The Great American Con-Job

Party hats!

Two days ago I posted about what I thought was a

Norman Lear presents...

 

rather dangerous organization known as BornAgainAmerican.org. As of today, I think it’s even more dangerous than I originally thought. Here’s why… I know a lot more about this organization and the reason it was created… So sit back, relax, and watch while I pull this apart with my bare teeth.

When I first wrote about BornAgainAmerican.org two days ago, (here) I was under the impression that this was just another radical left-wing anti-American organization. The difference, I felt, was that this organization had lots of money, clout and marketing brains behind it. Well, I was partially right. The money is definitely there, and the clout is there, it’s the marketing genius where I went wrong. Because the method used to attract people to their organization is so powerful, I assumed that they had some real brainiacs behind this whole born-again-american thingy. Turns out, it was just a lucky fluke of fate. For us Conservative Americans, an un-lucky fluke! That’s my way of saying… we have our work cut out for us. Please keep reading, I’m just getting started.

Ok, let’s start with the cast of characters. In no particular order, but starting with the Founder of the site, Norman Lear…

Keith Carradine
Jim Dalton
Chad Van Rys
Kevin Moore II
Xiao-Dan Zheng
Matt Thompson
Luke Buckett
Bobby Broom
Keith Sanchez
Erin Dzierwa
Harlem Gospel Choir
All Saints Episcopal
Cantor Patti Linsky
Mu’azzin Benyoucef
David Hernandez
Tarrah Reynolds
Reverend Timothy McDonald III
Reverend Davidson Loehr

This list of names will become valuable shortly. Let’s continue…

 If you go to the Born Again American site, a video loads almost immediately so you have to make sure your speakers are on prior to going to the site. As you listen, you will find yourself getting sucked in by the very easy down-home folksy sound to the song. Anotherwords, you will like it. Then you read the words along with the rolling script that appears on the left and you find yourself nodding in agreement with a few of the lines. You also start to feel the intended patriotic feel as the song and the video mixing that takes place. The next thing that you notice is the not-so-soft under-tones of religiosity also in that mix. The end result of all this is…. you feel really good about the song and you are convinced that it’s your patriotic duty to join this organization because these just have to be such good upstanding American-Christian loving people… right?

Ha! Not so fast pilgrim, time for a reality check.

Ok, I’m going to give these folks some credit here, and well deserved credit at that. The song/video made with real people (not rock stars), Patriotism, and Christianity all thrown in together makes for a powerful presentation. The video is very, very well done! And in my opinion, very effective. Anotherwords, it’s an excellent propaganda piece!

Now, let’s look behind the curtain… Norman Lear is the founder of this organization, which for those in the know, should be enough to get you to run, not walk, away from this as fast as possible (Google “Norman Lear liberal activist”.) Although Mr. Lear has no problem using a two Preachers, a Muslim, a Cantor, and two different Church Choirs to help participate and promote his Organization, he has some funny ideas about religion in America.

If you go to http://www.bornagainamerican.org/about.html and then click on the video titled “Norman Lear’s Preamble at the Lincoln Memorial”. It’s less than 2 minutes long so take the time now and check it out. In it you will hear him say things like “one day I heard a preacher on TV say that a Supreme Court Justice should be taken off the bench” and he knew he had not joined the Air Force to protect that type of freedom. And he also had problems with a preacher that according to him said that you could not be a good Christian if you voted a particular political affiliation (not exact words, but close enough). According to him, this is why in 1980 he started the “People For The American Way” a very left leaning org. More on these and other Orgs later.

One of the first performers on this video is Keith Carradine, a sometimes actor and songwriter, and full time liberal. Mr. Carradine also seems to be a bit confused about the connection with religion in this video and what he thinks of the Constitution. Here’s a few words from Mr. Carradine from the ‘About Us’ page… “Why I am a Born Again American: When Norman asked me to write “Born Again American” he did so with the suggestion that the song address several timely and timeless social and political issues. He was quite specific about reinforcing what our founders envisioned when they wrote our Constitution and Bill Of Rights; (ergo ” my bible is The Bill Of Rights “). The secular ideals of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine are what we need to remind ourselves of at this critical time in our Nation’s history.”

