I’ve been a fan of natural gas for sometime, but read this article recently on the Amrican thinker and had to share it with the red staters: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/cheap_natural_gas_heralds_an_energy_revolution.html; and it is now obvious to me that the US’s use of natural gas will be the decider in making putting the US atop the energy world for decades.

 You are free to read the article, but here are just a few things that popped out to me:

 1.  It will be cheaper than coal at some point – “Consider the history of natural gas prices just in the last few years.  In mid-2008, the spot price (at Henry Hub) reached a peak of $13 per mcf (1,000 cubic feet, with a heat value of 1 million Btu — denoted as 1 MMBTU) — having doubled since mid-2007.  Since then, the price has decreased sharply, dipping to $2 in mid-March, and it now stands at $2.30.  If prices decline further, natural gas will be cheaper than the average steam coal, which up until now has been the lowest-cost fuel on a heat basis.”

 2. It could make coal and nuclear energy 2^nd class – “With the pipeline problem solved (at least in the Lower 48), consider the consequences of having huge quantities of cheap gas available.  It will make new coal-fired power plants uneconomic, but it will also make new nuclear plants uneconomic.”

 3. It is better for the environment – “  On a BTU basis, gas emits about half as much CO₂ as coal”

 4. It could be more efficient than coal or nuclear – “”Combined-cycle” gas power plants can reach efficiencies of 60% or more, compared to heat efficiencies of nuclear power plants of 35% or coal plants of 40%.”

 5. It can be used at a local basis. – “, a large apartment building of 1,000 units could use its own 10-megawatt power plant.  But once installed, it becomes possible to consider co-generation, with the waste heat used for space heating, air-conditioning, hot water, laundry, and other process-heat applications — and even desalination.  One can imagine energy efficiencies of as much as 80%, more than double what is achieved today.  It would also simplify the problem of waste-heat disposal.”

 6. It will make the US and not terrorist countries a peaceful alternative fore worldwide energy needs – “For example, Japan now depends on imported LNG (at $15 per MMBTU) for electricity generation; the U.S. is getting ready to export LNG, at much lower cost.”

 Add all that up and you want to bang your head on the desk for the US not going all out on natural gas production today. 

Just a little review for those who may have forgotten, but in the 2010 SOTU speech, Obama called out the supreme court during the speech for a decision that “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.”

Now, the counter or courts argument for being right, from here: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/28/the-truth-about-president-obama-and-citizens-united/ was that, “Court overturned a federal ban on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, and in so doing, it rejected the proposition that the government can decide who gets to speak and can ban some from speaking at all.”

Now, I’m not a constitutional scholar like Obama and he’s never wrong; so it may be that the supreme court has seen the error of its ways and will do what Obama says from here on; but considering two things; it may be even more likely obamacare goes down.

One:

No one likes being told they are wrong and Obama did that to a court that voted 8-1 on that decision.

Two:

That decision, IMO; was a vote that limited the powers of government, and so is obamacare.

So, it may be that some justices are holding a grude and/or see this as another decision to restrict the overreach of government that has been happening since obama got in, at the minimum.

Just spreading the word that we may get a reversal for many reasons.

I came across this site last week: EconJournalWatch – http://econjwatch.org/ at: http://econjwatch.org/articles/some-possible-consequences-of-a-us-government-default

 I put the excerpt supporting my subject title below, but you can read it or the article if you wish, but basically what happened is after the building of the Erie canal was such a success, a big splurge of canals were built and financed by the states which coincided with a fanancial panic which followed a recovery, followed  a second financial panic(starting to sound familiar) in which 8 states defaulted temporiarily or outright.

Interestingly enough, afterward; the states rewrote their constitions to be more financially responsible and things like publicly financed canals took on a decidely private turn.

Now, it looks like many states and DC have yet to learn that which they need to and its quite likely we have to live through another recession while they learn it , but considering we’re in the information age now and the US has learned this lesson before and gotten their financial house in order; I’m a little optimistic that the US will do it again in the next few years.

