No. 10—Rep. Stearns (R-FL): The amendment would prohibit funds made available by this Act from being used to regulate or classify coal combustion residuals as a hazardous waste or material.
Amendment No. 12—Rep. McCarthy (D-NY): The amendment would increase and decrease by an equivalent amount the funding level for the Department of Justice, Office of Justice, Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance. Often Members will use an amendment of this nature in order to clarify within the Congressional Record that funding shall be directed to a specific purpose.
Amendment No. 17—Rep. Tonko (D-NY): The amendment would strike subsections (a) and (b) of section 1824, which states: (a) The level for “Department of Education, Education for the Disadvantaged” shall be $3.9 billion, of which $3.9 billion shall become available on July 1, 2011, and remain available through September 30, 2012 and an additional $10.8 billion to remain available through September 30, 2012, shall be available on October 1, 2011 for academic year 2011–2012. Of the amounts available for such heading, $6.4 billion shall be for basic grants under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; $1.3 billion shall be for concentration grants; (3) $3 billion shall be for targeted grants; (4) $3 billion shall be for education finance incentive grants. The tenth, eleventh and twelfth provisos under the heading “Department of Education, Education for the Disadvantaged” in division D of Public Law 111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division.
Amendment No. 21—Rep. Hastings (D-FL): The amendment would increase and decrease by an equivalent amount, the funding level for the Agricultural Programs, Agricultural Research Service, Salaries and Expenses. The amendment would also increase and decrease by an equivalent amount the funding level for Agricultural Programs, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Salaries and Expenses. Often Members will use an amendment of this nature in order to clarify within the Congressional Record that funding shall be directed to a specific purpose.
Amendment No. 22—Rep. Hastings (D-FL): The amendment would prohibit any funds made available in this Act from being used by the Secretary of the Army to acquire land or construct any building or structure within the town of Lake Park, Florida.
Amendment No. 25—Rep. Graves (R-GA): The amendment would prohibit any of the funds made available by this Act from being used to implement or enforce the Report and Order of the Federal Communications Commission relating to the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices (FCC 10-201).
Amendment No. 27—Rep. Markey (D-MA): The amendment would prohibit any of the funds made available by this Act from being used to issue any new lease that authorizes the production of oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to any lessee under any existing lease issued by the Department of the Interior pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act where such existing lease is not subject to limitations on royalty relief based on market prices.
Amendment No. 28—Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT): The amendment would reduce by $4 million the amount made available to Independent Agencies, National Archives and Records Administration, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Grants Program. The amendment would also increase by $4 million the amount made available to Financial Service, General Government Spending Reduction Account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment No. 33—Rep. Garret (R-NJ): The amendment would prohibit any funds in this bill from paying the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a market access program under section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978.
Amendment No. 45—Rep. Baldwin (D-WI): The amendment would reduce all funding under the bill by a pro rata amount so that the total reduction is $1 billion. The amendment then redirects $1 billion to the “Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Health Resources and Services,” which the bill has funded at $5.3 billion.
Amendment No. 50—Rep. McCollum (D-MN): The amendment would restrict funds made available by this Act from being used by the Department of Defense for sponsorship of NASCAR race cars.
Amendment No. 67—Rep. Polis (D-CO): The amendment would prevent the rescission of funds used for paying the subsidy and administrative cost of projects eligible for Federal credit assistance under chapter 6 of title 23, United States Code, provided by division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Amendment No. 69—Rep. Polis (D-CO): The amendment would not permit the rescission of stimulus funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the creation of jobs.
Amendment No. 73—Rep. Royce (R-CA): The amendment would reduce by $10.7 million the amount made available to Related Programs, East-West Center. The amendment would also increase by $10.7 million the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Spending Reduction Account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment No. 80—Rep. Gardner (R-CO): The amendment would prevent the use of funds made available by this Act from being used to first-class or business-class airfare for federal employees for domestic travel.
Amendment No. 81—Rep. Gardner (R-CO): The amendment would reduce by 50 percent the amount of funds made available by this Act to pay for expenses for official travel.
Amendment No. 82—Rep. Gardner (R-CO): The amendment would rescind the unobligated balance of funds made available by section 1005 (b) of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
Amendment No. 83—Rep. Emerson (R-MO): The amendment would prohibit funds made available by this Act from being used by the IRS to implement or enforce section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code, section 6055 of such Code, and section 1502 (c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Amendment No. 87—Rep. Pompeo (R-KS): The amendment would reduce the funding levels for Army procurements by for procurement of equipment by $15 million; for Navy procurement of equipment by $15 million; for Air Force procurement of equipment by $15 million; for Defense-wide procurements by $15,000,000, and Defense-wide procurement of equipment by $15 million. The amendment reduces the funding levels for the Army’s research, development, test and evaluations for the Army, Navy, and Air Force by $105 million each and Defense-wide operation of facilities and equipment by $127 million. The amendment would eliminate the funds $3.2 million in funds made available for program management and oversight of innovative research and development. The amendment would transfer the $502.4 million in savings into the Defense subcommittee’s spending reduction account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment No. 98— Rep. DeFazio (D-OR): The amendment would reduce by $24 million the amount made available to the Independent Agencies, Selective Service System, Salaries and Expenses. The amendment would also increase by $24 million the amount made available to the Financial Services, General Government Spending Reduction Account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment No. 99—Rep. McDermott (D-WA): The amendment would prohibit any funds made available in this Act from being used to plan for, begin, continue, finish, process, or approve the relocation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine Operations Center-Pacific from Seattle, Washington, to Newport, Oregon.
Amendment No. 104—Rep. Jordan (R-OH): The amendment would perform a 5.5 percent across-the-board cut of all accounts in eight non-security divisions of the CR; and an 11 percent across-the-board cut of all accounts in the Legislative Branch bill. The amendment would not cut any funding for Israel.
Amendment No. 105—Rep. Price (D-NC): The amendment would reduce funding for the “Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Information Officer” for data center development and mitigation from $333.3 million to $314.9 million (a reduction of $18.4 million).
The amendment would also reduce funding for the “‘Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Aviation Security’’ from $5.1 billion to $5.07 billion (a reduction of $33.9 million).
The amendment would reduce funding for the “Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Air Marshalls” from $934.8 million to $928.5 million (a reduction of $6.2 million).
The amendment increases funding for the “Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Firefighter Assistance Grants” from $300 million to $390 million (an increase of $90 million), and would allow that the additional $90 million to be used to carry out section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (expansion of pre-September 11, 2001, fire grant programs). The bill currently has eliminated funding for the pre-September 11, 2001 fire grant programs.
The amendment would reduce funding for the ‘‘Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Predisaster Mitigation Fund” from $65 million to $63.5 million (a reduction of $1.4 million).
The amendment would reduce funding for the “Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services” from $275 million to 265 million (a reduction of $10 million).
The amendment would reduce funding for the “Department of Homeland Security, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Research, Development, and Operations’’ from $293 million to $273 million (a difference of $20 million).
Amendment No. 108—Rep. Whitfield (R-KY): The amendment would reduce funds for the U.S. House of Representatives salaries and expenses by $1.5 million and transfer the funds into the Legislative Branch spending reduction account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment No. 109—Rep. Griffith (R-VA): The amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to carry out, implement, administer, or enforce any policy or procedure set forth in an EPA and Defense Department memorandum entitled “Enhanced Surface Coal Mining Pending Permit Coordination Procedures” dated June 11, 2009. The amendment would also prohibit funding to set forth the guidance issued by the EPA entitled “Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order.”
Amendment No. 112—Rep. Barletta (R-PA): The amendment would reduce funding by $42,676,000 for the United States Institute for Peace, and would increase funding by $42,676,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Planning and Development, Community Development Fund.
Amendment No. 114—Rep. Barletta (R-PA): The amendment would reduce funding by $42,676,000 for the United States Institute for Peace, and would increase funding by $18,000,000 for the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Clean Coal Technology.
Amendment No. 120—Rep. Gohmert (R-TX): The amendment would prohibit any assistance made available by this Act from being provided to a country that opposed the position of the United States in the United Nations, subject to exemptions by the Secretary of State or the President, with “opposed the position of the United States” defined as a member country voting with the U.S. less than 50 percent of the time in the most recent session of the General Assembly.
Amendment No. 140—Rep. Braley (D-IA): The amendment would prohibit any funds made available by this Act to any office of the legislative branch from being used for the procurement of an item that is not grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States, under the same terms and conditions applicable under section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, to funds made available by this Act to the Department of Defense.
Amendment No. 155—Rep. Burgess (R-TX): The amendment would strike a section (paragraph 11 of section 101) of the Education Jobs Fund Act (P.L. 111-226).
Amendment No. 156—Rep. Burgess (R-TX): The amendment would strike a section (paragraph 11 of section 101) of the Education Jobs Fund Act (P.L. 111-226).
You will see some of these votes were worthy of a nay, while others, like his vote to continue federal funding of NASCAR race teams leave you scratching your head thinking, "I thought he was fed up with wasteful federal spending."
In the end Billy Long and the Republicans failed to get the promised $100 billion in spending cuts. They got $61 billion. The following are the budget cuts 'fed up' Bill Long voted against:
Amendment No. 1—Rep. Cravaack (R-MN): The amendment would reduce funds to the United States Institutes of Peace by $42.6 million and increase funds to State, Foreign Operations and related programs by $42.6 million.
Amendment No. 2—Rep. Rooney (R-FL): The amendment would reduce funding for the Navy and Air Force (Research, Development, Test and Evaluation) by $225 million each. The funds would be transferred into the Defense spending reduction account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment No. 3—Rep. Tonko (D-NY): The amendment would strike the provision restricting certain funds from being used by the EPA to implement, administer, or enforce a change to a rule or guidance document pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Amendment No. 4—Rep. Tonko (D-NY): The amendment would strike a provision restricting the use of certain funds for the Weatherization Assistance Program.
Amendment No. 7—Rep. Campbell (R-CA): The amendment would reduce the total amount otherwise made available by this Act for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs by $14 billion.