Mr. Carradine does a fine job of showing his lack of forethought all by himself, so I’m going to let him slide around in his own mud-hole without any more help from me. On to other issues with Born Again American. For instance… what are the odds that Lear stole the name for his Organization from ‘born-again Christians’??? Go figure!?

Oh, by the way, did you know that Norman Lear uses “BornAgainAmerican” to help promote not only “People for the American Way“…  and their blog here.

but also…

Right Wing Watch… http://www.rightwingwatch.org/ where they blame everything wrong in the world on Conservatism, Republicans, and of course… Christianity!

And last but not least…

Young People For YP4… http://www.youngpeoplefor.org/blog which is an organization to mobilize youth for all matter of activism. YP4 GLTB rights (gay,lesbian,transgendered,bi-sexual). YP4 Environment, YP4 etc, etc, etc. If there is a leftist group out there, then there is a YP4 group to help mold the minds of young people to think like good little Marxists. Just to ice the cake, all 3 of the above mentioned Organizations (Lear connected to all) were instrumental in helping Comrade Obama get elected. And that my dear friends is the kicker…

Norman Lear only started ‘BornAgainAmerican’ after Comrade Obama won the election. Why, you may ask… because he knows that over the next 4 years many more teens will be turning 18 years of age and he wants to make damn sure he has them in his pocket for 2012 so Comrade Obama can be our Comrade-in-Chief for a full 8 years. This is actually a brilliant strategy by Lear, and I suggest that someone on the Conservative side start something similar very, very, soon! 

Let me very clear as I come to an end on this subject… Norman Lear is a Marxist. He uses un-ethical, and even immoral trickery by taking advantage of religion and patriotism as a front to recruit weak-minded people. While at the very same time he is neither religious nor patriotic. For the sake of our country, and for the sake of our youth, warn everyone you know about his anti-American organization.

Thank you and God Bless!

Gio-

Obama’s Scary Team

Submitted by GW west coast editor Eowyn. 

Handwriting analysis reveals scary choices for Obama, to say nothing of Obama himself…

 

 

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's signature reveals a very secretive man, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. He needs to be monitored, as he can be manipulative, sneaky, and narrow-minded. But he does not reveal his hand. His signature suggests a man who likes to use information when necessary, with a watchful eye on others.

 

 

More scary stuff…

Attorney General Eric Holder's handwriting and signature reveal that he is an introvert, said forensic handwriting specialist Ronald Rice. Introverts are fearful of emotion and intimacy and live by the motto, "what is in the best interest of me and only me?" Introverts are not compatible with emotionally extroverted people, nor can they readily identify with pain and suffering. They are connivers and manipulators, cold, detached and contemptible toward those with whom they work and associate.

 

 Click here to view the analysis of some of your favorites like…. Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and others.

Gio-

Cross posted at Fundamentaloption.blogspot.com

——–

Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

Equal Pay Union Gift

Equal Pay

-By Dan Scott

To hear the AP story of President Obama signing the Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act one would think a new page in civil rights has been turned. However, like all things liberal Democrats foist upon the public these days using their salesmanship it’s the details they gloss over that are particularly problematic.  The AP story was devoid of detail that would allow a reader to consider the facts.

 Here are the details that should raise some red flags in every employer’s mind.   

“Ledbetter was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber’s plant in Gadsden, Ala., from 1979 until her retirement in 1998. For most of those years, she worked as an area manager, a position largely occupied by men. Initially, Ledbetter’s salary was in line with the salaries of men performing similar work.

Over time, her pay slipped in comparison to the pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236.

So here is an employee of 19 years who is complaining they didn’t get the same pay as everyone else who was hired after her.  Now lets accept the claim for the moment that she is equally qualified and did similar work.  In 1997 her pay was $3727/month versus the next highest person with $4286, a $559/month (15%) difference.  We aren’t told if the salaries are dependent upon sales volume or if they received merit bonuses.  Nor are we told what Ms. Ledbetter’s salary was in 1979.  Let’s say for the sake of argument Ms. Ledbetter was rewarded with annual raises of 5% a year. Based on her 1997 wage she would have received a $186.35 monthly raise, hold that thought. 