 From the article:

“After the War of 1812, New York State began construction of a canal

connecting the Hudson River with the Great Lakes. The Erie Canal, completed

in 1825, was one of those rare instances where a socialist enterprise actually made

a good profit; it encouraged other states to emulate New York. An orgy of canal

building resulted. Usually, state governments owned and operated these new

canals. In those few instances where the canals were privately owned, the states

contributed the largest share of the financing. By 1840, the canal boom had blessed

the United States with 3,326 miles of canals at an expense of $125 million, a large

sum in those days. Virtually all the new canals were a waste of resources and did not

deliver the hoped-for monetary returns. Instead the heavy state investments, when

added to budget growth stimulated by the War of 1812, led to massive borrowing

Then in May of 1837 a major financial panic engulfed the country’s 800

banks, forcing all but six to cease redeeming their banknotes and deposits for

gold or silver coins. The panic brought on a sharp depression that was quickly

over (McGrane 1924; Rezneck 1935). Amazingly, after recovery, the outstanding

indebtedness of states nearly doubled, with a third of that invested in statechartered

banks in the Midwest and South (Wallis, Sylla, and Grinath 2004). By the

end of 1839, a second bank suspension spread to half the country’s banks. Over

the next four years nearly a quarter of state banks failed, the country’s money stock

(M2) declined by one-third, and prices plummeted 42 percent (Hummel 1999;

Temin 1969). The state governments faced financial stringency, and during the

deflation of 1839-1943 many became desperate. By 1844, $60 million worth of state

improvement bonds were in default. Four states—Louisiana, Arkansas, Michigan,

and Mississippi—as well as the territory of Florida repudiated debts outright, while

four others—Maryland, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Indiana—defaulted

temporarily. New York and Ohio escaped similar straits only by taking

extraordinary measures (Ratchford 1941; Wallis 2002).

Rather than having disastrous long-run effects, this combination of default

and repudiation generated a widening circle of benefits. To begin with, it prompted

state governments to make major fiscal reforms. As John Joseph Wallis (2001,

1) reports: “Beginning with New York in 1846, almost two-thirds of the states

wrote new constitutions in the next ten years. The constitutions restricted state

investment in private corporations; limited or banned incorporation by special

legislative act; created general incorporation laws for all types of business; altered

the way state and local governments issued debt; put absolute limits on the amount

of debt governments could issue; and fundamentally changed the structure of the

property tax.” As Thomas J. Sargent asks in his Nobel Prize lecture (2011), how

likely would have been such reforms if the state governments had been bailed out

by the national government, as many in Congress wished to do at the time?

States became wary of investing in internal improvements or anything else.

This ensured that the states left development of the railroad network primarily to

the market. Nearly all the previously state-owned lines were unloaded. Although

the state and especially the local governments continued to subsidize railroads

through some direct investment and in less conspicuous ways, private sources

ended up providing three-quarters of all the capital for American railways prior to

1860 (Fishlow 1972, 496). Indeed, the period after the fiscal crisis was when the

states finally threw off their mercantilist heritage and, for the first time, moved

toward

laissez faire.”

Cain has agreed to a one on one debate with newt saturday for 90 minutes, carrid by c-span. Cain is going to be done for with the soundbytes that come from that.

Now, I like Cain personally, but he doesnt have the background on how DC works, hasn’t thought thru the US’s domestic and international issues or knows what will work best.

If he’s the nominee, obama is going to dispatch him in the first debate just by obama reading his daily reports in the morning.

Newt is the best guy to know how to really reform DC and know how to handle US allies and enemies. it’s going to be great to see him show that Cain’s appeal may be a mile wide, but his analysis is about an inch deep.

I will be looking so forward to Newt showing why he’s the man for the job and Cain is really better suited to be a governor, not president of the United States.

How about a live blog Red State ?

I can smoke cigars, watch Cain get schooled and type at the same time.

http://news.investors.com/Article/590030/201111010854/CSPAN-Herman-Cain-Newt-Gingrich-Lincoln-Douglas-debate-Texas.htm

            I read this article on Saturday, “Would You Accept Clinton Tax Rates If Combined With Gingrich Spending Levels?”; and thought I would pass it around in case any missed it: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/would_you_accept_clinton_tax_r.html

What I saw that I hadn’t heard before and thought I would pass along was this:

“Consider that total Human Resource spending in 1999 — Social Security, Medicare, etc. — was only $1.1 trillion.  Adjusted for inflation, that’s $1.5 trillion today compared to the projected $2.5 trillion for fiscal 2011.”