Amendment No. 8—Rep. Stearns (R-FL): The amendment would restrict funds made available in this
Amendment No. 10—Rep. Stearns (R-FL): The amendment would prohibit funds made available by this Act from being used to regulate or classify coal combustion residuals as a hazardous waste or material.
Amendment No. 12—Rep. McCarthy (D-NY): The amendment would increase and decrease by an equivalent amount the funding level for the Department of Justice, Office of Justice, Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance. Often Members will use an amendment of this nature in order to clarify within the Congressional Record that funding shall be directed to a specific purpose.
Amendment No. 17—Rep. Tonko (D-NY): The amendment would strike subsections (a) and (b) of section 1824, which states: (a) The level for “Department of Education, Education for the Disadvantaged” shall be $3.9 billion, of which $3.9 billion shall become available on July 1, 2011, and remain available through September 30, 2012 and an additional $10.8 billion to remain available through September 30, 2012, shall be available on October 1, 2011 for academic year 2011–2012. Of the amounts available for such heading, $6.4 billion shall be for basic grants under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; $1.3 billion shall be for concentration grants; (3) $3 billion shall be for targeted grants; (4) $3 billion shall be for education finance incentive grants. The tenth, eleventh and twelfth provisos under the heading “Department of Education, Education for the Disadvantaged” in division D of Public Law 111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division.
Amendment No. 21—Rep. Hastings (D-FL): The amendment would increase and decrease by an equivalent amount, the funding level for the Agricultural Programs, Agricultural Research Service, Salaries and Expenses. The amendment would also increase and decrease by an equivalent amount the funding level for Agricultural Programs, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Salaries and Expenses. Often Members will use an amendment of this nature in order to clarify within the Congressional Record that funding shall be directed to a specific purpose.
Amendment No. 22—Rep. Hastings (D-FL): The amendment would prohibit any funds made available in this Act from being used by the Secretary of the Army to acquire land or construct any building or structure within the town of Lake Park, Florida.
Amendment No. 25—Rep. Graves (R-GA): The amendment would prohibit any of the funds made available by this Act from being used to implement or enforce the Report and Order of the Federal Communications Commission relating to the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices (FCC 10-201).
Amendment No. 27—Rep. Markey (D-MA): The amendment would prohibit any of the funds made available by this Act from being used to issue any new lease that authorizes the production of oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to any lessee under any existing lease issued by the Department of the Interior pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act where such existing lease is not subject to limitations on royalty relief based on market prices.
Amendment No. 28—Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT): The amendment would reduce by $4 million the amount made available to Independent Agencies, National Archives and Records Administration, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Grants Program. The amendment would also increase by $4 million the amount made available to Financial Service, General Government Spending Reduction Account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment No. 33—Rep. Garret (R-NJ): The amendment would prohibit any funds in this bill from paying the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a market access program under section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978.
Amendment No. 45—Rep. Baldwin (D-WI): The amendment would reduce all funding under the bill by a pro rata amount so that the total reduction is $1 billion. The amendment then redirects $1 billion to the “Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Health Resources and Services,” which the bill has funded at $5.3 billion.
Amendment No. 50—Rep. McCollum (D-MN): The amendment would restrict funds made available by this Act from being used by the Department of Defense for sponsorship of NASCAR race cars.
Amendment No. 67—Rep. Polis (D-CO): The amendment would prevent the rescission of funds used for paying the subsidy and administrative cost of projects eligible for Federal credit assistance under chapter 6 of title 23, United States Code, provided by division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Amendment No. 69—Rep. Polis (D-CO): The amendment would not permit the rescission of stimulus funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the creation of jobs.
Amendment No. 73—Rep. Royce (R-CA): The amendment would reduce by $10.7 million the amount made available to Related Programs, East-West Center. The amendment would also increase by $10.7 million the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Spending Reduction Account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment No. 80—Rep. Gardner (R-CO): The amendment would prevent the use of funds made available by this Act from being used to first-class or business-class airfare for federal employees for domestic travel.
Amendment No. 81—Rep. Gardner (R-CO): The amendment would reduce by 50 percent the amount of funds made available by this Act to pay for expenses for official travel.
Amendment No. 82—Rep. Gardner (R-CO): The amendment would rescind the unobligated balance of funds made available by section 1005 (b) of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
Amendment No. 83—Rep. Emerson (R-MO): The amendment would prohibit funds made available by this Act from being used by the IRS to implement or enforce section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code, section 6055 of such Code, and section 1502 (c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Amendment No. 87—Rep. Pompeo (R-KS): The amendment would reduce the funding levels for Army procurements by for procurement of equipment by $15 million; for Navy procurement of equipment by $15 million; for Air Force procurement of equipment by $15 million; for Defense-wide procurements by $15,000,000, and Defense-wide procurement of equipment by $15 million. The amendment reduces the funding levels for the Army’s research, development, test and evaluations for the Army, Navy, and Air Force by $105 million each and Defense-wide operation of facilities and equipment by $127 million. The amendment would eliminate the funds $3.2 million in funds made available for program management and oversight of innovative research and development. The amendment would transfer the $502.4 million in savings into the Defense subcommittee’s spending reduction account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment No. 98— Rep. DeFazio (D-OR): The amendment would reduce by $24 million the amount made available to the Independent Agencies, Selective Service System, Salaries and Expenses. The amendment would also increase by $24 million the amount made available to the Financial Services, General Government Spending Reduction Account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment No. 99—Rep. McDermott (D-WA): The amendment would prohibit any funds made available in this Act from being used to plan for, begin, continue, finish, process, or approve the relocation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine Operations Center-Pacific from Seattle, Washington, to Newport, Oregon.
Amendment No. 104—Rep. Jordan (R-OH): The amendment would perform a 5.5 percent across-the-board cut of all accounts in eight non-security divisions of the CR; and an 11 percent across-the-board cut of all accounts in the Legislative Branch bill. The amendment would not cut any funding for Israel.
Amendment No. 105—Rep. Price (D-NC): The amendment would reduce funding for the “Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Information Officer” for data center development and mitigation from $333.3 million to $314.9 million (a reduction of $18.4 million).
The amendment would also reduce funding for the “‘Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Aviation Security’’ from $5.1 billion to $5.07 billion (a reduction of $33.9 million).
The amendment would reduce funding for the “Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Air Marshalls” from $934.8 million to $928.5 million (a reduction of $6.2 million).
The amendment increases funding for the “Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Firefighter Assistance Grants” from $300 million to $390 million (an increase of $90 million), and would allow that the additional $90 million to be used to carry out section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (expansion of pre-September 11, 2001, fire grant programs). The bill currently has eliminated funding for the pre-September 11, 2001 fire grant programs.
The amendment would reduce funding for the ‘‘Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Predisaster Mitigation Fund” from $65 million to $63.5 million (a reduction of $1.4 million).
The amendment would reduce funding for the “Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services” from $275 million to 265 million (a reduction of $10 million).
The amendment would reduce funding for the “Department of Homeland Security, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Research, Development, and Operations’’ from $293 million to $273 million (a difference of $20 million).
Amendment No. 108—Rep. Whitfield (R-KY): The amendment would reduce funds for the U.S. House of Representatives salaries and expenses by $1.5 million and transfer the funds into the Legislative Branch spending reduction account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment No. 109—Rep. Griffith (R-VA): The amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to carry out, implement, administer, or enforce any policy or procedure set forth in an EPA and Defense Department memorandum entitled “Enhanced Surface Coal Mining Pending Permit Coordination Procedures” dated June 11, 2009. The amendment would also prohibit funding to set forth the guidance issued by the EPA entitled “Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order.”
Amendment No. 112—Rep. Barletta (R-PA): The amendment would reduce funding by $42,676,000 for the United States Institute for Peace, and would increase funding by $42,676,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Planning and Development, Community Development Fund.
Amendment No. 114—Rep. Barletta (R-PA): The amendment would reduce funding by $42,676,000 for the United States Institute for Peace, and would increase funding by $18,000,000 for the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Clean Coal Technology.
Amendment No. 120—Rep. Gohmert (R-TX): The amendment would prohibit any assistance made available by this Act from being provided to a country that opposed the position of the United States in the United Nations, subject to exemptions by the Secretary of State or the President, with “opposed the position of the United States” defined as a member country voting with the U.S. less than 50 percent of the time in the most recent session of the General Assembly.
Amendment No. 140—Rep. Braley (D-IA): The amendment would prohibit any funds made available by this Act to any office of the legislative branch from being used for the procurement of an item that is not grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States, under the same terms and conditions applicable under section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, to funds made available by this Act to the Department of Defense.
Amendment No. 155—Rep. Burgess (R-TX): The amendment would strike a section (paragraph 11 of section 101) of the Education Jobs Fund Act (P.L. 111-226).
Amendment No. 156—Rep. Burgess (R-TX): The amendment would strike a section (paragraph 11 of section 101) of the Education Jobs Fund Act (P.L. 111-226).
Headline of the Day: Voodoo Sex Ignites Fatal Brooklyn Fire
When I hear the phrase "voodoo sex" I think about dolls put in improper positions or how Michelle Obama was conceived. Remember the tales of Michelle Obama's mother practicing voodoo in the White House shortly after Barry and Michelle moved in?
In Brooklyn, voodoo sex is blamed for a fatal fire.
From Fox News:
Candles used in a voodoo sex ceremony ignited a fast-moving fire that swept through a Brooklyn, N.Y., apartment building on the evening of February 19 and into early February 20, 2011, and killed a woman, according to FDNY fire marshals and a city official.
I don't even want to know. Fire Department officials say this could have been prevented. You think? Let's hope the White House doesn't soon go up in flames.
In Brooklyn, voodoo sex is blamed for a fatal fire.
From Fox News:
Candles used in a voodoo sex ceremony ignited a fast-moving fire that swept through a Brooklyn, N.Y., apartment building on the evening of February 19 and into early February 20, 2011, and killed a woman, according to FDNY fire marshals and a city official.
I don't even want to know. Fire Department officials say this could have been prevented. You think? Let's hope the White House doesn't soon go up in flames.