If you worked through the 1980’s and 90’s as I have, one thing that always struck me at that time was the idea you had to leave your current employer in order to get a substantial raise otherwise you would fall behind in pay.  Much was written during this period where wages were rising quite nicely for those who changed employers but wages stagnated for those who accepted the cost of living pay raise by staying with the employer.  I noted many times new hires of that time period started at the “prevailing wage” offered by industry.  That prevailing wage was either the same as the worker of 20 years or higher.  It was not unusual for an employee to increase their salary $5k to $10k just by changing jobs.

Let us further challenge the implied assumption of this legislation of equal pay, since when is anyone’s pay the same as the next person even of the same job classification?  How does one determine they were “paid unfairly” when the market conditions and individual qualifications dictate that pay?  Example, if I get paid $10/hr, then a year later there is high demand for that position so the next person hired is paid $12/hr.  Does that mean when I am given an annual raise of say 5% (50 cents) that I being discriminated against because I am making $10.50/hr not $12/hr ($2 raise – 14%)? Should all the existing employees be given a 14% raise? Or does that depend upon my sex?  You see the problem.

Ms. Ledbetter’s while rightly being upset with her employer for not appreciating her financially made the fatal mistake of that time period – complacency with her career.  She neglected her career and thus blamed her employer for her failure to be responsible for her own financial well being.  It matters not how long you work for any employer, the wage you started at is only raised incrementally based upon your current pay unless there is a significant promotion. She had none. Market demand for your particular job changes from year to year, some years there is high demand for your job and when this happens anyone being hired during a high demand period will get higher pay.  It shouldn’t surprise anyone that males switch jobs more than females because they are risk takers and as a result they reap the rewards of higher pay for their risk.

Would the effect of this law basically mean for an employer that they would be forced to give all existing employees the same pay (a raise) as the new hire at a time of high market demand? Conversely, if the market was down, would that mean the new hire would have to be paid the same as all the other regardless of their ability and work ethic?  Now if I were an employer in this litigious environment, I would think very hard about taking on any new employees. To do so would put me in a situation of gambling whether or not I will be sued anytime I hire, on top of having to carefully calculate the cost of labor for the entire workforce anytime I attempt to fill an empty job slot to maintain pay parity.  It almost sounds like de facto union rules where everyone’s pay is determined by the contract, and we know by experience this rewards those who do the least and penalizes those who are conscientious. The whole idea of merit pay ceases to exist under those circumstances.  We have no idea if Ms. Ledbetter was a barn-burner for the company nor if she did just enough not to get fired (we all have seen this type).

This means the unions could pitch the idea to employers that if they unionized all the employees they would be essentially exempt from this law.  What a protection racket!  So what we really have here is a union promotion law under the guise of employee grievance.  The law is also a trial lawyer’s dream of grievance Xanadu sure to open untold lawsuits filling their coffers.  It seems the Democrats have created a lawyer’s bailout package and as usual at our expense.  What President Obama signed into law was essentially an employer hiring freeze.  Thanks a lot, like we really needed more unemployment.

-Dan Scott

——————-

Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

Big Trouble Ahead

UPDATED : SCROLL DOWN TO UPDATE 1/31/09

I will not waste time or words, we as a country, are in BIG trouble!

I’m going to start this by asking a “What if” question…

What if, the left had started a brand new organization that really has it’s act together?

What if, this organization has been well thought out and well financed, from almost every angle possible?

What if, this organization was so good that it will use any means of deceit to make people believe that they are a patriotic organization?

What if, this organization will go so far as to use Religion to promote their Marxist agenda?

Would you be willing to join this organization so you, and other Conservatives, can have an effect on this organization? 

Please think hard about this last question, then respond in the ‘Comments’ section of this post.

If you will stick with this post for the next few days, I promise all will be clear.

UPDATE 1/31/09: Music plays as soon as you go to the link, so have your speakers ready.
http://www.bornagainamerican.org/index.html

 The left has thrown down a mighty gauntlet, one that we must crush, or forever be under the suppressive rule of Marxism!

May God help us in the struggle before us.

Gio-

P.S.  Please pass on to other Conservatives.

You Can Help!

Yes… you can!