>>That was the last Gingrich budget. Tells you just how far congress has gone in 10 years.

What I really thought was interesting though was this: “Despite the other obvious factors involved in the ’90s expansion — loose monetary policy early in the decade, the end of the Cold War, and a once in a lifetime technological boom with associated stock bubble — this period also witnessed unusual fiscal restraint in Washington, as total federal spending only grew by 42 percent.

Compare this to the ’80s when outlays rose by 115 percent, which was actually down from 184 percent in the ’70s.  Spending grew by 107 percent in the ’60s, and more recently, 117 percent in the ’00s.

This means federal expenditures during the ’90s increased at the slowest pace in the last five decades.  Putting even a finer point on this, spending in the ’90s grew at less than 1/3 the rate of the average of the other four decades — demonstrating that the four decade mean increase was three times the ’90s.

But there’s more.  The only other decade in the previous century with less spending growth was the ’20s when Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge actually reduced the budget by almost 50 percent while also cutting taxes.”

>>Two points here:

1. Since the 1960’s, there was not one decade other than the nineties were spending did not grow over 100%. Now, you tell me were most people can go decades increasing their spending by over 100% and not have to file for bankruptcy.
2. in the 90’s, spending still grew by 42%. Now, today; even with the unprecedented acceleration of spending(not including defense) since basically 2006; if the people could hold the government to somewhere between 25 to 50% for ten years; you have to like the chances that the US will have a very good period of economic growth.

And one last point from here: “The Clinton administration bragged that it was retiring Treasury securities with its surpluses, yet the data show that despite reporting $559 billion worth of so-called black ink from 1998 to 2001, the total outstanding debt in those years still rose by $394 billion.

That’s right: there was not one year under Clinton that the total outstanding debt declined.  The last time this happened in America was 1957 before most of the current citizenry were born.”

>>So, there has not been one year in over fifty where the US has actually retired any debt. So, it’s really the norm for the US to just keep on raising the debt and not being responsible. I’m giving the republicans a break with their drop in the bucket 38 billion as no one has done a thing in a very long time. By comparison, just imagine what could happen in 10 years under the Ryan budget given what the US did 10 years ago still heaping on more debt, albeit a little less than usual.

 Now, don’t get me wrong BP is at total fault for the spill and deserves some blame for clean up and containment; but BP; nor all oil companies in the gulf put together have the resources or authority to minimize the environmental effects.

Unfortunately, it does seem the White House knew in April the spill might last for a long time and they did ? NOTHING, or as close to nothing as possible. Between the Louisianna’s governor’s requests that were denied or not responded to and the ideas of sucking the oil out of the water via supertankers; the White House sat and sat and sat and will never get the blame they deserve for the environmental, fishing, tourist and other industry impacts.

WTG Obama:

Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, told Obama in late April that the blowout would likely lead to an unprecedented environmental disaster, a senior White House aide told The Daily Beast. Browner warned that capping a well at such depths had never been done before, and that they ought to expect an oil spill that would continue until a relief well was drilled in August, the aide said. (Browner’s office did not immediately reply to a request for comment).

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/04/report-obama-knew-from-the-beginning-that-oil-leak-would-likely-last-months/

 I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned here, but i hadn’t seen it make the main page and it’s time to do that.

YouCut is the republican whip’s new idea to get people involved in proposing House spending cuts. Each week, the whip site will offer several spending cuts and the vote winner will be brought to the House floor the following week for a vote.

Now, I know that every one of them can be shot down by the democrat majority and the GOP does have control over what they put on the site to vote on, but this is a great idea to be trumpeted for at least two reasons:

1. It allows the people to get behind and connect with the GOP better to ensure the GOP will grow in its return to fiscal restraints.

2. It makes the GOP grab a greater foothold into 21 century government. When a person can change bank balances on their phone, it’s about time the people started having an immediate voice on whether the USA drops millions on an earworm museum. If the GOP is going to crack that door open, we should be running through it and never let it be closed again like it has been over the past few years.