Obama Signs Patriot Act Extensions: Power corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
There was a time when Barack Obama was a vocal critic of the Patriot Act, specifically the illegal wire taps. Now he is President, he is not only advocating the Patriot Act, he is calling for more legal immunity for when the federal government tracks Americans. This is one of the reasons I hoped the Patriot Would be defeated, but Obama signed the Patriot Act extensions passed by Republican efforts in the House earlier this week.
From PolitiFact.com:
As a candidate for president, then-Sen. Barack Obama railed against parts of USA Patriot Act that gave the Bush administration sweeping powers to intercept phone and e-mail communications in the name of fighting terrorism with little judicial or congressional oversight, and Obama pledged to institute "robust" checks and balances if elected.
What do they say about power?
Power corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
From PolitiFact.com:
As a candidate for president, then-Sen. Barack Obama railed against parts of USA Patriot Act that gave the Bush administration sweeping powers to intercept phone and e-mail communications in the name of fighting terrorism with little judicial or congressional oversight, and Obama pledged to institute "robust" checks and balances if elected.
What do they say about power?
Power corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Gingrinch Wants to Impeach Obama and Probably Run for President To
Newt Gingrich is right. It's the job of the President of the United States to execute the laws of the United States of America. Obama's recent decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, based on the fact Obama doesn't believe the law in Constitutional, is a violation of the duties of the President of the United States. By the way, isn't it funny when a federal judge rules Obama's healthcare plan as unconstitutional, Obama wants to enforce it anyway?
Gingrich brought up the "I" word, impeachment for Obama if he fails his duties as President to execute the laws of the land. While I agree the federal government should not decide on the gay marriage issue, the federal government must step in to decide what to do if a gay couple gets married in a state that recognizes gay marriage and they reenter a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. Gay marriage is a states rights issue, but when it crosses state lines, it becomes a federal issue. Which is why Obama not enforcing the law is dangerous and a threat to federalism.
Gingrich points out there would be a double standard if Palin had failed to execute the laws of the land as President.
“President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. Asked directly whether Obama could be subject to articles of impeachment, Gingrich said, “I think that’s something you get to much later. But I think clearly it is a dereliction of duty. Clearly it’s a violation of his constitutional oath. Clearly it is not something that can be allowed to stand."
Gingrich points out that Obama campaigned in favor of the defensive marriage act, but is now breaking a promise to the American people. As well, Obama's appointed Attorney General Eric Holder has warned Obama against not executing the Defense of Marriage Act.
I agree with Mr. Gingrich on this. This can't be allowed to stand. I also wonder if this is Newt's warning shot, "I'm running for President and Obama--not Mitt for Brains Romney is my target."
Cheap Trick Promotes Rockford as a Place to Hide for Wisconsin Democrats
Fans of BBCW know I am a huge Cheap Trick fan. In fact, the last time I saw Cheap Trick in Naperville, I bumped into guitar god Rick Nielsen, who is featured in this lastest tourism video encouraging cowardly Democrats from Wisconsin and Illinois to consider Rockford, Illinois, as they hideout. It's really a funny video considering the cowardly Democrats in both Wisconsin and Indiana.
Billy Long Votes for $100 Million in Federal Funding of Professional Sports Teams: NASCAR and Other Sponsorships
 |
| Billy Long voted to continue federal sponsorship of NASCAR. |
I love NASCAR. My favorite driver, 2008 Daytona 500 winner Ryan Newman, drives the #39 US Army Chevrolet. While I want Newman to have good sponsorship to ensure his success on the track, I am concerned about the massive amount of debt the federal government continues to rack up, and when I see that #39 US Army Chervolet on the track along with Dale Earnhardt Jr's National Guard Car and other military sponsorships, that's money that could be cut out of the federal budget.
Last week, Representative Betty McCollum from Minnesota offer Republicans help to achieve their $100 billion in spending cuts. She sponsored Amendment 50 of HR, which would restrict funds made available by this Act from being used by the Department of Defense for sponsorship of NASCAR race cars. McCollum estimated the federal government has spent over $100 million in sponsorship of race cars and other sports teams like Lance Armstrong's US Postal Cycling team over the past decade.
The Army's sponsorship of Ryan Newman totals $7.4 million this year. AJ Allmendinger is sponsored by the US Air Force at at total of $1.6 million a year. Then there is JR. The National Guard spends $20 million a year to sponsor Dale Jr. This is a good chuck of money, and it shows that McCollum may be low on her estimate.
Now looking at the Constitution, I see where it is the federal government's job to provide for a common defense. I am not sure a common defense includes putting military logos on a stock car and other racing machines. Further more this continues to prove that Billy Long wasn't fed up with wasteful federal spending like he claimed to be. I love NASCAR, but this is another one of those times the federal government needs to tighten the belt. This was something Long promised, but apparently too many trips to Washington buffets has actually forced him to loosen his belt.
Apparently It's Not Just the Ozark, Missouri School Board Giving Parents the Runaround on IB
Last night, the Ozark, Missouri school board hosted a meeting. They notified the public at the last minute of the meeting, and the meeting was described as "by the IB book" by some who attended. By the IB book means the school board isn't going to answer a lot of questions that challenges the ideas of the IB--which has a globalist agenda. In a time where many parents want more local control of their schools, IB gives some control to an international governing body.
Apparently giving the runaround to parents isn't only practiced at Ozark High School. A parent in Greenwich, Connecticut, with similar concerns as some parents in Ozark filmed her experience at an IB meeting hosted by her local school district, and she too describes she has experienced the same runaround that parents are discovering here in Ozark. I wonder why that is if the International Baccalaureate is all that the Ozark school board says it is?
My experience with Dr. Pace when I have asked questions about IB has been avoidance at first. When I push more questions, he eventually answers with as few words as possible without addressing my concerns. When asked about how the IB's views comply with his Christian views taught at Evangel College, where he holds a degree, Dr. Pace accused me of a character attack without answering my concerns about how the IB teaches against Christianity.
Well, here's the video from the woman in Connecticut. It's not only Ozark where parents are concerned about this globalist agenda Dr. Pace and the school board is trying to spend your tax dollars on in hopes you children will subscribe to this globalist indoctrination.
Apparently giving the runaround to parents isn't only practiced at Ozark High School. A parent in Greenwich, Connecticut, with similar concerns as some parents in Ozark filmed her experience at an IB meeting hosted by her local school district, and she too describes she has experienced the same runaround that parents are discovering here in Ozark. I wonder why that is if the International Baccalaureate is all that the Ozark school board says it is?
My experience with Dr. Pace when I have asked questions about IB has been avoidance at first. When I push more questions, he eventually answers with as few words as possible without addressing my concerns. When asked about how the IB's views comply with his Christian views taught at Evangel College, where he holds a degree, Dr. Pace accused me of a character attack without answering my concerns about how the IB teaches against Christianity.
Well, here's the video from the woman in Connecticut. It's not only Ozark where parents are concerned about this globalist agenda Dr. Pace and the school board is trying to spend your tax dollars on in hopes you children will subscribe to this globalist indoctrination.
Has Billy Long Going to File FEC Charges Against Jack Goodman?
Now considering Long's actions in which his campaign not only filed FEC charges through a Long campaign worker named Andrew Bruner against this blog and a 17 year-old blogger, but also Congressman Long's office obviously gave an enemies list to the FBI, is Long maneuvering to put pressure on Jack Goodman to keep him out of the 2012 Republican primary? Will Long continue looking like a bully by possibly trying to connect Goodman and Miles Ross to Long is Wrong? Of course, Long risks being exposed for possibly being behind the Defeat Nodler site, if in fact Long is playing bully with his political enemies. Just some speculation, but it's interesting none-the-less.
For the record, Jack Goodman would make a great Congressman unlike the current MO-7 representative. I will be willing to testify under oath that Jack Goodman had no knowledge of the inner workings of Long is Wrong. Like I said before, the idea came from one of Long's other opponents.
Nancy Pelosi Edits DNC Praise of Nancy Pelosi Through Her Daughter
The Democratic National Committee decided it was time to honor former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. More proof the Democrats love less than mediocrity, while the Republicans seem to settle for mediocrity these days. The DNC wrote a proclamation of praise towards Pelosi, and a strange thing then happened.
Former Speaker Pelosi decided there wasn't enough praise in the proclamation, so she had it edited and added more praise through her daughter. Isn't that one of the problems in Washington--to many politicians who supposedly represent the people constantly praising themselves? It really is a sign of the times.
From the Politico:
When the DNC's Resolutions Committee brought up a resolution commemorating Pelosi's years as speaker of the House, Pelosi's daughter sought to alter the proposal at her mother's behest, adding some of the accomplishments that the elder Pelosi felt the committee had overlooked.
"I have some friendly amendments," said Christine Pelosi, a political strategist, at the committee's session during the DNC Winter Meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel Thursday afternoon. She is a member of the committee.
"You think I'm kidding," Christine Pelosi added, to surprised laughter from the room. The proposed changes, she indicated, came out of a discussion with her mother.
First, Pelosi wanted to add a mention of her fight against HIV and AIDS, because it was "why she went to Congress." Then, she wanted to insert a paragraph on her "accomplishments for equality," mentioning the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in December.
"Finally, since, as she said, 'I'm not going anywhere,' she wanted to add, in the final 'whereas' clause, '...and will continue the fight for America's working families,'" Christine Pelosi said.
Former Speaker Pelosi decided there wasn't enough praise in the proclamation, so she had it edited and added more praise through her daughter. Isn't that one of the problems in Washington--to many politicians who supposedly represent the people constantly praising themselves? It really is a sign of the times.
From the Politico:
When the DNC's Resolutions Committee brought up a resolution commemorating Pelosi's years as speaker of the House, Pelosi's daughter sought to alter the proposal at her mother's behest, adding some of the accomplishments that the elder Pelosi felt the committee had overlooked.
"I have some friendly amendments," said Christine Pelosi, a political strategist, at the committee's session during the DNC Winter Meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel Thursday afternoon. She is a member of the committee.
"You think I'm kidding," Christine Pelosi added, to surprised laughter from the room. The proposed changes, she indicated, came out of a discussion with her mother.
First, Pelosi wanted to add a mention of her fight against HIV and AIDS, because it was "why she went to Congress." Then, she wanted to insert a paragraph on her "accomplishments for equality," mentioning the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in December.