Here’s the deal…. Each of you can help the youth of this country and it won’t cost you a dime. As we all well know, the leftist University Professors, and even High School instructors have been feeding our kids total B.S. when it comes to ideological differences in politics as they relate to our country’s history. Another-words, they have been lying like hell to our kids, and our kids are falling for it.

The latest example are all the Che Guevera T-shirts you see young people wearing nowadays. Most kids that wear those shirts think it’s cool to wear them, although most have no clue as to who he was. The ones that think they know him and wear his shirt, have been taught by their teachers that Che was a great revolutionary who cared for the peasants, and the children, and stuffed Teddy Bears, and Lemon Gumdrops, and rivers of Chocolate, yada, yada, yada…

Ok, here’s where you come in. You and I know that the above Che is complete leftist crap. And we know our kids are falling for the leftist crap. So I want to recruit everyone to help our youth learn the truth about Che. I recently posted a piece on Che called… “University Approved History Of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara”. I chose that particular title for a reason. Although the piece was titled “Who was the real Che”? I chose that title because it will help to get better placement on the internet search engines. That way, when kids do go to learn about Che, they will have a better chance of seeing my link to the true story of Che. You know, the one where Che was nothing more than a murdering scum bag.

Anyway, I also did quite a few other little tricks in the piece to help it get better rankings and I’m confident that I covered all the bases and used most all of the tricks. Buuuuut, there is one area left that has to be worked, and that’s getting the URL of that particular article on the world wide web.

If you can, everytime you go to another site, or send an email to someone you know, please include the link and the title. This will help get them both seen around the net in different places, which in turns helps get the article an even better search engine ranking.

So, if you want to help spread the truth to our kids, use the following Title and URL…..

http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/university-approved-history-of-ernesto-che-guevara/

“University Approved History Of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara”

Heck, if people on your email list are in the fight for our country’s future as we are, then ask them to do the same.

We need to keep finding ways like this to fight back, and we must never give up.

Thanks everyone. I salute you!

Gio-

P.S.  Thank God most of that I wrote the other day. I have so much NyQuil in me there’s no way I could have done that tonight. Back to my misery.

Bill Ayers Can Go To Hell!

Submitted by GW west coast editor Eowyn. 

This is the type of story I can really get behind. Before, during, and after the election, we were able to post what little was known about the Obama - Ayers friendship. Even if their acquaintance is all innocent like they want us to believe, it’s still a fact that Bill Ayers was/is a terrorist.

Anyway, it looks as if this latest joke of an election, has stirred people’s souls. And I say… IT’S ABOUT DAMN TIME!

Please check out the video incident after reading the short article. Praise God, Americans may finally waking up to the evil that pretends to have our countries best interest at heart.

On a more personal note… I don’t believe anything that comes out of an unrepentant terrorist’s lying mouth.

Watch video here

Raucous protest greets William Ayers at Moraga speaking engagement
By Paul Thissen
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 01/28/2009 08:26:45 PM PST
Updated: 01/29/2009 05:40:49 AM PST
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_11577357?nclick_check=1

The shouts of “Shame on you!” resounded across the small Saint Mary’s College campus Wednesday night, where under the glare of television lights, a few hundred sign-carrying, flag-waving protesters gathered around a megaphone to object to an appearance by 1960s anti-war militant William Ayers.

Most of the protest and its speeches took place before Ayers spoke, but even as he took the stage inside the college’s Soda Center, protesters outside crowded toward the doors and shouted, “Cop killer!”

Ayers has never been convicted of killing anyone.

Many who couldn’t get inside the center hung around the entrance. At least one man had to be escorted out of the auditorium by campus public safety officials when he walked up to the podium where Ayers was speaking, carrying a book that resembled a Bible, and began shouting profanities.
Ayers was invited to Saint Mary’s as part of the college’s “Against the Grain” speaker series. A former leader of the Weather Underground, he is now a professor of education at University of Illinois-Chicago.

“I am appalled how Bill Ayers is able to come to a Christian-based campus to speak his rhetoric,” said Jerry Converse, of Concord, who carried an American flag. “It’s a free country, but this is the wrong place.”