Please help spread the word.

http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/

Up on drudge and yahoo today as of 6:30pm Friday night: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100219/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare1

Apparently, they plan on pushing it through. You knew they couldn’t be trusted and they are proving it again.

If you have time during the CPAC watching you will probably do this weekend, PLEASE, PLEASE call, fax and email your representatives, party leaders and white house and let them know your feelings.

If they insist upon using the nuclear option, you/we just might as well go nuclear on the pushback.

 
As you probably know, the president was in tampa touting a high speed train that would go from tampa to Orlando.

 Now, I’m not going to go into where the money, 3.5 billion; would be better spent, spent at all, or if it will even be built.

I’m questioning just what all else obama and the federal government are doing with that 3.5 billion of yours and my money.

Either they have a lot of that money going other places that we will never know, or the mickey mouse train is the current shining example of just how inept the administration is and/or your government is at spending your money.

You see, the train is scheduled to cost 3.5 billion and will go 85 miles:

http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org/

good price ? goodness, I hope not.

There’s currently another high speed train scheduled to be ready to go in june of this year that will go 250 miles and is on schedule to cost 300 million.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100109/157500302.html

that’s right, the Russians are going 3 times the distance from Moscow to Nihzny Novgorod and less than one-tenth the price.

Now, most likely the Russians just modified an existing rail line to be able to handle high speed rail and I’m sure the US is starting from scratch; so their costs are probably much less; but you have to ask yourself just what is so wrong about the US govt that the Russians blow them away on a similar project with 3 times the amount of construction.

Feel free to ponder that those of you who remain convinced the US govt can drive down healthcare costs.

 I know the chances of healthcare making it to the President’s desk anytime, or anytime soon are slim and none and slim is checking flight schedules, but you CANNOT TRUST A DEMOCRAT !

Nelson, Leiberman, Lincoln, etc. all rolled over.

If you have a free minute this week, you might take a break from doing the snoopy dance over Scott Brown, the supreme court campaign finance, “retirements” of democratic senators and congresspeople and record colds running over Al Gore’s southern home state of Tennesse and call or email any democrat and/or weeble-wabble republican and let them know the pressure is still on to right the economy and jobs and if they look at healthcare legislation anytime soon; they can be retired too !

I’m just saying you know the old saying is, “when you least expect it, expect it.” We should be on the driving end of that this week as Obama looks for anything to hang his hat on for the SOTU address.

True cost of Obamacare

I know many things have been written on this, but this write up was very concise for those of you who are open to the facts but do not have time to watch or keep up with every new detail.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_true_cost_of_obamacare.html

Excerpts from the article(emphasis mine):

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 10-year (2010-2019) cost of the House Democrats’ bill at $1.055 trillion. As usual, there is so much budget gimmickry in these estimates as to make them virtually meaningless.

The Democrats are dishonest on so many levels about this health care “reform” that it is almost impossible to untangle all of their lies. Let’s start by clarifying some basic truths.

First, who pays for health care right now? That’s right: the taxpayers, who foot the bill not only for their own health care, but for illegal immigrants, the poor, and seniors as well. (Some seniors continue to pay a premium for Medicare, but it still doesn’t cover all the costs).

Who is feeling the pain of the rapid annual growth in health care costs that Democrats claim they so desperately to want to fix? Right: these same taxpayers.

Some will argue that employers pick up most of the tab. That is true when employers offer health care policies to their employees, but it is an illusion. Businesses must make a profit to remain alive, so every cost they pick up is passed on to the consumer via higher prices. So in reality, we pay.

Others will remind us that actually, employers don’t pay the entire tab – that offering health care benefits is a big plus for employers because they get subsidies from the government. Since health care benefits become part of a “compensation package,” employers actually pay less (thanks to the government subsidy) than they would have to pay the employee otherwise.

True again. Employers don’t pay the full cost of health care benefits; the government subsidizes them. But where does the government get the funds to subsidize employer-provided health care? From taxes or borrowing (which will require more taxes in the future to retire the debt). So who pays? Again, we pay — now or in the future.