"Finally, since, as she said, 'I'm not going anywhere,' she wanted to add, in the final 'whereas' clause, '...and will continue the fight for America's working families,'" Christine Pelosi said.
On the Other Hand Charlie Sheen is Right about the TSA, "Gestapo-like Force"
While Charlie Sheen's name calling of Thomas Jefferson is unforgivable, considering Jefferson's greatness and putting his life on the line to declare Independence, Sheen was right about one thing in his interview with Alex Jones yesterday. The interview caused CBS to stop production of Two and a Half Men indefinitely.
Sheen directed some of his anger at the TSA, specifically the incident where a 9-year-old was patted down by the TSA after getting off a train.
Sheen offered a warning to the TSA thugs. “Touch my children and I would eat your hands off your frikkin’ arms.”
He went on to call the TSA a Gestapo-like occupying force, stating “Anyone who wants to ignore it deserves to have their privates fondled by some clown who worked at Wal-Mart seven minutes before that….losers and clowns and trolls all of them.”
“Touch my children and I would eat your hands off your frikkin’ arms,” Sheen raged.
Of course Sheen isn't the only one angry with the TSA placing their hands all over the young child's body simply for getting off a train, which the kid proved he was no threat. Gizmodo writes:
“Indeed, this doesn’t make sense at all. Why search people after the train trip? What’s the logic here? Did the TSA got an alert that dangerous 9-year-old terrorists were coming in a train to Savannah? Perhaps it was TSA Surprise Training Time? Or maybe it was TSA Let’s Piss Off People Day again?” asks Gizmodo’s Jesus Diaz.
Sheen directed some of his anger at the TSA, specifically the incident where a 9-year-old was patted down by the TSA after getting off a train.
Sheen offered a warning to the TSA thugs. “Touch my children and I would eat your hands off your frikkin’ arms.”
He went on to call the TSA a Gestapo-like occupying force, stating “Anyone who wants to ignore it deserves to have their privates fondled by some clown who worked at Wal-Mart seven minutes before that….losers and clowns and trolls all of them.”
“Touch my children and I would eat your hands off your frikkin’ arms,” Sheen raged.
Of course Sheen isn't the only one angry with the TSA placing their hands all over the young child's body simply for getting off a train, which the kid proved he was no threat. Gizmodo writes:
“Indeed, this doesn’t make sense at all. Why search people after the train trip? What’s the logic here? Did the TSA got an alert that dangerous 9-year-old terrorists were coming in a train to Savannah? Perhaps it was TSA Surprise Training Time? Or maybe it was TSA Let’s Piss Off People Day again?” asks Gizmodo’s Jesus Diaz.
GM's Stock is Now Falling as Oil Prices Go Up: Truck and SUV Sales Will be Affected by Rising Oil Costs
Remember the summer of 2008? General Motors most profitable vehicles (truck and SUVs) sat on dealership lots. Why? Because nobody wanted to fill them up with gasoline at $4 plus a gallon. This of course put General Motors in the position where it needed a bailout the following year, a bailout it still hasn't paid back and probably will never pay back.
Well, the summer of 2011 isn't going to be kind for GM if 2008 is an indication. Hints at that are beginning to show as oil has taken a a sharp rise in recent weeks.
(Bloomberg) -- General Motors Co. fell to the lowest since its initial public offering in November as rising oil prices dimmed the outlook for truck sales after the largest U.S. automaker’s most profitable year since 1999.
GM slid $1.57, or 4.5 percent, to $33.02 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares earlier fell as low as $32.05, less than the $33 initial offering price in November.
Now remember, this stock price is critical to the American taxpayer. It is the hope the stock will rise that gives taxpayers any hope of recovering any of the rest of the bailout money.
Well, the summer of 2011 isn't going to be kind for GM if 2008 is an indication. Hints at that are beginning to show as oil has taken a a sharp rise in recent weeks.
(Bloomberg) -- General Motors Co. fell to the lowest since its initial public offering in November as rising oil prices dimmed the outlook for truck sales after the largest U.S. automaker’s most profitable year since 1999.
GM slid $1.57, or 4.5 percent, to $33.02 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares earlier fell as low as $32.05, less than the $33 initial offering price in November.
Now remember, this stock price is critical to the American taxpayer. It is the hope the stock will rise that gives taxpayers any hope of recovering any of the rest of the bailout money.
CBS Cancels Two and Half Men after Charlie Sheen Calls Thomas Jefferson a "Pussy"
Does it get any worse than Charlie Sheen? Well maybe Sean Penn. During a radio interview yesterday on the Alex Jones show, Sheen claimed he was completely clean and then began his rants. Now I don't mind him attacking CBS, which he called the producer of his show Two and a Half Men, a turd, but then went on to call Thomas Jefferson, who put his own life on the line to challenge King George to declare independence from England, a "pussy."
Please tell me what greatness Sheen has excelled to (other than possibly passing a pee test) to insult Thomas Jefferson and his accomplishments?
So Two and Half Men has been canceled for the rest of the season and may not return, and I say good riddance. I liked the show, but his insult to Thomas Jefferson is unacceptable considering Sheen's erratic lifestyle inside the hospital for help and back again, not to mention his behavior towards women.
Please tell me what greatness Sheen has excelled to (other than possibly passing a pee test) to insult Thomas Jefferson and his accomplishments?
So Two and Half Men has been canceled for the rest of the season and may not return, and I say good riddance. I liked the show, but his insult to Thomas Jefferson is unacceptable considering Sheen's erratic lifestyle inside the hospital for help and back again, not to mention his behavior towards women.
Democratic Union Rhetoric: "Get a Little Bloody", Representative Michael Capuano
Wasn't it just last month Democrats began attacking Sarah Palin for some harmless cross hairs on a map? Get this, one Democrat is encouraging unions like in Wisconsin to get out on the streets and "get a little bloody." Obviously, unless these union protesters are falling down and banging up their knees, the only other way to get bloody is through violence.
Representative Michael Capuano gave the violent rallying call at union meeting in Boston.
“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going,” Capuano said, according to the Statehouse News. “Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”
Of course, Democrats have a long history of promoting violence with unions. Remember the town hall meeting near St. Louis Russ Carnahan (D-MO) held as his SEIU union thugs "got a little bloody."
Of course, Sarah Palin is really the problem here. It's not the words of Democrats and the union thug friends. It's just some harmless little spots on the maps, and this behavior from Democrats and unions are perfectly acceptable. Right?
Representative Michael Capuano gave the violent rallying call at union meeting in Boston.
“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going,” Capuano said, according to the Statehouse News. “Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”
Of course, Democrats have a long history of promoting violence with unions. Remember the town hall meeting near St. Louis Russ Carnahan (D-MO) held as his SEIU union thugs "got a little bloody."
Of course, Sarah Palin is really the problem here. It's not the words of Democrats and the union thug friends. It's just some harmless little spots on the maps, and this behavior from Democrats and unions are perfectly acceptable. Right?
Freddie Mac to Soon Hand Over $1.7 Billion Loss to American Tax Payers
Here's another example of something the Republicans could have cut in their meager $100 billion in budget cuts that shrunk to $61 billion. Why are tax payers still subsidizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? As the Republicans failed to reach their $100 billion in promised spending cuts, this is another program that could have gotten them closer to their goals. Yet, I have heard nothing said about ending these disastrous programs that continue to cost taxpayers.
The AP reports today that Freddie Mac lost $1.7 billion last quarter. (Wanna bet someone is getting a bonus there anyway?) Oh, but you the American taxpayer will soon be bailing them out meaning Freedie Mac didn't lose the money, the American taxpayer lost the money. All in all, Freddie Mac lost nearly $20 billion in 2010. Why are Republicans keeping the life support on this failure? You promised $100 billion in cuts, start cutting? Are you listening Congressman Billy Long, or does your real estate company that I have seen no evidence of you selling benefit too much from these programs?
Freddie Mac is asking for federal aid--a bailout if you will. They are currently asking for $600 million to help get them through. Like I said, this has been transferred to your debt, and the Republicans who went to Washington to put a stop to this don't appear to interested in stopping much these days.
As the federal government prepares to give this money to Freddie, Freddie doesn't paint a picture that gives me hope they are good to pay the money back.
The company said the recovery of the housing market is still fragile.
"As we begin 2011, the housing recovering remains vulnerable to high levels of unemployment, delinquencies and foreclosures," Chief Executive Charles Haldeman said in a statement. "We expect national home prices to decline this year as housing will continue to take some time to recover."
Let me ask you a question. Gas prices are rising and may hit $5 a gallon by Memorial Day weekend. This means energy costs for homes are going to rise too. It also means more of your income will be directed in other directions, which raises the question, how is the housing market going to recover in these tough times with so much uncertainty. Obviously, our federal government doesn't think this way, and they are probably trying to figure out where to send the check right now.
The AP reports today that Freddie Mac lost $1.7 billion last quarter. (Wanna bet someone is getting a bonus there anyway?) Oh, but you the American taxpayer will soon be bailing them out meaning Freedie Mac didn't lose the money, the American taxpayer lost the money. All in all, Freddie Mac lost nearly $20 billion in 2010. Why are Republicans keeping the life support on this failure? You promised $100 billion in cuts, start cutting? Are you listening Congressman Billy Long, or does your real estate company that I have seen no evidence of you selling benefit too much from these programs?
Freddie Mac is asking for federal aid--a bailout if you will. They are currently asking for $600 million to help get them through. Like I said, this has been transferred to your debt, and the Republicans who went to Washington to put a stop to this don't appear to interested in stopping much these days.
As the federal government prepares to give this money to Freddie, Freddie doesn't paint a picture that gives me hope they are good to pay the money back.
The company said the recovery of the housing market is still fragile.
"As we begin 2011, the housing recovering remains vulnerable to high levels of unemployment, delinquencies and foreclosures," Chief Executive Charles Haldeman said in a statement. "We expect national home prices to decline this year as housing will continue to take some time to recover."
Let me ask you a question. Gas prices are rising and may hit $5 a gallon by Memorial Day weekend. This means energy costs for homes are going to rise too. It also means more of your income will be directed in other directions, which raises the question, how is the housing market going to recover in these tough times with so much uncertainty. Obviously, our federal government doesn't think this way, and they are probably trying to figure out where to send the check right now.