The crowd roared and chanted, encouraged by speeches by an FBI informant who had infiltrated the Weathermen and by a police officer who had been on the scene of a bombing at a San Francisco police station that killed a sergeant. The officer said the bomb was set by Ayers’ wife, Bernardine Dohrn, a fellow Weather Underground leader.
“He hides behind being an educator,” said Larry Grathwohl, the FBI informant who traveled from Ohio to attend the protest. “He claims he never killed or injured anyone.” At that, the crowd erupted in chats of “Liar! Liar!” Grathwohl said Ayers had instructed him to make a bomb using fence staples to kill police officers, which Ayers has denied.

“Free speech does not give him the right to lie,” Grathwohl said.

The protesters’ chants sometimes competed with students and Ayers’ supporters, who chanted “Saint Mary’s College!” and “SMC!” And a few debates between the two camps escalated to the point of yelling.

“If we don’t speak up, who will?” said Nancy Messer, who came from Half Moon Bay to protest the speech. “We don’t want (the students) corrupted.”

———————

Two stories in a row that make having the Flu a lot more tolerable.

Gio-

 

 

Global Warming_Hoax_Bad_Science_Scam

h/t to GioWorld member “The Doktor”.

The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman
January 28, 2009

Global Warming confuses citizens

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, “It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!” The student described him as “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming,” That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”. The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” He added, “…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, “I think so, but I do not know it for certain”. I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman 1-29-09

———————–

Is anyone surprised? Not me!

Gio-

For Jen

From all your friends at Gio’sWorld…

 

We just wanted you to know that we are praying for you. Maybe it will help give you the strength to overcome!

With love from all of us…

Gio-

Calling All Taxpayers

Taxpayers of America Unite!

-By Dan Scott

 Now that a tax cheater, I mean former tax cheater,  Timothy Geithner  has been officially confirmed by the Senate to become Secretary of the Treasury, we, the taxpayers, have the poster child of government fiscal irresponsibility. President Obama’s particular choice of this flawed person gives us a valuable insight into how he intends to squeeze us, the taxpayer, of every last penny. Who better than the very person who specializes in financial rescues would best be suited to the job of propping up failed government policies by finding yet more creative ways to fund those failures? 

Picking up on Thomas Brewton’s theme of Social Justice, liberals have a faulty worldview in regards to the cause of crime and poverty, that being unequal wealth distribution. In the liberal worldview money and the resources it buys is the answer to their utopian dreams. This worldview is based on the trope that given enough money literally anything can be made to work. This is why liberals continue to insist the public school systems of the US are under funded, when in fact every year more money is spent for a continual diminishing return evidenced by higher drop out rates and low test scores. In the liberal worldview, not enough money has been spent to make it successful and that’s why it’s a failure, to them the teachers, students, parents and methods have little to do with the results. There is no such thing as personal responsibility, just social responsibility. Where does the money come from? The taxpayers.

For example, the CRA caused the mortgage meltdown when politicians decided that cheap credit was the social justice answer to home ownership. The banks went bust when those who shouldn’t have been homeowners couldn’t make their mortgage payments. The taxpayers were forced to pick up the tab in a massive redistribution of wealth scheme that literally cost private industry trillions of dollars in 2008. The purpose of the bailout literally was to perform an orderly transfer of wealth from investors in a way to preserve the banking system for yet another round of wealth transfers – Nationalization.

Another example, consider the Big 3 automakers asking for the bailouts to avoid bankruptcy. The alternative, using chapter 11 bankruptcy would drive their outstanding stock shares to zero. That means the management, the UAW and the retirees whose pension fund (remember Enron) was invested in those stock shares lose most if not all of their money. The bailout was plain and simple Quid Pro Quo from the politicians who were the beneficiaries of the Big 3 management and UAW campaign contributions, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

- Lord Woodhouselee

We may be witnessing the end of our Republic, we are on the slippery path to destruction perpetrated by the greed of slick talking politicians and special interests that regularly feed at the trough of corrupt government condoned by the fear of a deceived naÔve public who believe every rationalization why they should be shorn like sheep. Now Congress is getting ready to pass the first installment of many annual trillion dollar budget busters under the guise of emergency economic stimulus which some have dubbed the Generational Theft Act of 2009. Every penny to fund this budget buster will come from the private economy and thus represents a continuing transfer of wealth to achieve social justice funding of various boondoggles. What we are witnessing here is a government run ponzi scheme in which investors and the next generation will be forced to make payments.