One of the primary causes of skyrocketing costs in health care is the low-cost or-no cost care available to low-income groups, including illegal immigrants. This creates an explosion in demand, not to mention immigration — both legal and illegal — by people who wish to take advantage of our low-cost, high-quality services. The government sometimes reimburses doctors and hospitals for the services they provide, but not always. Even when they do, the reimbursement is often and sometimes significantly below cost.

Who pays for all this? We pay! Twice!

We pay the taxes to cover the government reimbursements, and we pay in higher insurance premiums that result from doctors and hospitals trying to recoup their losses by passing them on in higher fees to private insurers. If this is not an option, they go out of business, reducing the availability of health care for everyone.

>>more excerpts:

The bill raises $700 billion in new taxes. That much, you can be sure, is real. In addition to the explicit taxes in the legislation, the 1,990-page House bill imposes all kinds of uncounted taxes on insurers that will dramatically increase private health insurance premiums. This is similar to the Baucus bill, which would cause health insurance premiums to go up for most individuals as much as 199 percent! The true cost of the Baucus bill, when these phony savings and other hidden costs are considered, is at least twice the CBO estimate.

But the biggest fraud of all is that in order to make this program “budget-neutral” — i.e., not add to the deficit on paper over the ten years estimated – tax collections and program cuts begin immediately but the new program itself does not start fully paying out until 2015. So they are covering five years of cost with ten years of tax collections! Going past 2019, the deficit will skyrocket.

This all assumes, of course, that the projections they have produced have some basis in reality. The analysis so far should belie that notion. But it gets much worse. As explained in an earlier article, such projections never include these programs’ huge ripple effects.

First, the market distortions created by such programs require the government to create yet more programs to deal with them, for example, enforcement. Beltway “think-tanks” get involved with all kinds of new ideas, and some of these proposals become law, which creates yet more bureaucracy. Politicians and beneficiaries get together to dream up new fixes and adds.

Second, they do not include the many changes and additions made after the bill becomes law. Such changes invariably and dramatically increase program costs.

Finally, they never account for the explosion in demand created by moral hazard — i.e., the tendency of people to demand more services when the perceived cost is minimal or zero.

For example, Medicare and Medicaid have grown 2,735 percent between 1967, the first year they paid benefits, and 2008, the last full year for which actual data is available, after correcting for inflation. Together Medicare and Medicaid are the largest expenditure in the federal budget. In inflation-adjusted dollars, Medicare paid out a modest $17 billion in its first year of operation. In 2008, that cost rose to $455 billion.

>>I cannot stress enough just how America, job creation, lifestyles, standard of living, medical drugs, procedures and care will change if govt healthcare is mandated and the Democrats are shoving it on the people:

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

>>Senator Reid is buying another Senators vote for 100 million dollars. If this bill was actually good the Mary’s constituents, why is she having to be bought ?

As you know, govt. care is coming; and it is more likely inevitable.

But before you accept it, gladly or not; be sure to tell your wife, girlfriend, mom, daughter, co-worker or any other woman their risk of breast cancer being fatal for them is going up:

 “Yesterday, a federal panel decided that self-exams and some mammograms are no longer necessary for women in their forties and should only be administered every other year for those in their fifties and sixties. Despite being said to reduce cancer deaths by about 15% in women ages 39-59, the federal panel based their decision to change the guidelines because they concluded too much money was spent on “unnecessary tests.”

http://townhall.com/blog/page5

Now, be sure to tell the women this fact:

“Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).”

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649#_ednref1

And these:

“The US survival rate for prostate cancer is 91.9% vs. 57.1% for europe and 83.9% vs. 73% for breast cancer.”

“85% of US women have had a pap test and  84% had a mammogram in the past 2 years  vs. 58% and 63% for the UK.”

Also tell them the fact that in the UK, govt  has already pushed the minimum age of mammograms up, even denying those that do not meet the minimum age flatly on age and pushing family history and other concerns aside.

Also, be sure to tell them that pap smears are also now being considered to only be needed every other year.

For those of you who wish to support every measure to keep your women as healthy as possible, you need to start calling your reps.

For those of you that do not, be sure to tell all the women that you know that you knew this and you did not oppose any of it and favored it. As they say, hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Just thought i’d let you all know that the House GOP is fighting to the end.

