Thursday, September 30, 2010

House of Representatives: Are you smarter than a Fifth Grader?

This may be a bit heavy for some of you folks, however it is a prime example of the feeble grasp the US House of Representatives has on simple economic principles.  This stupid knee-jerk reaction will have the effect of making what we import from overseas more expensive, while at the same time encourge foreign governments to retaliate against exports from the United States.

A classic lose-lose scenario.

The House of Representatives by a wide margin passed legislation to penalize China's foreign-exchange practices, sending a powerful warning to Beijing but risking a response that could harm U.S. companies and consumers.





The measure would allow, but not require, the U.S. to levy tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies, which makes their goods cheaper relative to American products. A majority of Republicans lined up with Democrats to pass the bill on a 348-79 vote, highlighting lawmakers' long-simmering frustration with Chinese trade practices as well as their sensitivity to the faltering U.S. economic recovery with an election looming.The vote marks the strongest trade measure aimed at China to make it through a chamber of Congress after more than a decade of threats by lawmakers. But despite the broad support Wednesday, dim Senate prospects make it unlikely the measure would become law this year.Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesman Yao Jian said Thursday it would be a breach of World Trade Organization rules to conduct antisubsidy investigations based on exchange-rate concerns, according to the official Xinhua news agency. He said China is willing to take joint actions with the U.S. to help balance trade flows between the two countries, but he said China doesn't undervalue its currency to obtain a competitive advantage.





In a rare showing of bi-partisan support, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to support a bill that puts pressure on China to let its currency rise faster.

Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, on Wednesday criticized the House vote for politicizing the issue. He stressed the importance of trade relations between the two countries and urged lawmakers to "refrain from making excuses for practicing trade protectionism against China, so as to avoid further harming the overall China-U.S. economic cooperation and their trade relations."

The Obama administration didn't endorse the measure, nor did it work with House negotiators out of concern for being tagged as secretly approving of the move. Nevertheless, the bill gives the White House another tool to pressure China to boost the value of its currency, the yuan.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has already tried to use the threat of congressional action to press China to let its currency appreciate.

"Today's vote clearly shows lawmakers have serious concerns about this issue," a Treasury spokeswoman said. "The President and Secretary Geithner share those concerns."

The administration also is expected to use multilateral pressure, as European and Asian countries are likely to complain about Chinese currency practices at a Washington meeting of the International Monetary Fund next week, and a summit of the leaders of the Group-of-20 industrialized and developing nations in mid-November in Seoul.

China generally links its currency tightly to the dollar. Many economists have long viewed the rate as undervalued, giving Chinese exporters a big boost competing in the U.S. market and putting pressure on American steelmakers and machine-tool producers, among others. In June 2010, China said it would allow the yuan to float more freely, but it since has gained just 2% against the dollar.


The Obama administration faces election-year pressure to act. China is increasingly coming up in both parties' campaigns, as a sort of shorthand for worrisome foreign influence. In their recently released "Pledge to America," for example, Republicans say the U.S. shouldn't "borrow 41 cents of every dollar we spend, much of it from foreign countries, including China."

Democrats have accused Republicans of abetting outsourcing and the trade deficit. Rep. Mark Schauer, a Michigan Democrat in a tough race, is airing an ad against his GOP opponent that says, "Tim Walberg made it way too easy for companies to outsource our jobs to China. That's wrong. I'm fighting to end outsourcing, and making sure we create jobs here, not China."

Mr. Walberg said the ad misrepresents his position.

The parties' divisions remained on display in their response to Wednesday's vote. "Real action is now being taken in Congress to stand up for American workers and businesses," said House Ways and Means Chairman Sander Levin of Michigan. But GOP Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas warned against "precipitating a trade war at a time when we're in tough economic times."

The move comes at a sensitive time in U.S.-China relations, with clashes over Beijing's territorial claims in the South China Sea and wrangling over a number of trade issues, from glossy paper to tires to chicken.

Under the measure approved Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Commerce would be directed to consider whether Beijing's currency practices amount to an unfair subsidy to Chinese companies in cases brought by their competitors. If Commerce were to make such a finding, it could assess levies on goods imported from China or other countries with undervalued currencies.

Vote: Should the U.S. levy tariffs on imports from countries with undervalued currencies such as China?

But the measure, which was revised in a Ways and Means Committee vote earlier this month, doesn't require Commerce to make such a determination. The change in language, said Scott Lincicome, a trade lawyer at White & Case, gives the administration "a way to say no" to U.S. industries and could signal to China that Washington isn't looking to declare a trade war over currency practices.

China critics in the Senate plan to press for legislation when lawmakers return to Washington after the elections, but that would involve a separate proposal and the window for legislation to move before year-end is expected to be brief.





The House is set to pass legislation that would pressure China to increase the value of its currency and lead to additional duties on goods from that country. John Bussey, Rebecca Blumenstein and Dennis Berman discuss.

If Republicans win control of the House, priorities could change. Even Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee who supported the bill said the U.S. should instead be more aggressive in pursuing alleged Chinese trade violations with the World Trade Organization, rather than taking on Beijing unilaterally. "To those who continue to oppose this bill, I say this: This bill is not on my trade agenda," said Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, the top GOP member of Ways and Means.

Mr. Camp also plans to press for Washington to revive bilateral-investment treaty talks with Beijing. Republicans have also called for the U.S. to move more quickly on new trade pacts.

Even so, the heat will remain on Beijing over trade. Although Chinese officials regularly say they don't act in response to threats of pressure, that hasn't been the case recently. In June, shortly before an earlier G-20 summit, China said it would end its two-year-old practice of tying the yuan tightly to the dollar.