Liberals love their boondoggles, the insidious cycle of toxic self-promotion and payoff is central to their financing and power. This parasitic behavior is nothing more than brazen political corruption rationalized. Since when is bamboozling the public with slick talking sales hype a sign of leadership? Quite frankly, the taxpayers of this country have been defrauded in one of the biggest financial scams in human history to save the personal interests of campaign contributors starting with the AIG bailout. This, in my opinion was outright fraud committed by government officials and made legal through legislative fiat. All legitimacy of self-governance has been co-opted by a group of self-serving elitists.

This isn’t even counting the other ponzi schemes the politicians are juggling as well.

At some point we (taxpayers) who have been foisted upon to pay for the social justice nonsense will wise up and realize this won’t end well at all and the sooner we end it, the better. Less pain now, more pain later. If all of the unappreciated class, the taxpayer, were to strike for a week what would happen? Obama and the Democrats want a welfare state, maybe we should give it to them sooner than they planned. Maybe we all should stop working and draw all those government benefits we have been paying for against our collective wills. When the taxpayers decide it’s not worth being stolen from by the government to bring about the utopian liberal world where social justice reigns then the bubble will finally pop just as it did with the mortgage crisis.“

 

1. Refuse to buy US Bonds in any denomination, it’s a losing proposition anyway. Additionally, tell foreign buyers they shouldn’t either since they are in effect being drawn into the ponzi scheme as well by investing in it. You can’t deficit spend if you can’t borrow the money.

2. Every taxpayer who normally gets a hefty tax refund (over $1000) should adjust their withholding for a zero dollar return. This is perfectly legal. You are enabling prolific ate spending with your zero interest loan to the government by having such large refunds. Stop being an enabler. For an estimate of your total 2009 tax liability look at your last paycheck of 2008 for the total withholding you paid for the year and then subtract the refund you received from your 2007 tax return. Using your pay stubs you can track how much withholding tax you need to contribute to achieve a zero tax refund for 2009.

 

 

 

3. For the more committed, claim 10 deductions on your W4 form for tax withholding now here in January and then in April change it to zero deductions to cover the rest of your tax obligation for the year. It is only illegal if you <a href=”http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html”> owe more than $1000 on your tax return in which case you pay a penalty.</a> You can avoid the penalty by estimating your 2009 tax.

The effect of number one would be immediately dramatic in and of itself as this would bring the US Treasury to its knees in a matter of months. Number two would end the whole scheme by April since IRS refunds are dependent on US Treasury cash flow which means they would have to choose between issuing refunds or shutting down the government’s non essential operations. Obviously number three would be devastating since politicians will see this for what it is, a vote of no confidence in a corruptly run government.

Ben Gates:

A toast? Yeah. To high treason. That’s what these men were committing when they signed the Declaration. Had we lost the war, they would have been hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, and-Oh! Oh, my personal favorite-and had their entrails cut out and *burned*![brief pause]

Ben Gates : So… Here’s to the men who did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right…[nodding]

 

Ben Gates: what they knew was right.

The burning question for every taxpayer is this, do I have more to lose by not acting or by acting now? There is no question as to the losses that we have already sustained in our retirement accounts and future earnings. There is no question that we the taxpayers are stuck in a financial lose/lose proposition given the current leadership in Congress and the Whitehouse. There is only one way in which we, the taxpayer can hope for a win/win scenario and that is we collectively put fear in the politicians hearts and minds as they did to us when they created this mess.

While my snarky suggestion of just getting on the government feeding trough to break its back is outrageous, consider that the only way to stop the scam is to bring it to its knees. I think we all recognize that the politicians have bought into the idea that if they just can delay the inevitable long enough the problem will resolve itself thus it never existed in the first place, this is called the ostrich approach. They voted for the bailouts despite our objections. Does anyone rationally believe that the US Government, i.e. the taxpayer is good for the $10.8 trillion owed? Do you really believe there is any chance of it ever being paid down in the next 30 years? 40 years? 50 years? 100 years? That my friend is the hallmark of a ponzi scheme. <a href=http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/2008/12/30/munchausen’s-by-proxy/”>The US Government has become the operator of thee most outrageous financial fraud in the entire history of mankind.</a> Normally a ponzi scheme meets its short term financial obligations by drawing more people into the scheme to bring in more money. All ponzi schemes end when there is insufficient money to meet the current obligations. I propose we, the taxpayer, step in to end the ponzi scheme with a civil disobedience campaign where the politicians simply can’t overcome their self-interest to do so.There are three ways to cut the cash flow to the US Treasury, which will force the hand of politicians.