I grant you that most likely no one who hasn’t decided about health care already would be flipping over to C-span at 11pm on a friday, but I’d like to give credit to Gohmert and King for being the last ones working and doing the right thing when nobody is watching.

Those are the type of people any employer wants working for them and certainly the representatives conservatives do wish to give their tax money to pay thier salaries.

My goal here is to put out information that might have been missed on the 3 day weekend. Agree or disagree, the following are all actual statements that deserve some statements from the white house, not a resignation at midnight of a 3 day weekend.

From http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html – Thursday, September 3 – one thing. Start watching anywhere; this is from minute 12 on:

Van Jones, “from 1954-1968, you know complete revolution was on the table, uh, for this country and i think this green movement has to pursue those same steps, and stages. Right now we’re saying we want, uh, to move to some kind uh, eco-capitalism where, uh, you know, at least we’re not, you know fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Um, will that be enough ? No, it won’t be enough, we want to go beyond ex-systems of exploitation and oppression altogether but that’s a process, and I think what’s great about uh, the movement that’s beginning to change is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both very pragmatic and very visionary an uh, so the green economy  will start off as a small subset and uh, we’re going to push it and push it and push it um, until it becomes the engine the engine for transforming the whole society.”(emphasis mine)

Now, I am not on the same tree limb that Glenn Beck is that the entire Obama administration is out to transform the entire country, but by his own statements, Van Jones is or was not too long ago.

Despite this, : http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/15/767198/-A-Conversation-with-Valerie-JarrettLiveblog

“JARRETT:. You guys know Van Jones? [Applause. Moderator injects: "This is his house apparently."]
JARRETT: Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House.”

I am still willing to give Obama a break as anyone that watches someone from a distance cannot know every word, thought or detail. It is quite possible that Obama  does not know those ideas and just sees him as a fellow greenie.

That stated, Van Jones is unappointed and unconfirmed by any congressional review and the White House does know about it now. Someone watched every second of Beck’s show.

At the very least, he needed to go; and Obama needs to again disavow someone who advises him.If he does not do that immediately; If  the white house lets Van Jones go gently into the night with no statement’s of a seperation of  ideas and some statement of misreading Van Jones; you at the very least have to wonder what else Beck might be on the right path on and be pretty concerned about it. 

Boehner was supposedly rumored to be reading the entire 300 page cap and trade amendment that was passed at 3am friday.

If he would have done that, the bill probably still passes, but the House GOP has again gone over the top to draw attention to those in the House that are mortgaging the future for political payback in many cases.

Taken further, if Boehner could have had the entire House GOP hold the line on “No”, a complete read would have ignited the GOP throughout the country.

Taken even further, if the democratic leadership would have taken measures to halt it and Boehner and other GOP members kept passing on the reading until every house GOP member was kicked out of the house chamber; the people of America would think the house GOP is someone that was looking out for them again.

That skimming of parts that interested him will garner less news than Savage’s Barry Obama shows.

Please, o’please leader Boehner; do this when the universal health care bill comes around. As you said, the cap and trade bill was not about energy but was about freedom. The people are losing their freedoms fast, please use yours to make a significant statement if given the chance.

That is how you fillibuster and this is what I would have done.

A D-Day vet was interviewed on Fox news today:

http://townhall.com/blog/g/e4d01dd0-ac5c-4b4f-95d9-826622914094

Says today’s group doesn’t appreciate the sacrafices the WW2 generation and vets made and the homefront then and today is totally different and I whole heartedly agree.

If you take time to think what those vets lived thru from D-Day, to Midway, to Iwo Jima; the toughest day you most likely will live through will amount to nothing by comparison.

I remember the line from Saving Private Ryan where Tom Hanks says, paraphrasing; this private Ryan better be worth the sacrafices we’re making to try and save his life, he better do something great for all we’re sacraficing for him.

Very many of us, the world all over; fall very short of what they have done.

The U.S. may forget what U.S. vets have done, i will not.

Don’t know if you caught it, but in Tuedsay’s WSJ, Page A21; they reprinted Obama’s Senate floor speech on why he voted against Roberts and it’s very telling as to why he picked Sotomayor. I have printed some excerpts that I thought were telling:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124390047073474499.html

“The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult.
 