When the yuan's value barely budged, the U.S. dispatched White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers to Beijing in September to warn of political consequences. Since then, the yuan has risen 1.7%, and about 2% overall since the June announcement.

But predicting Beijing's reaction is always difficult. A coalition of three dozen U.S.-based trade associations warned in a letter to Congress that the measure could produce a backlash against U.S. companies. In Beijing, The American Chamber of Commerce in China also opposed such legislation, which it said "puts at risk thousands of existing export-related jobs."

The GOP should swear allegiance to smaller government

The Republican "Pledge to America" is a step in the right direction, but we should never settle for simply better. We always should demand much better. A return to excellence would be nice, wouldn't it?

Compared to the bloated, ineffective, wasteful, expensive, irresponsible and downright enslaving Fedzilla programs the Democrats recently have rammed down our throats and will continue to force on us if re-elected, the Republican pledge surely would move America in a new, positive direction.



What Republicans owe the American people is a hefty dose of plain-speaking, bold pragmatism that clearly articulates the GOP's vision for America. Even I, your humble Motown guitar slayer, remain steadfastly locked on the vision of our Founding Fathers and am prepared to ride to their rescue with the Ted Pledge. My crowbar of logic and truth does not gently weep.

GOP candidates and politicians should self-impose term limits and pledge to serve just two terms in the House or one term in the Senate and then leave Washington for good, never to return. Americans know that professional Fedzillacrats and lobbyists from both sides of the political aisle are the root cause of America's problems; they are not the solution.

Republicans should then call a news conference and burn the federal tax code on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol and then march right back into the Capitol and pass a Fair Tax. Until then, no taxes should be withheld from our paychecks. Americans should have to pay their taxes once a year so that they can see exactly how much of their income is swallowed up by Fedzilla. The GOP should pledge to move April 15, tax day, to the day before national elections in November. I assure you that would guarantee term limits.

The Republican leadership should pledge to implement GOP Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert's proposal to eliminate all federal taxes, including Social Security taxes, from the paychecks of Americans for one year. Mr. Gohmert's proposal would cause the American economy to roar back to life. Let's get bold and creative like Mr. Gohmert.

Republican politicians should pledge never to write or introduce a bill longer than our Constitution, which is roughly 5,000 words. If Congress critters can't write a bill in fewer than 5,000 words, they don't deserve to be in Congress. Period.

Republicans should pledge that they will invite businesspeople and free-market economists to go through each bill in detail and then report to the American public on how the bill will impact the free market before the vote on the bill is taken. The GOP should pledge to convene annually a group of businesspeople and free-market economists to recommend how Fedzilla can be gutted further.

For every new law passed, Republicans should pledge to eliminate 1,000 existing federal laws, regulations and requirements.

The GOP should pledge that it will never introduce, support or pass a law that punishes the producers and rewards bloodsuckers.

Using 2008 budget numbers, Republicans should pledge to reduce the size of Fedzilla by 25 percent during the next four years. Less government is always the best government. Dramatically reducing the size of government will pour gas on the embers of our economy and turn it into an inferno. Economic infernos are good.

The GOP should pledge to immediately stick a dagger in the heart of the death tax and all corporate taxes. This will free up untold trillions of dollars that can be used to get our economy roaring back to life and put Americans back to work.

Republicans should tell young Americans that Social Security is a Fedzilla financial Ponzi scheme and they will not receive a dime when they retire because Fedzillacrats have stolen all the money in the Social Security Trust Fund. The GOP should pledge to young workers that it will introduce legislation that will protect their IRAs and 401(k) investments from taxation when they retire.

The GOP should remind America that more options make for more affordable choices and that the free market has and still can provide this. As such, Obamacare and other Fedzilla programs that can and should be provided and managed by the private sector will be repealed. All federal welfare programs should be eliminated in the next five years. This will breed tough Americans. Tough is good. Soft is weak.

Republicans in name only (RINOs) should be purged from the GOP. RINOs are political punks who cannot be counted on. Get rid of them.

Pledge to Americans the GOP will pass legislation to ensure that federal employees will be paid what their private-sector counterparts earn and not one penny more. Except for the Department of Defense, a federal hiring freeze should be instituted for at least the next 10 years.

Republicans need to tell Americans that we've tried big government and it has been an abject failure. The only people who fail to understand this fundamental truism are power-hungry Fedzillacrats, bloodsuckers, socialists and idiots. They are anti-Americans. Do America a favor and send these punks packing.

Finally, the GOP should remind Americans at every opportunity that freedom is always better than tyranny and that smaller government is always better government.

What say you, GOP?


Ted Nugent is an unstoppable American rock 'n' roll, sporting and political activist icon. He is author of "Ted, White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto" and "God, Guns, & Rock 'N' Roll" (Regnery Publishing).

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Political trumpeting and braying is truly falling upon deaf ears.

Has anyone ever noticed that the symbols of the two major American political parties both have HUGE EARS?

Why is it then that the majority of those associating themselves with either of these groups cannot or will not hear or understand anyt...hing other than that which is spoken in "Their" language?

Similarly, those that refuse to admit or affirm that they sympathize with either Donkeys or Elephants, classify utterances from either as unintelligible babble.

Political trumpeting and braying is truly falling upon deaf ears.

The Jihad Candidate

The Jihad Candidate
 by Rich Carroll
Sept 08

Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not so absurd that it can grasp our attention.

'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'Seven Days in May' are examples of plausible chains of events that capture the reader’s imagination at best-seller level.  'What if' has always been the solid grist of fiction.

Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years.

How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States?

As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota?

The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit?

The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America?

The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'?

Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a 'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya's history.

Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile.

Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barak Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of 'racism'.  Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers.  Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle-east connections and Islamic monies.  Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.

Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as 'bigoted racism'; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts.  Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.