——————————

 

Dan brings up some valid points, and makes some great suggestions, but keep in mind this is an opinion piece. That’s for all you Tax geeks working for the IRS, so please don’t send anyone to my door. Or Dans!

I have always believed there was only one way to really fire (forget impeachment) an elected representavive, and the method used is…to vote them out of office. However, there may be another way (think Dan’s article) As we all know these are drastic times, needing drastic solutions. So considering we are short on time, maybe the next best way to fire our incompetent politicians is to stop sending them our money. If the money tap gets turned off by the people, then the government pimps have nothing to do.

Just a thought.

Gio-

Climate Change ____ Warn Scientists

 Submitted by GW west coast editor Eowyn.

Climate change is irreversible and projects to prevent temperature rises will have no impact for at least thousand years, scientists have warned.

Climate change ‘irreversible’, warn scientists
Last Updated: 12:39PM GMT 27 Jan 2009

Contrary to popular opinion, halting carbon emissions will not see temperatures reduce before the year 3000, according to the US-based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory.

Nevertheless, Susan Solomon, who led the research, said cutting emissions remained important.

She added: “People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years – that’s not true.”

Ms Solomon is lead author of an international team’s paper reporting irreversible damage from climate change, published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

She defines irreversible as change that would remain for 1,000 years even if humans stopped adding carbon to the atmosphere immediately.

Ms Solomon said: “Climate change is slow, but it is unstoppable – all the more reason to act quickly, so the long-term situation does not get even worse.”

In recent years Britain has seen regular instances of flash flooding.

The latest findings were announced as US President Barack Obama ordered reviews that could lead to greater fuel efficiency and cleaner air, saying the Earth’s future depends on cutting air pollution.

Alan Robock, from Rutgers University in New Jersey, agreed with the research, adding: “It’s not like air pollution where if we turn off a smokestack, in a few days the air is clear.

“It means we have to try even harder to reduce emissions.”

In her paper Ms Solomon, a leader of the International Panel on Climate Change and one of the world’s best known researchers on the subject, noted that temperatures around the globe have risen and changes in rainfall patterns have been observed in areas around the Mediterranean, southern Africa and
south-western North America.

Warmer climate also is causing expansion of the ocean, which is expected to increase with the melting of ice on Greenland and Antarctica, she said.

“I don’t think that the very long time scale of the persistence of these effects has been understood,” Ms Solomon added.

Global warming has been slowed by the ocean, but that good effect will wane over time with seas eventually helping keep the planet warmer, she said.

Climate change has been driven by gases in the atmosphere that trap heat from solar radiation and raise the planet’s temperature.

Carbon dioxide is the most important of those gases because it remains in the air for hundreds of years.

—————————————

Let’s break that down…

“Climate change is irreversible”…

“projects to prevent temperature rises”…

“will have no impact”…

“for at least thousand years”…

“scientists have warned.”

Gio-

‘Uranium For Iran Nuke In 2009′

‘Uranium For Iran Nuke In 2009′

3:26pm UK, Tuesday January 27, 2009

Geoff Meade, defence correspondent

Iran will have enough enriched uranium to make a single nuclear weapon later this year, the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) predicts.

You see shiny cylinders - He sees dead Americans

 For you slow Leftists, please read this next line very slowly. Ok, ready? Here we go….

‘Uranium For Iran Nuke In 2009′

Gio-

Just For Fun

Enjoy…

 

Gio-

Blithering Idiot Award

The highly coveted, by all Democrats, “Blithering Idiot Award” this week goes to none other than Nancy Pelosi.

Take a bow Ms. Pelosi, you’ve earned it!

Ms. Pelosi’s statement: “Contraception Will Reduce Costs Help Economy”

————————-

 This has to be some sort of Witch-craft she uses, because there is no other logical explanation for her statement. What a dolt!