Shut the Government Down Please!: Windmills and Green Energy Could Be Big Victims in Government Shut Down
This next story is a real shame. It appears the real victims of a coming government shut down may be windmills and the amoebas the government continues wasting your tax dollars on believing they are the next black gold. The Politico Reports today the Department of Energy, and especially their green energy initiatives will be the hardest hit if the government shuts down.
I say shut it down. Do it today! Windmills and amoebas are a waste of taxpayer dollars, so why are the Republicans delaying--which if you didn't read yesterday, John Boehner has a plan to keep it going. Oh brother!
Despite the Obama administration’s efforts to recast the image of the Energy Department with a focus on clean energy and technology deployment, a government shutdown would temporarily drain the agency of everything but its national security operations.
I'm curious, why the Republicans didn't cut these programs in their incredible shrinking $100 billion in meager budget cuts promise to begin with? For how many years have we heard Republicans promise to end this useless bureaucracy, and it never gets done. Perhaps, a government shut down is the way to get things done in Washington. Just put a sign on the door saying closed, and please leave it there permanently.
I say shut it down. Do it today! Windmills and amoebas are a waste of taxpayer dollars, so why are the Republicans delaying--which if you didn't read yesterday, John Boehner has a plan to keep it going. Oh brother!
Despite the Obama administration’s efforts to recast the image of the Energy Department with a focus on clean energy and technology deployment, a government shutdown would temporarily drain the agency of everything but its national security operations.
I'm curious, why the Republicans didn't cut these programs in their incredible shrinking $100 billion in meager budget cuts promise to begin with? For how many years have we heard Republicans promise to end this useless bureaucracy, and it never gets done. Perhaps, a government shut down is the way to get things done in Washington. Just put a sign on the door saying closed, and please leave it there permanently.
TSA Harasses 9 Year Old Train Passenger Getting Off the Train: TSA Groping After Deboarding
I thought the TSA was supposed to protect us during pre-boarding--AT AIRPORTS. Check out the video from Savannah, Georgia's train station, in which a 9-year old and another kid get the TSA pat down (or love pats if you are Senator Claire Mama Caskill) after getting off the train.
The passenger filming the video explains the incident:
The only bad thing on our trip was [the] TSA at the Savannah train station. There were about 14 agents pulling people inside the building and coralling everyone in a roped area after you got off the train. This made no sense! Poor family in front of us! 9-year old getting patted down and wanded. They groped our people too and were very unprofessional. I am all about security, but when have you ever been harassed and felt up getting off a plane? Shouldn't they be doing that getting on? And they wonder why so many people are mad at them.
So it appears the TSA is preparing for Obama's high-speed rail, which is another strike against riding the train. Why are these people being groped after they get off the train?
Why Constitutionally Billy Long Probably Shouldn't Be Your Congressman: Districts Are Too Big to Represent Effectively
 |
| How can this simple man honestly represent over 700,000 people? |
It appears to me in America these days, who donates the most to a Congressional candidate, whether they live in the district or not, is who gets represented. Then a guy like me who is critical of their Congressman, well let me tell you I have written Long's office three times now and have not received a single reply.
Yesterday's census statistics for released for redistricting should tell you all you need to know. We don't have enough Congressmen in Washington. Therefore, Congressman like Billy Long can put those special people who donated the big bucks to his campaign first while ignoring both of us. This is a problem in Washington.
The numbers show Billy Long represents 721,754 people in Missouri's Seventh District. How could one man go to Washington and even attempt to voice the opinions and concerns of 721,754 people? They can't, and this is a problem that our Republic faces as the average man is left out of the whole legislative process in Washington, DC--they are overlooked for big donors and lobbyists--something Long quickly proved when he got to Washington.
Missouri's Congressional districts throughout the state shows how the average person is being shut out from being represented in Congress. Let's take a look at those numbers:
The 2010 population figures released, by district:
District 1 – 587,069
District 2 – 706,622
District 3 – 625,251
District 4 – 679,375
District 5 – 633,887
District 6 – 693,974
District 7 – 721,754
District 8 – 656,894
District 9 – 684,101
When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they were very specific about the number of people an elected member of the House of Representatives should represent. From Article One Section Three:
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
So the Founding Fathers said that a Representative in Congress should represent no more than 30,000 people. That is manageable and that would keep special interest in check if it were enforced today. However, Congressmen like Billy Long are trying to manage over 20 times that, which means many people are getting shut out of the debate for special interest, lobbyist, and of course major donors. This is a problem, and considering we have 300 million plus people now living the the United States, we should have 10,000 members of Congress--not 435.
I know what you are thinking. How could we fit 10,000 members of Congress into the Capitol building? That's easy. Members of Congress could meet in smaller federal venues based on geographic locations, and propose and vote on legislation. Then based on the outcome of their votes, selected members could then go to Washington to represent these Congressmen presenting their votes to the Speaker. It's really not as hard as it sounds.
Of course the good thing about 10,000 members would be it would be a larger challenge to get things done in Washington, which would help contain big government, since it's easier to pass bills with less people than deal with 10,000 differing opinions. Since the federal government far too many times has stepped outside of the boundaries of the Constitution, this isn't a bad thing.
As long as Congressmen like Billy Long are given the task of representing over 20 times more people than what the Constitution prescribes, they are given a long leash and soon forget about the little guy that was made promises too for those who show up as the big donors on their campaign reports. So for 691,000 Southwest Missourians, Constitutionally, Billy Long probably shouldn't be your Congressman. If Billy Long really believes he is a citizen legislator like he campaigned on, then he should agree with this assessment so more citizens can be active in the process by having more access to their legislator through representation of smaller numbers.
Was Rahm Emanuel's Chicago Election Fraud a Test for Obama 2012?
The national debt has skyrocketed in the past two years. Gas prices may hit $5 a gallon by Memorial Day weekend. Stimulus failed to stop the bleeding as more Americans are unemployed. More Americans are dying in combat in an endless war in Afghanistan. Foreign policy is a bigger joke than ever as the Middle East appears the most unstable its been in my lifetime. This is America under Barack Obama.
The odds are against Obama getting reelected--that is in a fair election. Stories coming out of Chicago from the time Rahm Emanuel suggested he was going to run for mayor also suggest foul play. Erich Mancow Muller commented on the recent Chicago mayor election, and the word fraud came to my mind. Listen to this fascinating interview:
My question is, considering the failure that is the Obama presidency, was Chicago a test run for the 2012 Presidential election? Did the Obama administration ask Emanuel to run for mayor, as they embraced Mayor Richard Daley's brother Bill into the administration, as a test run to pull off the unimaginable in 2012 by hijacking an election? When you hear some of the things Mancow says in the interview, you have to wonder if the Obama administration pulled some strings as suggested and then took notes to see what worked and what didn't. I guess I don't need to remind you about how easily electronic voting machines could be rigged.
Remember the virus that hit Iran's computers that is now believed to have come from the United States. All it would take is an Obama wins virus to infect key electoral states, and the unimaginable could happen.
The odds are against Obama getting reelected--that is in a fair election. Stories coming out of Chicago from the time Rahm Emanuel suggested he was going to run for mayor also suggest foul play. Erich Mancow Muller commented on the recent Chicago mayor election, and the word fraud came to my mind. Listen to this fascinating interview:
My question is, considering the failure that is the Obama presidency, was Chicago a test run for the 2012 Presidential election? Did the Obama administration ask Emanuel to run for mayor, as they embraced Mayor Richard Daley's brother Bill into the administration, as a test run to pull off the unimaginable in 2012 by hijacking an election? When you hear some of the things Mancow says in the interview, you have to wonder if the Obama administration pulled some strings as suggested and then took notes to see what worked and what didn't. I guess I don't need to remind you about how easily electronic voting machines could be rigged.
Remember the virus that hit Iran's computers that is now believed to have come from the United States. All it would take is an Obama wins virus to infect key electoral states, and the unimaginable could happen.
Some Thoughts on the Final Voyage of the Space Shuttle Discovery: Shuttle Program was a Failure in Reducing the Cost to goto Space
A few hours ago, the Space Shuttle Discovery launched for the final time. I have so many memories of the shuttle program, from the first time I saw the shuttle during a special news alert break in, piggybacked on a 747 sometime in the late 1970s, to when the Challenger exploded and my English teacher nearly sent me to the principal's office as if I played a cruel joke when I reported it to my class. There is something that I think Americans should learn about the shuttle program.
The idea of reusing a spacecraft over and over was sold by NASA with the promise of saving taxpayers millions of dollars. NASA failed in meeting its promise, and the shuttle program was costly in more ways than one. The shuttle never met its cost savings, which is often the case when the federal government starts making these promises. In fact, it was much costlier than they ever participated, and its safety record is shaky at best.
I want you to think about that. What other program has the federal government sold us on recently with the promise that it will save taxpayers money. How about Obamacare? Politicians love to sell us on this idea of cost savings, but they rarely happen as politicians often give kickbacks to their buddies back in the districts that ensure the federal government is always paying more than they need be. I suspect, since I don't believe Republicans will repeal Obamacare, and Obama obviously could care less a federal judge called in unconstitutional, that like the promise that was made with the shuttle program, Obamacare too will fail to live up the promises of it saving the taxpayers money. In ten years, providing a Washington politicians hasn't successfully silenced me, I will be writing the blog about another program that was set up with the promise to save tax dollars while comparing it to Obamacare, which obviously didn't.
Just like space exploration should be handed over to the free market to reduce costs, our health care system should be left to the free market and not handed over to the federal government with another promise that will soon be considered broken.
Is Obama Preparing to Attack Libya: Weapons of Mass Destruction Chapter II
Obama on foreign policy has been laughable over the past two years. However, we are getting the point where we can't laugh too much anymore because the situation in the Middle East is growing more intense. With violence now breaking out in Libya, where menace Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has ruled for over 40 years, we now are hearing Gaddafi has been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
The Wall Street Journal Reports today:
The government of Col. Moammar Gadhafi hasn’t destroyed significant stockpiles of mustard gas and other chemical-weapons agents, raising fears in Washington about what could happen to them—and whether they may be used—as Libya slides further into chaos.