Where is the bloodhound American 'free press' who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case?  Where are our nation's reporters that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones' club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and research work? Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent? Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere' Democrat candidate or that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his 'close pastor friend and mentor' met with Middle East terrorist Moammar Gaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)?  Why isn't the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?

As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history.  Why has the American main stream media clammed-up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama?  Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but never write his middle name?  Is it not his name?  Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from main stream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth?  Why isn't our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on 'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non Muslims daily in 44 countries around the globe?  Why does our media refer to Darfur as 'ethnic cleansing' instead of what it really is; Muslims killing non Muslims!  There is enough strange, anti- American activity surrounding Barak Hussein Obama to peek the curiosity of any reporter.  WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?

A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982.  The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohamed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood.  'The process of settlement' of Muslims in America, Akram explained, 'is a civilization jihad process.'  This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in 'America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'

There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance.   Condoning it is civilization suicide.  Middle East Muslims are coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful.   Where is our investigative press?  Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings-forth a volley of 'racist' from the left-wing Democrat crowd. Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation's White House?  Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic Sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States?  Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to disarm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability?  Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations?

Change for America?   What change - to become another 'nation of Islam'?

What is wrong with the people in this country that they would even think about voting for this guy??   Are they ostriches with their heads in the sand??

Like Democrats, cattle are easily fooled.

For those of you who have never traveled to the West or Southwest, cattle guards are horizontal steel rails placed at fence openings, in dug-out places in the roads adjacent to highways (sometimes across highways), to prevent cattle from crossing. The cattle will not try to cross the guards.




"Virtual" cattle guards are merely painted onto the asphalt.

"Virtual" cattle guard

Like Democrats, cattle are easily fooled.

A few months ago, President Obama received a report that there were over 100,000 cattle guards in Colorado . Because Colorado ranchers had protested his proposed changes in grazing policies, he ordered the Secretary of the Interior to fire half of the guards immediately.

Before the Interior Secretary could respond and presumably straighten him out, Vice-President, Joe Biden intervened with a request that before any guards were fired, they be given six months of retraining.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, added that since these unemployed people were no longer guards, they should have their firearms confiscated.

Of course, I had to do a bit of checking-after all, nobody in their right mind could be so stupid. So I looked at the Snopes web site and found it to be a fake. However, in the interest of fair disclosure-and decent storytelling-I decided to dig even deeper into the story. After assorted e-mails from “unnamed sources outside of the U.S. government” and other nefarious sources, I was able to compose, er, uncover the following:

In the true liberal media style, they got the story all wrong..

* The true story was that Obama wanted to federalize the cattle guards and put them under the Department of Homeland Security, because he considered cattle to be a “national resource”, of at least as much importance as airports and border crossings.
* Currently there is a bill in congress called the “Bovine Protection Act” that would create a branch under Department of Agriculture strictly to deal with bovine security issues. Office of Management and Budget expects this new branch to add over 280 billion dollars annually to the budget and could create another 1 trillion dollars in debt within 3-4 years.
* Department of Revenue is requesting a “head tax” on cattle to pay for this spending, which would raise the price of beef by over 25%.
* This tax would not apply to “free range” cattle, because by their very nature they are unguarded and left to fend for themselves.
* This tax would also not apply to “mad cows”, because they already fall under the direction of the Surgeon General; who administers a program which costs taxpayers $100 billion per year for herd-centered anger management counseling in an attempt to re-integrate these “mad cows” back into society.

Because they knew the public would be outraged at the additional spending in a time of recession, the press spun the story so that President Obama and our senior leadership would simply appear as clueless, instead of being socialist, fiscally irresponsible…and clueless.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

NRA-ILA :: Déjà Vu, All Over Again: "More Guns, Less Crime"

NRA-ILA :: Déjà Vu, All Over Again: "More Guns, Less Crime"

Friday, September 17, 2010


Paul Helmke and Dennis Henigan -- spokesmen for the beleaguered Brady Campaign these days -- are old enough to know what a phonograph record is, so for their benefit we'll put it this way: At the risk of sounding like a "broken record," gun ownership has risen to an all-time high, and violent crime has fallen to a 35-year low. Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases that began shortly before the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, according to the FBI. This included an eight percent decrease in murder and a nine percent decrease in robbery.

Since 1991, when total violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43 percent to a 35-year low. The murder rate, less than half what it was in 1980, is now at a 45-year low. Throughout, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about four million a year, including record numbers of the two types of firearms that the Brady folks would most like to see banned -- handguns and the various firearms they call "assault weapons."

Predictions that increasing the number of guns would cause crime to increase have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance. One of our favorite gems comes from the Brady outfit, when it was known as the National Council to Control Handguns: "There are now 40 million handguns. . . . the number could build to 100 million. . . . the consequences can be terrible to imagine," the group warned in the mid-1970s.

"Terrible consequences" indeed, for gun control supporters. The number of handguns has reached almost 100 million; waiting periods, purchase permits, and prohibitions on carrying firearms for protection have been dismantled in state after state; gun ownership has soared; and violent crime has plummeted.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Enough's enough: Obama has conceded ineligibility

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

By Joseph Farah - World Net Daily

For more than two years now, I have given Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt.

That may be hard to fathom for some because of my admittedly relentless and tireless pursuit of the truth about his origins and his constitutional eligibility for office.

After all, I am the guy who has posted this question on billboards across America: "Where's the birth certificate?"

But I really have given Obama the benefit of the doubt until now. I have asked the questions and directed the investigative reporting that has changed America's political landscape on the eligibility question. WND conducted the first national poll on this subject 15 months ago. Back then, we were shocked that 50 percent of Americans knew there was a controversy about his birth certificate and his eligibility – because WND is the only news organization in the country that pursued the story. Today, the latest polls show 58 percent of Americans don't believe Obama's story and suspect he is not eligible to serve.