In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.

In those 5% of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled — in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
 
>>and then had these things to say about Roberts:
 
“I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn’t like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’s Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.”
 
>>So, seems to me that Obama is unfortunately consistent in that he is calling on one’s experiences to make rulings in Sotomayor’s case. Looking to apply the law be damned, and further in Roberts case. If Obama perceives you as not in line with his philosophies, you’re just wrong.

If you think that her rulings overturned 60% of the time by the supreme court are reason enough to refuse her, Obama is quite clear he’s looking to decrease the percentage of those rulings being overturned by appointing her as her rulings would be most likely be his.

I need to know what kind of compettion I have. I mean, publicly standing for traditional marriage, her grandfather fought in WW2 and she still lives by his advice today.

She is awesome !

Move over to the side of the road Jennifer Anniston, Carrie Prejean is about to turn your attractiveness into road kill.

Harold Koh. He will be giving Hillary legal advice and Obama is likely to throw him right up the ladder to the big court.

Yes, he leans left; Obama would be going against his own ideas of what a judge should be to not pick him; so the question is are Koh’s ideas and opinions yours; because one day they may be and there will be nothing you can do then to stop it.

Some ideas and quotes from Koh:

He’s an advocate of what he calls “transnational legal process” and argues that the distinction between U.S. and international law should vanish.

Koh believes laws of places like Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka should carry equal weight with the laws of Virginia and South Dakota, and that it’s “appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in the light of foreign and international law” in its decisions.

He also values the opinions of the world’s imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says Koh in 2007 told the Yale Club of Greenwich that “in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why Shariah law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.”

Koh says the Supreme Court is now divided between “nationalist” judges who believe our Constitution is the only one that counts and “transnationalists” who believe “we the people” should be changed to “we are the world.”

Now, all of you who are A-Okay with the past 4 statements; please let us know right here if you have the guts as Koh’s view of America is not what America has been. This would be America by name only.

Yes, Dean of yale law, impressive; but considering his staements and opinions; he’s pretty sad to be heading yale law.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=323391460856338

For those of you who hadn’t had the pleasure, you really should meet Dawn Johnson. This person will be the door for legal policy in the white house, allowing to go in and out what she chooses. Yes, I know it’s hard to meet someone of that stature face to face; but you can often tell who they are by their own words.

So, some statements:

1. “The argument that women who become pregnant have in some sense consented to the pregnancy belies reality…and others who are the inevitable losers in the contraceptive lottery no more ‘consent’ to pregnancy than pedestrians ‘consent’ to being struck by drunk drivers.’” 

 Supreme Court amicus brief she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services2. “The woman is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends. Thus, abortion restrictions ‘reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.’”

Supreme Court amicus brief she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

3. “Statutes that curtail her abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.”

Supreme Court amicus brief she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

4. Pro-life supporters are comparable to the Ku Klux Klan

“The ‘terrorist’ behavior of petitioners is remarkably similar to the conspiracy of violence and intimidation carried out by the Ku Klux Klan…”

-Dawn Johnsen, in a Supreme Court amicus brief she authored in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic

>Now. I know elections have consequences and freely admit the abortion horse is outta the barn and abortion is here to stay in this country. I also freely admit that Obama having a very pro-abortion person of legal counsel should be expected.

I can also hear the howls of those leaning left, saying – Oh, yeah ? well, we had to put up with John Ashcroft’s singing hymns and holding daily prayers; we’re do a little fairness; he certainly did not represent all of America. True, but I’ll take any bet that many, many more would have no issue with those actions or his actions supporting pro-life than the statements by Johnson and her support of partial birth abortion.

These statements are by someone who sees pregnancy and motherhood as a burden and enslavement and assigns no responsibility at all to the high majority of women that get pregnant without considering the consequences of having sex every time before they have sex. This woman is very radical in her words, her actions should follow that in the white house. How far do you let it go, because they’re not stopping at this point in the spectrum.

(Segue: Those railing at Obama now, but on his train before; could have seen his policies coming if they paid attention to his words)