Tripoli also maintains control of aging Scud B missiles, U.S. officials said, as well as 1,000 metric tons of uranium yellowcake and vast amounts of conventional weapons that Col. Gadhafi has channeled in the past to militants operating in countries like Sudan and Chad.
Current and former U.S. officials said in interviews that Washington’s counterproliferation operations against Libya over the past decade have scored gains, in particular the dismantling of Tripoli’s nascent nuclear-weapons program and its Scud C missile stockpiles. But the level of instability in Libya, and Col. Gadhafi’s history of brutality, continues to make the U.S. focus on the arms and chemical agents that remain, they said.
Yet, in Obama's speech yesterday, he never mentions the Libyan menace. However, he does use some interesting language that doesn't rule out military action in Libya.
Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people. It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights.
This is not simply a concern of the United States. The entire world is watching, and we will coordinate our assistance and accountability measures with the international community. To that end, Secretary Clinton and I have asked Bill Burns, our Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, to make several stops in Europe and the region to intensify our consultations with allies and partners about the situation in Libya.
I guess the question is will this Wall Street Journal article be used to justify war in Libya, especially considering the vital importance of the free flow of oil.
The Wall Street Journal Reports today:
The government of Col. Moammar Gadhafi hasn’t destroyed significant stockpiles of mustard gas and other chemical-weapons agents, raising fears in Washington about what could happen to them—and whether they may be used—as Libya slides further into chaos.
Tripoli also maintains control of aging Scud B missiles, U.S. officials said, as well as 1,000 metric tons of uranium yellowcake and vast amounts of conventional weapons that Col. Gadhafi has channeled in the past to militants operating in countries like Sudan and Chad.
Current and former U.S. officials said in interviews that Washington’s counterproliferation operations against Libya over the past decade have scored gains, in particular the dismantling of Tripoli’s nascent nuclear-weapons program and its Scud C missile stockpiles. But the level of instability in Libya, and Col. Gadhafi’s history of brutality, continues to make the U.S. focus on the arms and chemical agents that remain, they said.
Yet, in Obama's speech yesterday, he never mentions the Libyan menace. However, he does use some interesting language that doesn't rule out military action in Libya.
Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people. It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights.
This is not simply a concern of the United States. The entire world is watching, and we will coordinate our assistance and accountability measures with the international community. To that end, Secretary Clinton and I have asked Bill Burns, our Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, to make several stops in Europe and the region to intensify our consultations with allies and partners about the situation in Libya.
I guess the question is will this Wall Street Journal article be used to justify war in Libya, especially considering the vital importance of the free flow of oil.
Mancow's Interview With Donald Rumsfeld: "What is Building 7?", Keeping Blago Quiet, and Chicago Election Fraud
Mancow: "No plane hit building 7, why did building 7 come down? What do you tell people?"
Rumsfeld: "What is building 7?" ... "I have no idea. I have never heard that."
Mancow gave his reactions of Rumsfeld's answer over the 9/11 and the World Trade Center building 7. Mancow describes Rumsfeld's answer as a Jedi mind trick, and then goes on to ask what are Republicans thinking by prompting Mitt for Brains Romney as the leader for the GOP presidential primary.
Mancow also describes about the voter fraud in Chicago that pushed Rahm Emanuel into the Chicago mayor's office. This is an interesting interview with Erich Mancow Mueller. Mancow says if Rod Blagojevich talks, the House of Obama falls, and it appears there are some shenanigans going on in Chicago to keep Blago silent.
Gas Prices Up 18 Cents a Gallon in the Last Two Days: $5 a Gallon by Memorial Day
Wasn't it nice to wake up and see how unconcerned Obama is about the economy and the fuel prices that will further destroy it. That's right, Dear Leader was standing up for gay marriage today while Americans have witnessed an increase in gasoline prices unparalleled in our lifetime.
Unparalleled?
That's right. In 2008 when gasoline hit record highs it did so after the summer formulation changes around April 1, however, we aren't even close to the peak driving season, and look were fuel is already at. The news is getting worse.
Some experts who once believed the end of summer gas prices could be as high as $5 a gallon now predict gas prices could hit that amount as early as May. I say count on it.
Kurt Nimmo writes today:
The world’s oil benchmark jumped almost $17 this week and it appears there is no end in sight as the situation in the Middle East heats up.
Saudi Arabia is under pressure to boost output as the prospect of a Libya production cutoff looms.
Oil traders said Saudi talks with Europe signal that the oil kingdom understands that the political crisis in Libya is now an oil supply crisis.
On Thursday, the Italian oil company Eni, the most active company in Libya, said oil production from the North African country has dropped to just a quarter of normal levels.
“You can only expect the price to go up. It is fear of the unknown. The risks are all to the upside,” a senior oil trader told the Financial Times. “Saudi Arabia needs to respond.”
By the end of the week, gasoline prices may rise as much as 40 cents a gallon.
Analytics economist Chris Lafakis put the number even higher. Oil prices have already jumped $12 this week, which means that drivers can “expect gas prices to be 37 cents higher” in the coming days, he told CNN.
The national average price of a gallon of gasoline rose 3.4 cents overnight to $3.228, according to AAA.
Where is Obama? Probably celebrating knowing more of you will soon embrace the idea of high-speed rail to get you to work as our irresponsible government chooses not to lighten restrictions on oil drilling.
Unparalleled?
That's right. In 2008 when gasoline hit record highs it did so after the summer formulation changes around April 1, however, we aren't even close to the peak driving season, and look were fuel is already at. The news is getting worse.
Some experts who once believed the end of summer gas prices could be as high as $5 a gallon now predict gas prices could hit that amount as early as May. I say count on it.
Kurt Nimmo writes today:
The world’s oil benchmark jumped almost $17 this week and it appears there is no end in sight as the situation in the Middle East heats up.
Saudi Arabia is under pressure to boost output as the prospect of a Libya production cutoff looms.
Oil traders said Saudi talks with Europe signal that the oil kingdom understands that the political crisis in Libya is now an oil supply crisis.
On Thursday, the Italian oil company Eni, the most active company in Libya, said oil production from the North African country has dropped to just a quarter of normal levels.
“You can only expect the price to go up. It is fear of the unknown. The risks are all to the upside,” a senior oil trader told the Financial Times. “Saudi Arabia needs to respond.”
By the end of the week, gasoline prices may rise as much as 40 cents a gallon.
Analytics economist Chris Lafakis put the number even higher. Oil prices have already jumped $12 this week, which means that drivers can “expect gas prices to be 37 cents higher” in the coming days, he told CNN.
The national average price of a gallon of gasoline rose 3.4 cents overnight to $3.228, according to AAA.
Where is Obama? Probably celebrating knowing more of you will soon embrace the idea of high-speed rail to get you to work as our irresponsible government chooses not to lighten restrictions on oil drilling.
Rand Paul Calls for an Article V Convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment
The Federal Government doesn't follow our Constitution. This is a fact whether we are talking about the Patriot Act, Obamacare, or whatever other violation of the Constitution you care to list. Those are the two that quickly come to mind in 2011. It is with this said that we should come to realize the Constitution doesn't matter, and therefore, an Article V convention (not a Constitution Convention) that attempts to restore the Republic isn't a threat to the Republic like many who fear the convention.
Many people on the Internet are making the case Rand Paul is 100% wrong for wanting to form Constitutional Convention. This is a lie. Rand Paul is not promoting a Constitutional Convention, he is proposing an Article V convention that would give the states the power to propose Constitutional amendments like the balanced budget amendment.
Those who criticize Rand Paul claim that he is putting our Constitution in jeopardy. I don't even know how you justify this considering both parties right now continue to vote against the Constitution, whether it's Republicans voting for the Patriot Act or Democrats voting to force Americans to engage in commerce with their Obamacare. The Constitution doesn't seem to matter to these people, and it's time for the states to start standing up to the federal government.
Senator Paul has called for an Article V convention. From The Continuing rEVOLution:
The Cincinnati (OH) Enquirer and the Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal reported on January 20 that newly elected U.S. Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul supports calling an Article V convention to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).
The papers' source was a statement by David Williams, president of the Kentucky state Senate and a candidate for governor. Williams said that he intends to introduce a resolution on the subject when the state legislature reconvenes in February. He added that Rand Paul will appear before both the Kentucky Senate's State & Local Government Committee, and the full state Senate, to endorse the resolution.
"Our Founders, in their enduring brilliance, provided the states with a mechanism to amend the Constitution should the U.S. Congress fail to act. Congress has not acted on a Balanced Budget Amendment despite the overwhelming feeling of the American people that it would help put our nation's fiscal house in order. I am grateful that Senator Williams is introducing this resolution and is joining me in fighting to balance the federal budget," Paul was quoted in the statement as saying. (1)
"My view is this amendment is long overdue, and I appreciate Sen. Paul for lending his voice to this effort," Williams added. (2)
"The U.S. Constitution requires Congress to call a convention to consider proposing an amendment if two-thirds of the state legislatures ask for one," explained the Courier-Journal. "An amendment has never been proposed in this fashion." (2)
Article V conventions are so called because they are authorized by Article V of the United States Constitution, which outlined two different methods for proposing constitutional amendments:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" (3)
Like I said, if the federal government proved themselves to be a good steward of the Constitution, then I could see why people are concerned about the Article V convention, but even this new Republican Congress, through their massive support for the Patriot Act, shows they aren't ready to ensure the federal government's power is restricted by the granted powers in the Constitution.
The Federal Amendment Convention would give states, as it should be, the power to enforce that Congress plays be the rules.
Many people on the Internet are making the case Rand Paul is 100% wrong for wanting to form Constitutional Convention. This is a lie. Rand Paul is not promoting a Constitutional Convention, he is proposing an Article V convention that would give the states the power to propose Constitutional amendments like the balanced budget amendment.
Those who criticize Rand Paul claim that he is putting our Constitution in jeopardy. I don't even know how you justify this considering both parties right now continue to vote against the Constitution, whether it's Republicans voting for the Patriot Act or Democrats voting to force Americans to engage in commerce with their Obamacare. The Constitution doesn't seem to matter to these people, and it's time for the states to start standing up to the federal government.