That is a big shift in public opinion in a short period of time.

During that time, despite suggestions to the contrary, I never accused Obama of being born elsewhere. I never concluded he is constitutionally ineligible. I avoided speculation on what we might find if Obama ever did willingly and openly release his records as other presidents and presidential candidates have.

However, when Barack Obama insinuated to Brian Williams of NBC that he had done everything he could to quell America's curiosity and doubts about his constitutional eligibility for office – turning his own cover-up into an indictment of the people – I say the time for deference is over.

"I can't spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead," Obama told Williams in an interview on NBC's Nightly News.

With this kind of arrogance after the patience the American people have demonstrated over this matter, I'd say it's time to conclude that he is ineligible for office. He's had plenty of time to provide the evidence to clear himself of this charge, this suspicion, this indictment in the form of overwhelming public opinion.

He has failed to answer the charge. He has failed to enter a plea. He has failed to show up for a hearing. Therefore, I no longer afford him the presumption of innocence.

It's time to recognize what we have serving in the White House today – a pretender, a usurper, an arrogant narcissist who believes it's beneath him to answer the questions of the public and to demonstrate his worthiness for office.

He's like the suspect who refuses to come to court for adjudication. Sooner or later, the judge throws him in jail, recognizing that the presumption of innocence only goes so far.

Many in Washington, who are complicit in Obama's eligibility charade, and the establishment news media, who failed to provide the appropriate journalistic diligence and curiosity to hold Obama accountable, are still wishing, hoping and praying this issue and the public interest in it just fades away.

That isn't going to happen.

And for those who agree with me, it's time to ratchet up the pressure.

Let's just agree that Obama's indifference to calls from the public for transparency and honesty strongly suggests he has something to hide. Since he is a public servant sworn to uphold the Constitution, it is long past time for him to come clean, lay his cards on the table and prove his eligibility. We've given him that opportunity, and he has insulted those of us who now represent an overwhelming majority by political standards. Instead, he dishonestly plays the victim role, pretending he has done everything he can reasonably do to settle the matter.

So, right here and now, I declare the president ineligible by default. Maybe he can prove I'm wrong. Maybe he can't. But the people cannot be expected to prove a negative.

I feel confident we'll soon learn the truth.

    * What percentage of the public would have to express doubts about Obama's eligibility before it became a real story to the news media?

    * What percentage of the public would have to express doubts about Obama's eligibility before he would condescend to providing the most basic evidence required for evaluation?

    * What percentage of the public would have to express doubts about Obama's eligibility before controlling legal authorities at the state and federal level take appropriate actions to hold him accountable and to ensure America never faces another problem like this in the future?

Personally, I think we're very close to reaching the critical mass that will bring this issue to a head.

Monday, September 13, 2010

How Obama Thinks

Forbes.com


On The Cover/Top Stories
How Obama Thinks

by Dinesh D'Souza, 
Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama's approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.

The President's actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike.

Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling." Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling--but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro--not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.
More strange behavior: Obama's June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans "consume more than 20% of the world's oil but have less than 2% of the world's resources." Obama railed on about "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels." What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world's resources?
The oddities go on and on. Obama's Administration has declared that even banks that want to repay their bailout money may be refused permission to do so. Only after the Obama team cleared a bank through the Fed's "stress test" was it eligible to give taxpayers their money back. Even then, declared Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the Administration might force banks to keep the money.
The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little. The unemployment rate when Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%; now it is 9.5%. Yet he wants to spend even more and is determined to foist the entire bill on Americans making $250,000 a year or more. The rich, Obama insists, aren't paying their "fair share." This by itself seems odd given that the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes; the next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing. This does indeed seem unfair--to the rich.
Obama's foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama's rationale, that "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable," seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.
Recently the London Times reported that the Obama Administration supported the conditional release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber convicted in connection with the deaths of 270 people, mostly Americans. This was an eye-opener because when Scotland released Megrahi from prison and sent him home to Libya in August 2009, the Obama Administration publicly and appropriately complained. The Times, however, obtained a letter the Obama Administration sent to Scotland a week before the event in which it said that releasing Megrahi on "compassionate grounds" was acceptable as long as he was kept in Scotland and would be "far preferable" to sending him back to Libya. Scottish officials interpreted this to mean that U.S. objections to Megrahi's release were "half-hearted." They released him to his home country, where he lives today as a free man.
One more anomaly: A few months ago nasa Chief Charles Bolden announced that from now on the primary mission of America's space agency would be to improve relations with the Muslim world. Come again? Bolden said he got the word directly from the President. "He wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering." Bolden added that the International Space Station was a model for nasa's future, since it was not just a U.S. operation but included the Russians and the Chinese. Obama's redirection of the agency caused consternation among former astronauts like Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, and even among the President's supporters: Most people think of nasa's job as one of landing on the moon and Mars and exploring other faraway destinations. Sure, we are for Islamic self-esteem, but what on earth was Obama up to here?
Theories abound to explain the President's goals and actions. Critics in the business community--including some Obama voters who now have buyer's remorse--tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist--not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution.