Senator Paul has called for an Article V convention. From The Continuing rEVOLution:
The Cincinnati (OH) Enquirer and the Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal reported on January 20 that newly elected U.S. Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul supports calling an Article V convention to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).
The papers' source was a statement by David Williams, president of the Kentucky state Senate and a candidate for governor. Williams said that he intends to introduce a resolution on the subject when the state legislature reconvenes in February. He added that Rand Paul will appear before both the Kentucky Senate's State & Local Government Committee, and the full state Senate, to endorse the resolution.
"Our Founders, in their enduring brilliance, provided the states with a mechanism to amend the Constitution should the U.S. Congress fail to act. Congress has not acted on a Balanced Budget Amendment despite the overwhelming feeling of the American people that it would help put our nation's fiscal house in order. I am grateful that Senator Williams is introducing this resolution and is joining me in fighting to balance the federal budget," Paul was quoted in the statement as saying. (1)
"My view is this amendment is long overdue, and I appreciate Sen. Paul for lending his voice to this effort," Williams added. (2)
"The U.S. Constitution requires Congress to call a convention to consider proposing an amendment if two-thirds of the state legislatures ask for one," explained the Courier-Journal. "An amendment has never been proposed in this fashion." (2)
Article V conventions are so called because they are authorized by Article V of the United States Constitution, which outlined two different methods for proposing constitutional amendments:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" (3)
Like I said, if the federal government proved themselves to be a good steward of the Constitution, then I could see why people are concerned about the Article V convention, but even this new Republican Congress, through their massive support for the Patriot Act, shows they aren't ready to ensure the federal government's power is restricted by the granted powers in the Constitution.
The Federal Amendment Convention would give states, as it should be, the power to enforce that Congress plays be the rules.
Federal Employees Are Paid Too Much: 6 Out of the Top 10 Richest Counties in USA are Near Washington, DC
These are dire times in the United States as we just hit over $14 trillion in debt. As governors across the United States attempt to get their state budgets under control, we are learning a lot about public service employees and their public service unions. If you want to acquire wealth in the United States, the traditional method of starting a small business and working hard is no longer the key to success, however a government job tied to public service unions appear to be the key.
Get this! Six out of the top most wealthy counties in the United States are a stones throw away from Washington, DC. Do you think it's because of American ingenuity and private sector development? Of course, not, especially when you consider the multiple penalties established by the federal government to take on these endeavors these days. If you want to get rich in America, you have to get into a federal government job.
From the Washington, Examiner:
Loudoun ranks as the richest county in the United States, immediately followed by Fairfax and Howard counties, while Montgomery, traditionally one of the wealthiest, is now 10th.
Forbes magazine ranked eight other Washington-area counties in its list of the nation's 25 wealthiest counties, far more than any other area in the country. The rankings are based on 2008 median household income data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Loudoun's median household income was $110,643, while Fairfax's was $106,785 and Howard's came in at $101,710.
"This is obviously very good news," said David Robertson, executive director of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. "While certainly unemployment is higher than we would like, it is well better than the national average."
Well these average numbers match what we are learning as public service employees salaries have been exposed in recent weeks. As for this being good news? This isn't good news at all. This shows there is clearly an expansion in federal jobs that are taking place--jobs that have a public service union pushing up salaries and benefits at the taxpayers expense. Other communities are slowly becoming slaves as more of their wealth is confiscated to pay for the rise in recent years of federal jobs. I seem to recall a story last year where federal government jobs now outnumber manufacturing jobs in the United States, the same manufacturing jobs that allowed Americans to generate wealth and achieve the American dream.
This unbalanced federal jobs to manufacturing jobs in the United States that drives up the salaries of these neighboring DC counties is going to continue pushing this country into more debt. You can't deny that.
Get this! Six out of the top most wealthy counties in the United States are a stones throw away from Washington, DC. Do you think it's because of American ingenuity and private sector development? Of course, not, especially when you consider the multiple penalties established by the federal government to take on these endeavors these days. If you want to get rich in America, you have to get into a federal government job.
From the Washington, Examiner:
Loudoun ranks as the richest county in the United States, immediately followed by Fairfax and Howard counties, while Montgomery, traditionally one of the wealthiest, is now 10th.
Forbes magazine ranked eight other Washington-area counties in its list of the nation's 25 wealthiest counties, far more than any other area in the country. The rankings are based on 2008 median household income data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Loudoun's median household income was $110,643, while Fairfax's was $106,785 and Howard's came in at $101,710.
"This is obviously very good news," said David Robertson, executive director of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. "While certainly unemployment is higher than we would like, it is well better than the national average."
Well these average numbers match what we are learning as public service employees salaries have been exposed in recent weeks. As for this being good news? This isn't good news at all. This shows there is clearly an expansion in federal jobs that are taking place--jobs that have a public service union pushing up salaries and benefits at the taxpayers expense. Other communities are slowly becoming slaves as more of their wealth is confiscated to pay for the rise in recent years of federal jobs. I seem to recall a story last year where federal government jobs now outnumber manufacturing jobs in the United States, the same manufacturing jobs that allowed Americans to generate wealth and achieve the American dream.
This unbalanced federal jobs to manufacturing jobs in the United States that drives up the salaries of these neighboring DC counties is going to continue pushing this country into more debt. You can't deny that.
Did You Pull Out Your Pocket Constitution Billy Long?: Juvenile Diabetes Requests Federal Funding from Congressman Long
More details are coming out about Billy Long's visit with a Southwest Missouri juvenile diabetes advocacy group. Long tweeted about the meeting without giving much details, and the Springfield News-Leader confirmed he met with the group, which led to some speculation about possible promises from Long to provide federal funding to the group.
Thanks to this organization's blog, we now know they did meet with Congressman Long in hopes to secure federal funding. Here's the blog entry:
Check out another meeting that was recently completed for the New Member Outreach Initiative (NMOI). This meeting highlights how programs like NMOI give JDRF advocates the opportunity to discuss the importance of continuing to federally fund research and technology that will get us to cure! Join the NMOI effort and attend a meeting of your own. It's through interaction like those noted below that allows us to help Members of Congress understand the importance of supporting a cure for diabetes!
Six JDRF advocates braved the wintry weather to meet with Representative Billy Long in his office in Springfield, MO. Tom Eubanks told Representative Long about his son, Matt, whose 20th birthday was Friday, "I don't want to think about how my son will have to deal with it (diabetes) after I'm gone." Jessica Hickok showed off her insulin pump (pod) and impressed Representative Long with the technology that is making diabetes management easier, even though it is not a cure. Diane King told the Representative that children with diabetes have to travel all the way to St. Louis or Columbia (two to three hour drive) because there aren't any pediatric endocrinologists available in the Springfield area. Overall the meeting went with Representative Long well and he is looking forward to connecting with JDRF's Government Relations office in Washington to get more information on issues related to diabetes.
JDRF Advocacy thanks Representative Billy Long for the time he spent with type 1 advocates and his willingness to learn more about issues important to us. Send Representative Long a thank you message on Twitter or Facebook.
Now since they are thanking Congressman Long, one has to suspect that Long wasn't a good steward of your tax dollars as he promised to be with his 'fed up' campaign commercials. It doesn't appear that Congressman Long pulled out his "rode hard and put up wet" pocket Constitution, turned the pages to Article One Section Eight, and state to these six people who braved the weather that he has no Constitutional authority to appropriate his constituents money for charitable organizations. We have a story from early in our Republic's history that reinforces this as James Madison, the father of the Constitution, scolded Congress for their attempts to give federal charity.
In 1794, six years after the ratification of the US Constitution, our Congress already began stretching the limits of their power. Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees who fled from rebellion in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia. James Madison stood up and addressed the Congress. His words powerful--full of Constitutional wisdom, mainly that it's not the job of the federal government to provide welfare or charity.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
That's what Long should have told these people as our country is now over $14 trillion in debt, but considering their appreciation of Long's time and their continued optimism for federal funding, it appears 'fed up' Billy Long didn't have the courage to state to these people not one enumerated power gives him the authority to give them one dime.
Isn't that ironic on the week that Billy Long votes to defund Planned Parenthood, an organization that could make similar arguments about the benefits of federal funding. Long's vote was correct to defund Planned Parenthood, but he should also have left that meeting providing this organization with that same truth he delivered to Planned Parenthood.
A message to the Juvenile Diabetes organization in Springfield:
Billy Long has no Constitutional authority, nor does any Congressman (Article One Section Eight), to provide any federal funding to your cause. Rather than beg for federal tax dollars, considering our $14 trillion debt, you should engage in encouraging charitable hearts to making donations on their own free will.
If Long promised you he would help, he is in clear violation of the United States Constitution, because there is not an enumerated power--even general welfare (see Federalist 41)--that gives him the authority to promise you anything. I am not trying to discount the pain your families have felt from this affliction, but there comes a time when we must realize we can no longer afford the federal government funding charities.
When tax dollars are consumed at a rate from hard working Americans so they can no longer afford to donate generously as the federal government goes bust, then what are you going to do? This is the reality we face, and a million here to this charity and a million there to another charity is only reinforcing this day that is to come where we all become slaves to the national debt. Billy Long says we can't afford Obamacare, well we can't continue to federally fund charities either. This is just a fact of living in the United States these days.
Doodle 4 Google: Google is Collecting Children's Social Security Numbers for Art Contest
Your Social Security number can cause you many problems in America in 2011. Identity theft has become a nightmare for many Americans, and so one should be careful about giving out their federal government ID number. The next story should alarm you.
Google has been asking for the Social Security numbers of children. In a promotion called Doodle 4 Google, one of the requirements for children who submit a doodle is to include your Social Security number.
It turns out that the company sporting the motto "don't be evil" has been asking parents nationwide to disclose their children's personal information, including Social Security Numbers, and recruiting schools to help them do it -- all under the guise of an art contest. It's called, "Doodle-4-Google," a rather catchy, kid-friendly name if I do say so myself. The company is even offering prize money to schools to enlist their help with the promotion. Doesn't it sound like fun? Don't you want your kid to enter too?