These theories aren't wrong so much as they are inadequate. Even if they could account for Obama's domestic policy, they cannot explain his foreign policy. The real problem with Obama is worse--much worse. But we have been blinded to his real agenda because, across the political spectrum, we all seek to fit him into some version of American history. In the process, we ignore Obama's own history. Here is a man who spent his formative years--the first 17 years of his life--off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.
A good way to discern what motivates Obama is to ask a simple question: What is his dream? Is it the American dream? Is it Martin Luther King's dream? Or something else?
It is certainly not the American dream as conceived by the founders. They believed the nation was a "new order for the ages." A half-century later Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of America as creating "a distinct species of mankind." This is known as American exceptionalism. But when asked at a 2009 press conference whether he believed in this ideal, Obama said no. America, he suggested, is no more unique or exceptional than Britain or Greece or any other country.
Perhaps, then, Obama shares Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. The President has benefited from that dream; he campaigned as a nonracial candidate, and many Americans voted for him because he represents the color-blind ideal. Even so, King's dream is not Obama's: The President never champions the idea of color-blindness or race-neutrality. This inaction is not merely tactical; the race issue simply isn't what drives Obama.
What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.
So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.
An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa's struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country's future.
I know a great deal about anticolonialism, because I am a native of Mumbai, India. I am part of the first Indian generation to be born after my country's independence from the British. Anticolonialism was the rallying cry of Third World politics for much of the second half of the 20th century. To most Americans, however, anticolonialism is an unfamiliar idea, so let me explain it.
Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama's acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, "The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races."

Anticolonialists hold that even when countries secure political independence they remain economically dependent on their former captors. This dependence is called neocolonialism, a term defined by the African statesman Kwame Nkrumah (1909--72) in his book Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah, Ghana's first president, writes that poor countries may be nominally free, but they continue to be manipulated from abroad by powerful corporate and plutocratic elites. These forces of neocolonialism oppress not only Third World people but also citizens in their own countries. Obviously the solution is to resist and overthrow the oppressors. This was the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. and many in his generation, including many of my own relatives in India.
Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called "Problems Facing Our Socialism." Obama Sr. wasn't a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. "Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?"
As he put it, "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."
Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned his father's article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.
While the senior Obama called for Africa to free itself from the neocolonial influence of Europe and specifically Britain, he knew when he came to America in 1959 that the global balance of power was shifting. Even then, he recognized what has become a new tenet of anticolonialist ideology: Today's neocolonial leader is not Europe but America. As the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said--who was one of Obama's teachers at Columbia University--wrote in Culture and Imperialism, "The United States has replaced the earlier great empires and is the dominant outside force."
From the anticolonial perspective, American imperialism is on a rampage. For a while, U.S. power was checked by the Soviet Union, but since the end of the Cold War, America has been the sole superpower. Moreover, 9/11 provided the occasion for America to invade and occupy two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and also to seek political and economic domination in the same way the French and the British empires once did. So in the anticolonial view, America is now the rogue elephant that subjugates and tramples the people of the world.
It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.
For Obama, the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. And here is where our anticolonial understanding of Obama really takes off, because it provides a vital key to explaining not only his major policy actions but also the little details that no other theory can adequately account for.
Why support oil drilling off the coast of Brazil but not in America? Obama believes that the West uses a disproportionate share of the world's energy resources, so he wants neocolonial America to have less and the former colonized countries to have more. More broadly, his proposal for carbon taxes has little to do with whether the planet is getting warmer or colder; it is simply a way to penalize, and therefore reduce, America's carbon consumption. Both as a U.S. Senator and in his speech, as President, to the United Nations, Obama has proposed that the West massively subsidize energy production in the developing world.

Rejecting the socialist formula, Obama has shown no intention to nationalize the investment banks or the health sector. Rather, he seeks to decolonize these institutions, and this means bringing them under the government's leash. That's why Obama retains the right to refuse bailout paybacks--so that he can maintain his control. For Obama, health insurance companies on their own are oppressive racketeers, but once they submitted to federal oversight he was happy to do business with them. He even promised them expanded business as a result of his law forcing every American to buy health insurance.
If Obama shares his father's anticolonial crusade, that would explain why he wants people who are already paying close to 50% of their income in overall taxes to pay even more. The anticolonialist believes that since the rich have prospered at the expense of others, their wealth doesn't really belong to them; therefore whatever can be extracted from them is automatically just. Recall what Obama Sr. said in his 1965 paper: There is no tax rate too high, and even a 100% rate is justified under certain circumstances.
Obama supports the Ground Zero mosque because to him 9/11 is the event that unleashed the American bogey and pushed us into Iraq and Afghanistan. He views some of the Muslims who are fighting against America abroad as resisters of U.S. imperialism. Certainly that is the way the Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi portrayed himself at his trial. Obama's perception of him as an anticolonial resister would explain why he gave tacit approval for this murderer of hundreds of Americans to be released from captivity.
Finally, nasa. No explanation other than anticolonialism makes sense of Obama's curious mandate to convert a space agency into a Muslim and international outreach. We can see how well our theory works by recalling the moon landing of Apollo 11 in 1969. "One small step for man," Neil Armstrong said. "One giant leap for mankind."
But that's not how the rest of the world saw it. I was 8 years old at the time and living in my native India. I remember my grandfather telling me about the great race between America and Russia to put a man on the moon. Clearly America had won, and this was one giant leap not for mankind but for the U.S. If Obama shares this view, it's no wonder he wants to blunt nasa's space program, to divert it from a symbol of American greatness into a more modest public relations program.
Clearly the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. goes a long way to explain the actions and policies of his son in the Oval Office. And we can be doubly sure about his father's influence because those who know Obama well testify to it. His "granny" Sarah Obama (not his real grandmother but one of his grandfather's other wives) told Newsweek, "I look at him and I see all the same things--he has taken everything from his father. The son is realizing everything the father wanted. The dreams of the father are still alive in the son."
In his own writings Obama stresses the centrality of his father not only to his beliefs and values but to his very identity. He calls his memoir "the record of a personal, interior journey--a boy's search for his father and through that search a workable meaning for his life as a black American." And again, "It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." Even though his father was absent for virtually all his life, Obama writes, "My father's voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people's struggle. Wake up, black man!"
The climax of Obama's narrative is when he goes to Kenya and weeps at his father's grave. It is riveting: "When my tears were finally spent," he writes, "I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close. I realized that who I was, what I cared about, was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America--the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I'd felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I'd witnessed in Chicago--all of it was connected with this small piece of earth an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain that I felt was my father's pain."
In an eerie conclusion, Obama writes that "I sat at my father's grave and spoke to him through Africa's red soil." In a sense, through the earth itself, he communes with his father and receives his father's spirit. Obama takes on his father's struggle, not by recovering his body but by embracing his cause. He decides that where Obama Sr. failed, he will succeed. Obama Sr.'s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.'s hatred; his botched attempt to set the world right defines his son's objective. Through a kind of sacramental rite at the family tomb, the father's struggle becomes the son's birthright.

Colonialism today is a dead issue. No one cares about it except the man in the White House. He is the last anticolonial. Emerging market economies such as China, India, Chile and Indonesia have solved the problem of backwardness; they are exploiting their labor advantage and growing much faster than the U.S. If America is going to remain on top, we have to compete in an increasingly tough environment.
But instead of readying us for the challenge, our President is trapped in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.
Dinesh D'Souza, the president of the King's College in New York City, is the author of the forthcoming book The Roots of Obama's Rage (Regnery Publishing).

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Remember

I was in my office at N-Reactor - the largest nuclear reactor ever built on this planet. It was just before  6:00 AM Tuesday morning and almost time for the Engineering briefing.

A breaking news report on the radio caught my attention.  A plane had just struck the World Trade Center.  A hundred thoughts zipped through my head - many of them included the name Osama Bin Laden.

The radio briefly went back to regular programming.

Then the second plane strike was reported.

I called Dana and told her to switch on the TV and see what was happening.

Over the telephone, I  heard her gasp for breath and whisper "Oh my God!"

Today, nine years later I wonder when the tons of Plutonium I helped to produce over the past 35 years will be put to its intended purpose of eradicating America's enemies.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Obama, not the GOP can fix the economy–not the Dems, him.

Look at the sub-head in this article from the Pittsburgh Libtard newspaper.  
He, not the GOP can fix the economy–not the Dems, him. Yes, His Wholly Reluctance God/King Obama has just been waiting for the perfect strategic moment to rescue the economy–that has tanked under his watch to the tune of nearly 6 million lost jobs–and heroically lead his party to victory.
You know what? I like this plan! I’m excited about this plan! Let’s do this!
Obama rallies Ohioans
President declares that he, not GOP, has the correct plan to spur economy
Thursday, September 09, 2010

President Barack Obama Wednesday presented this fall's election as a stark choice for voters, arguing that he, not Republicans, has the right plan to jump-start the American economy.
Speaking in Ohio, a state deemed critical to his re-election chances in 2012, the president repeatedly said returning to the Republican policies that preceded his election "won't get us there."

"They're making the same calculation they made just before my inauguration -- if I fail, they win," Mr. Obama told an invitation-only crowd of about 800 at Cuyahoga Community College's West Campus near Cleveland.
"Well, they might think this will get them to where they need to go in November. But it won't get our country to go where it needs to go in the long run," he said. "So that's the choice, Ohio. Do we return to the same failed policies that ran our economy into a ditch, or do we keep moving forward with policies that are slowly pulling us out? Do we settle for a slow decline, or do we reach for an America with a growing economy and a thriving middle-class?"

Continuing his rollout of what could essentially be considered a second round of stimulus efforts, the president proposed $300 million in long-term expanded tax credits designed to persuade a skittish corporate America that now is the time to invest in plant expansions, new machinery and research and development.
"This will help small businesses upgrade their plants and equipment, and will encourage large corporations to get off the sidelines and start putting their profits to work in places like Cleveland and Toledo and Dayton," Mr. Obama said.

The question is whether any of these proposals -- including $50 billion more for road, rail and other infrastructure construction proposed earlier this week in Milwaukee -- will have any effect on the outcome of midterm elections Nov. 2.

At least some of the proposals face an uphill battle in a stimulus- and deficit-weary Congress, already facing voter backlash. Polls show Republicans are likely to make gains in Congress and potentially take back control of government in battleground Ohio.

Mr. Obama, using rhetoric that sounded more like a campaign rally than a policy speech, specifically targeted House Minority Leader John Boehner.

"When these same Republicans, including Mr. Boehner, were in charge, the number of earmarks and pet projects went up, not down," Mr. Obama said. "These same Republicans turned a record surplus into a record deficit. When I walked in, wrapped in a nice bow was a $1.3 trillion deficit sitting right there on my doorstep -- a welcoming present."

Mr. Boehner, R-Ohio, offered his own proposals Wednesday, saying in a nationally broadcast interview that Congress should freeze all tax rates for two years and cut federal spending to the levels of 2008, before the deep recession took hold.

"People are asking, 'Where are the jobs?' " Mr. Boehner said, calling the White House "out of touch" with the American public.

Urging patience, the president admitted that the recovery has been slower than he had hoped, and that some of his policies have not been popular. "Our job is not easy," he said. "But you didn't elect me to do what's easy. ..."

Mr. Obama urged renewal of Bush-era tax cuts for those earning less than $250,000 a year, while criticizing Republicans' plans to extend the tax cuts for those making more than that as well. The tax cuts are to expire at the end of this year.

The tax incentive package unveiled Wednesday includes $200 million to accelerate business write-offs of the costs of plant and machinery investments through 2011. Mr. Obama is also seeking an expansion of an existing tax credit for research and development that would be worth $100 billion over 10 years.

The proposals received a mixed reception among Republicans. "President Obama seems to finally be realizing that his actions over the last 18 months aren't working," said Ohio's Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman.