What could be wrong with filling out a few entry forms?
A national, commercial database of names and addresses of American children, especially one that includes their dates of birth and SSNs, would be worth many millions to marketing firms and retailers.
Of course, data collection is not the reason Google gives for doing this competition. Their FAQ says it's because "We love to encourage and celebrate the creativity of young people..." etc. If that's so, then why on earth would the contest's original Parent Consent Form ask for the child's city of birth, date of birth and last four digits of the child's SSN? Along with complete contact info of the parents.
You see what Google knows and many parents don't know is that a person's city of birth and year of birth can be used to make a statistical guess about the first five digits of his/her social security number. Then, if you can somehow obtain those last four SSN digits explicitly -- voila, you've unlocked countless troves of personal information from people who didn't even understand that such a disclosure was happening.
This kind of data can be linked with other databases to target advertising. It's worth many times more than what Google will spend on prizes (each State Finalist gets a T-shirt!).
In fairness, we have no evidence that Google will use or sell this information for marketing purposes. For that matter, it's possible they could throw the data away. (Care to guess the odds?) But to be absolutely clear, there's no evidence Google has done anything with this information at all, nefarious or otherwise.
It's also clear that children's social security numbers shouldn't be required for an art contest.
There's a second chapter to this story. Some of the people who tipped me off to it were wondering if the solicitation of children's Social Security Numbers was even legal. And so they sent emails to the Federal Trade Commission, the website InsideGoogle.com and a couple of other places. That email went out on February 17. Twenty-six hours later Google released an updated Parental Consent form without requiring the last four digits of the child's SSN, although the form still inexplicably asks for the child's city of birth.
Google has been asking for the Social Security numbers of children. In a promotion called Doodle 4 Google, one of the requirements for children who submit a doodle is to include your Social Security number.
It turns out that the company sporting the motto "don't be evil" has been asking parents nationwide to disclose their children's personal information, including Social Security Numbers, and recruiting schools to help them do it -- all under the guise of an art contest. It's called, "Doodle-4-Google," a rather catchy, kid-friendly name if I do say so myself. The company is even offering prize money to schools to enlist their help with the promotion. Doesn't it sound like fun? Don't you want your kid to enter too?
What could be wrong with filling out a few entry forms?
A national, commercial database of names and addresses of American children, especially one that includes their dates of birth and SSNs, would be worth many millions to marketing firms and retailers.
Of course, data collection is not the reason Google gives for doing this competition. Their FAQ says it's because "We love to encourage and celebrate the creativity of young people..." etc. If that's so, then why on earth would the contest's original Parent Consent Form ask for the child's city of birth, date of birth and last four digits of the child's SSN? Along with complete contact info of the parents.
You see what Google knows and many parents don't know is that a person's city of birth and year of birth can be used to make a statistical guess about the first five digits of his/her social security number. Then, if you can somehow obtain those last four SSN digits explicitly -- voila, you've unlocked countless troves of personal information from people who didn't even understand that such a disclosure was happening.
This kind of data can be linked with other databases to target advertising. It's worth many times more than what Google will spend on prizes (each State Finalist gets a T-shirt!).
In fairness, we have no evidence that Google will use or sell this information for marketing purposes. For that matter, it's possible they could throw the data away. (Care to guess the odds?) But to be absolutely clear, there's no evidence Google has done anything with this information at all, nefarious or otherwise.
It's also clear that children's social security numbers shouldn't be required for an art contest.
There's a second chapter to this story. Some of the people who tipped me off to it were wondering if the solicitation of children's Social Security Numbers was even legal. And so they sent emails to the Federal Trade Commission, the website InsideGoogle.com and a couple of other places. That email went out on February 17. Twenty-six hours later Google released an updated Parental Consent form without requiring the last four digits of the child's SSN, although the form still inexplicably asks for the child's city of birth.
Obama's Plans for High-Speed Rail Sounds More Like a Simpsons Episode: China's High-Speed Rail System is a Disaster Waiting to Happen
 |
| China's high-speed rail has something in common with Springfield's Monorail. |
The United States has got to outdo the Chinese on high-speed rail, or we are an inferior country according to Obama. So Obama is pushing to spend billions of tax dollars to emulate the Chinese high-speed rail system. Is Obama telling you the truth? Is the high-speed rail system really a superior transportation technology, or is it like most things with the "Made in China" label--JUNK?
A story called "'Judgement Day' Fears for High-Speed Rail Tracks" published in the South China Morning Post fears that China may have cut corners in developing their high-speed rail and the results could be disastrous. Of course, in a country that disposes of female babies based on gender alone, you can't expect a focus on safety to ensure lives are saved in case of an accident, can you?
Construction of the mainland's massive high-speed rail network is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success.
The breakneck speed at which track is being laid means engineers are likely to have to sacrifice quality for quantity on the lines' foundations which could ultimately halve their lifespan.
The problem lies in the use of high-quality fly ash, a fine powder chemically identical to volcanic ash, collected from the chimneys of coal-fired power plants. When mixed with cement and gravel, it can give the tracks' concrete base a lifespan of 100 years.
According to a study by the First Survey and Design Institute of China Railways in 2008, coal-fired power plants on the mainland could produce enough high-quality fly ash for the construction of 100 kilometres of high-speed railway tracks a year.
But more than 1,500 kilometres of track have been laid annually for the past five years. This year 4,500 kilometres of track will be laid with the completion of the world's longest high-speed railway line, between Beijing and Shanghai. Fly ash required for that 1,318-kilometre line would be more than that produced by all the coal-fired power plants in the world.
Enter low-quality fly ash.
Professor Wang Lan , lead scientist at the Cement and New Building Materials Research Institute under the China Building Materials Academy, said that given poor quality control on the mainland, the use of low-quality fly ash, and other low-grade construction materials, was "almost inevitable" in high-speed railway construction.
And that could have fatal consequences, Wang said. With a catalytic function almost opposite to that of good fly ash, the bad fly ash could significantly weaken railway line foundations and shorten a railway's lifespan by about half. That would mean China's high-speed rail tracks would last only 50 years.
Zhu Ming - a researcher at Southwest Jiaotoing University's School of Civil Engineering who experimented with fly ash at a Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway construction site last year - was even more pessimistic.
The use of low-quality fly ash would threaten the safety of rail passengers and "judgment day" might come sooner than expected, Zhu said.
"Quality problems with Chinese high-speed railways will arise in five years," he said. "I'm not talking about small problems, but big problems. Small problems such as occasional cracks and slips that delay trains for hours have already occurred. Big problems that will postpone an entire line for days, if not weeks, will come soon.
"When that happens, the miracle of Chinese high-speed rail will be reduced to dust."
Oh, but this is what Dear Leader Obama wants to give the United States--a miracle reduced to dust.
It's not like this news is limited to China. The New York Times is reporting on the coming disaster that is China's high-speed rail.
In his seven years as chief of the Chinese Railways Ministry, Liu Zhijun built a commercial and political colossus that spanned continents and elevated the lowly train to a national symbol of pride and technological prowess.
His abrupt sacking by the Communist Party is casting that empire in a decidedly different light, raising doubts not only about Mr. Liu’s stewardship and the corruption that dogs China’s vast public-works projects, but also, perhaps, the safety, financial soundness and long-term viability of a rail system that has captured the world’s attention.
Mr. Liu, 58, was fired Saturday and is being investigated by the party’s disciplinary committee for “severe violations of discipline,” a euphemism for corruption. His high government rank — minister-level officials are rarely fired under such a cloud — hints at far deeper dissatisfaction with one of China’s most publicized and sweeping domestic initiatives.
Until last week, Mr. Liu had led China’s program to lace the nation with nearly 8,100 miles of high-speed rail lines and to build more than 11,000 miles of traditional railroad lines. The sheer size and cost of the endeavor — the investment has been estimated at $750 billion, some $395 billion for high-speed rail alone — has led experts to compare it to the transcontinental railroad that opened the American West.
President Obama hailed China’s program in his State of the Union address and called for the United States to move quickly on high-speed rail plans that had been repeatedly delayed by budget concerns and political infighting.
There are some clues in top officials’ public statements since the scandal broke. Speaking on Monday in Beijing, the official who is believed to be the country’s new railways chief, Sheng Guangzu, said the ministry would “place quality and safety at the center of construction projects.” For good measure, he added that safety was his highest priority.
The statement underscored concerns in some quarters that Mr. Liu cut corners in his all-out push to extend the rail system and to keep the project on schedule and within its budget. No accidents have been reported on the high-speed rail network, but reports suggest that construction quality may at times have been shoddy.
Analysts have warned that the construction schedule ordered by Mr. Liu threatens to push the ministry’s debt — already $170 billion last fall — to an unsustainable level.
A 2010 analysis by China Minsheng Bank, reported this week by Caijing, found that the ministry’s debts equaled 56 percent of its assets and could reach $455 billion, or 70 percent of its assets, by 2020. In his last months on the job, Mr. Liu had begun an aggressive program to deal with the debt by selling stakes in the railway to investors like large state-controlled banks.
The Minsheng report suggested that the high-speed network may remain a money-loser for the next 20 years, despite heavy use. Ticket prices — several times those for a conventional train — have led to a backlash among some Chinese.
The timing of Mr. Liu’s dismissal may be significant: He was fired at the end of China’s Lunar New Year holiday, when trains are jammed, tickets are scalped at exorbitant prices and passengers are angriest.
The Communist Party has long worried that corruption may undermine its credibility with the public. But outside analysts agree that high-level officials are seldom sacked for corruption alone, in part because kickbacks, favoritism and other below-board activities are so common.
Russell Leigh Moses, a scholar of the Chinese leadership, said that Mr. Liu’s dismissal could signal disquiet over whether expansion of the rail system had gone too far, too fast.
“You don’t take someone down at that level of status unless they’ve done something really egregious,” said Mr. Moses, who works in Beijing. “I don’t know whether it’s politics or policy. But I wouldn’t rule out the second.”
Yet, Obama will continue to push for high-speed rail in America even knowing the financial disaster it is in China. Obama is starting to remind me of an episode of the Simpsons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