"While the announcement today may be politically motivated, at least he is starting to talk about the right issues -- proposals to spur private-sector investment and job growth," Mr. Portman said. "... Unfortunately, President Obama is also talking about tax increases as part of the package that will negate the economic benefits."

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

One tomato a day can save your life

Fidel: 'Cuban Model Doesn't Even Work For Us Anymore' - International - The Atlantic

Fidel: 'Cuban Model Doesn't Even Work For Us Anymore' - International - The Atlantic


"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore,"

 You can bet that President Obama won't be using this quote from his mentor Fidel.

Read the entire story - it is very surreal.  There is even some dialog with the daughter of Che Guevara.  Che's daughter, Celia, works at the Havana Aquarium taking care of the dolphins.

The author is in the low chair; Che's daughter is behind him, with the short, blondish hair; Fidel is the guy who looks like Fidel if Fidel shopped at L.L. Bean

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

A dog in President's clothing - oh yeah - and it's still George Bush's fault

Obama channels Hendrix on critics: ‘They talk about me like a dog’

By Holly Bailey Tue Sep 7, 2010

 


Has President Obama been listening to a lot of Jimi Hendrix lately?  With just under two months to go before Election Day, Obama kicked off the fall campaign season Monday with an aggressive speech targeting Republicans. But it was an off-script moment in the speech that's attracted the most attention, as Obama accused his GOP critics of talking about him "like a dog."

"Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time -- and they're not always happy with me -- they talk about me like a dog. That's not in my prepared remarks, but it's true," Obama said during a speech at Wisconsin's Laborfest on Monday.


Though Obama didn't acknowledge it, the line was a verbatim quote from "Stone Free," the first song Hendrix wrote after moving to England in 1966. "They talk about me like a dog," the song says. "Talkin about the clothes I wear. But they don't realize they're the ones who's square."



It's unclear if Obama consciously or unconsciously cited the lyric. A White House spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. But regardless of its source, Obama's off-script message syncs with his overall frustration with Republicans, whom he has lambasted repeatedly as the "party of no."

With polls showing Democrats still trailing badly as the midterm campaign enters its post-Labor Day upsurge, Obama stepped up that attack line Monday. In his  remarks, he suggested that the GOP will always block bipartisanship, no matter the situation. "If I said the sky was blue, they'd say no," he vented. "If I said fish live in the sea, they'd say no. They just think it's better to score political points before an election than to solve problems."

It's all a part of the Democrats' efforts to convince Americans that a vote for the GOP this fall would return the country back to the state it was in before Obama won the presidency. Though polls show the effort isn't working, Obama has made the argument again and again, tying it to the issue that seems to be driving voters this fall: the economy.

"They're betting that between now and November, you'll come down with a case of amnesia. They think you'll forget what their agenda did to this country," Obama said. "They think you'll just believe that they've changed. These are the folks whose policies helped devastate our middle class and drive our economy into a ditch. And now they're asking you for the keys back."

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Global Warming? Zero continental record highs in the past three decades!

If it’s Global Warming, where are all the new record-high temperatures?
And if it’s Climate Change, where are the new record lows?

(Click to embiggenify.)

Are Extreme Hot Weather Records Due To CO2 Emissions? Ooops, No New Hot Record Temps In Last 30+ Years

Since the late 1980's, global warming alarmists have been blaring ad nauseum that the world is suffering from ever higher temperatures, setting new hot temperature records, supposedly on a constant basis. Whenever warm weather arrives in the Northern Hemisphere, the warming hype onslaught from government paid climate scientists, MSM journalists and Hollywood celebrities escalates, as seemingly every new day, new week, new month, new quarter, new year and etc. is pronounced as the warmest evaaar! But is the world truly experiencing these highly publicized extreme, unprecedented hot temperatures?
The simple and honest answer is an emphatic 'NO!'. In a previous post, the actual temperature data from weather stations around the world showed that "global" warming is actually regional warming, and, my goodness, also regional cooling. And if human CO2 emissions were really causing unprecedented, hot global weather (temperatures) then new hot temperature records for each continent should be happening - it ain't happening, though, folks.
Looking at the map below, the hottest and coldest temperatures ever recorded in modern times are presented for each continent.
Look closely and realize what has actually not taken place. The last 'hottest' temperature record was set way back in 1977. Per the calendar, some 33 years later, no continent has exceeded their previous hot temperature record - and some of those records go all the way back to the early 20th century.
Hey...the next time you hear or read "unprecedented temperatures" from a ignorant leftist/liberal elite, don't cut them any slack, go ahead and snicker (or start giggling) - it's alright, you're allowed to laugh at the stupendous ignorance exhibited by the Gore-zombies of the "progressive" left.
Remember, the myth that Earth "has a fever," and the myth that human CO2 causes extreme temperatures, and the myth that unprecedented warming is global, are just that: myths, spread by individuals with a variety of crazy-leftist agendas. (click on image to enlarge)
Extreme Temps By Continent

Did we say "extreme?" A few more Wikipedia extreme temperature/weather trivia points of relevance: (1) Fastest temperature rise recorded - 49°F in 2 minutes in 1942; (2) Fastest temperature drop recorded - 47°F in 15 minutes in 1911; (3) Most consecutive days above 100°F recorded - 160 days from 1923 to 1924. And by the way, each of these most extreme weather events took place well before the influence of large human CO2 emissions.
Additional current temp charts hereHistorical temp charts here.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

God did not create the universe, says Hawking

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.
In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

Hawking:  God no longer has any place in theories on the creation of the Universe  …



"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time," an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity.
Since 1974, the scientist has worked on marrying the two cornerstones of modern physics -- Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which concerns gravity and large-scale phenomena, and quantum theory, which covers subatomic particles.
His latest comments suggest he has broken away from previous views he has expressed on religion. Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.
He wrote in A Brief History ... "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."
In his latest book, he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.
"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.
Hawking, who is only able to speak through a computer-generated voice synthesizer, has a neuro muscular dystrophy that has progressed over the years and left him almost completely paralyzed.
He began suffering the disease in his early 20s but went on to establish himself as one of the world's leading scientific authorities, and has also made guest appearances in "Star Trek" and the cartoons "Futurama" and "The Simpsons."
Last year he announced he was stepping down as Cambridge University's Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, a position once held by Newton and one he had held since 1979.
"The Grand Design" is due to go on sale next week.

Since when is "Muslim" an insult?

The Pope talks with Nancy Pelosi


The Pope and Nancy Pelosi are on the same stage in Yankee Stadium in front of a huge crowd.

The Pope leans towards Mrs. Pelosi and says: "Do you know that with one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy? They'll forever speak of this day and rejoice!"

Pelosi replied: "I seriously doubt that! With one little wave of your hand? Show me!"

So the Pope backhanded her.

Frogs Expel Gypsies


The French are expelling immigrants that, in accordance with the European Union compact, are legally in the country.

Why isn't Hillary Clinton's State Department up in arms over this?

Why has Arizona been demonized but the Frogs get a free pass?
 

France Steps Up Roma Deportation Despite E.U. Criticism


France's expulsion campaign of Roma has drawn a deluge of criticism at home and abroad, and even opened up fissures within the government and ruling conservative majority. Yet President Nicolas Sarkozy and his closest lieutenants are striking an increasingly defiant tone in response to the outcry. Cabinet members now want to expand the list of infractions for which the Roma Gypsy minority can be forcibly expelled from France - and are busy placing blame on Romania as the ultimate cause of the controversy engulfing Paris.

On Tuesday, French Secretary of State for European Affairs Pierre Lellouche and Immigration and Integration Minister Eric Besson traveled to Brussels to defend France's high-profile campaign of dismantling itinerants' camps and expelling the Roma living in France without residence permits. They met with European Union commissioners who have expressed concerns that those efforts may violate human-rights statutes guaranteeing the freedom of movement of E.U. citizens - a status conferred on all Romanians and Bulgarians during the E.U.'s 2007 enlargement. France's defiant attitude became apparent when Lellouche shifted the blame for its Roma predicament to Romania. Although Bucharest receives $5 billion in annual E.U. subsidies, Lellouche's argument goes, it spends only 0.4% of that on integrating the nation's Roma minority (a population officially pegged at 535,000 but which some experts believe exceeds 2 million). He has suggested postponing eventual Romania and Bulgaria membership to the passport-free Schengen area if both nations don't improve their efforts to integrate Roma and more effectively monitor Roma migration elsewhere in the E.U.


During the Brussels talks, Besson refuted allegations previously aired by E.U. critics that France's campaign was racially discriminatory in targeting a single minority: Roma. He also dismissed claims that Paris was conducting systematic deportation, noting that the authorities assessed the case of each detained Roma individually. And he maintained that most deportees left "voluntarily": the majority accepted cash payments ($386 per adult, $129 per child) not to fight obligatory expulsion. It's unclear whether that defense allayed the apprehensions of E.U. officials.

 "Nobody should face expulsion just for being Roma," said Viviane Reding, E.U. commissioner on human rights. "Some of the rhetoric that has been used in some member states in the past weeks has been openly discriminatory and partly inflammatory."

 The day before his Brussels visit, Besson responded to criticism by proposing legislation to make "aggressive begging" by foreigners a deportable offense - a move clearly targeting impoverished Roma. Not to be outdone, Besson's Cabinet partner Brice Hortefeux, the Interior Minister, claimed that criminal acts by Roma in Paris had risen 259% in the past 18 months and flatly declared, "The reality is, the author of one theft in five is Romanian." That tough talk from government members sought to counter the growing chorus of condemnation of the government campaign that has sent 8,313 Roma back to Romania or Bulgaria in the first eight months of the year. It's only accelerating: 283 deportations occurred last week alone.

That swagger by Team Sarko is intended to not only rebuff protests by French and international opponents but also divert attention from the serious dissent the anti-Roma push has created within the ruling right - and within the government itself. On Aug. 30, Foreign Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner admitted that he considered resigning his post at seeing "Roma, in particular, mistreated and exploited." At least two other Cabinet members have also expressed unease with a campaign that many pundits say aims to win over extreme-right voters ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

Former conservative Prime Ministers and rightist heavyweights Alain JuppÉ and Jean-Pierre Raffarin have similarly warned Sarkozy that continuing to stigmatize French minorities, foreigners or Roma in particular may fuel xenophobia. And those are Sarkozy allies. Former Premier Dominique de Villepin, a staunch Sarkozy foe, described the government's push as "a stain of shame on our flag" and "a collective fault committed in all our names, against the republic and against France."

Those voices followed calls from French dignitaries, church officials and even the Vatican to halt Roma expulsions. A United Nations committee on racial discrimination went even further, saying the campaign was only the latest manifestation in a wider surge of racism and xenophobia in France. However, despite that near universal condemnation, Sarkozy apparently feels that with his approval ratings at record lows - and with an autumn of continuing scandals and reform protest approaching - any surrender on Roma now risks inspiring a series of challenges and defeats that could snowball right into his 2012 re-election bid.
 

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

LOWER TAXES and LESS SPENDING...

Timeline shows Dems ignored warnings of economic meltdown



This video has come and gone from the Internet several times.
For some reason, it never lasts long before it is scrubbed by the thought police.

Take a look at our trusted congressional leaders in action while you still have your wallets.