Isn’t she like 3rd in line for the presidency if Obama and Biden happen to go poof? God help us.

Gio-

Obama Conspiracy Film

The guy that made this video is a certified nut-case, and under normal circumstances I would not post one of his vids because he is so far out-there. However, the video below, made by the same nut-case Alex Jones, actually makes a couple of valid points.

You decide…

 

Gio-

Progressives Are Deceptively Stupid

And I have some proof. If the left thinks that the Fairness Doctrine is such a great idea, then why is it that you can find articles just like the one below all over the freakin internet?

Do not let the name ‘Progressive’ fool you, they are the very same folks that we refer to as liberals/leftists/marxists/ and a fair amount of Democrats too. Anotherwords, they cannot be trusted if they are complete Obama Bots.

Anyway, have fun reading this dumb article… 

Why this Progressive will miss George W. Bush

by Jim L. Cunningham, DC Progressive Examiner

Although it’s true that, NOW, I’m an inconsolable political junkie and irretrievably maddened news consumer who throws his shoe at TV political pundits with a regularity that almost kept Circuit City in business, the fact is that I haven’t been politically aware for very long. My passion for politics is a flame that’s been burning extra hot since it was first ignited sometime during the 2000 general election.

Sure, I voted for Clinton. Twice. But, other than that, I didn’t pay much attention. I guess I started paying a little bit of attention during the whole Monika Lewinsky dust-up; I remember being profoundly irritated that Republicans made such a poop over it when Congress should have had better things to do. Around the time of the 2000 primary I was much more defined by my atheism than I am now and, as such, was particularly impressed by Bill Bradley’s refusal to discuss religion on the campaign trail, so I supported Bradley until he pulled out and then figured I’d vote for Gore. For all practical purposes, I was politically virginal.

George Bush popped my cherry. I started paying attention to this guy and couldn’t believe what I was seeing. I learned the issues and Bush’s positions on them. Even my amateur, freshly-political mind could recognize his lies. Even I could tell he was just telling people what they wanted to hear. Even I knew he wasn’t the gosh-darn likeable guy people seemed to think he was. I began to realize that I did in fact have strong political ideals, and that this guy went against every single one of them. George Bush represented everything wrong and unjust in this country and was lying to convince people otherwise. And it was working. I’m not sure what it was specifically, or when the moment happened, exactly, but a new kind of horror descended upon me like none I’d ever felt before. “You mean this imbecile could actually become President?”

A politico had been born. For me there would be no turning back. Ever.

 I watched him debate Gore three times, and lose all three times. In my mind it wasn’t even close, but the media… oh, the media! They declared tie after tie. Gore had sighed and rolled his eyes. “Of course he did! Bush is a moron!” I yelled at the TV – the first time ever in my life caring enough about what I saw on that screen to scream at it.

TV pundits asked who we would rather have a beer with and it instantly became an issue, “George Bush is the kind of guy you’d want to have a beer with!”

During the recount I went to work grumpy every day. My boss was always angry with me for reading news online instead of, well, working. It didn’t matter. I snuck peeks at the internet when no one was looking. I was outraged by the transparent and cavalier way politically-appointed officials would order the recount to stop. The Supreme Court, evenly-divided. Almost.

Almost immediately after Bush was sworn in, I discovered news media that wasn’t mainstream media. I learned truths about the Bush Administration that wasn’t being reported in “the news”, and long before the rest of the world caught up. I was horrified by everything he did. The environment. Civil liberties. Tax cuts for millionaires…

The missile shield. That damned, god-forsaken missile shield. This object of his affection which represented his “revamping” of national security, and held his attention to the exclusion of…

Boom.

Never has anyone used such a tragedy so opportunistically. He was shameless. I will go to my grave calling him The Propaganda President. Condi said, “mushroom cloud” and, while Democrats quivered in their boots, we went to war. As America experienced, “Shock and Awe”, I pulled my hair out.

When I could take it no more, I started a blog so I could rant and vent and let it all out so my friends and family could just stand to be around me. It was then I realized I could write, and that the world of politics gave me endless inspiration to do so. Not only had I discovered a passion, but it improved me.

Bush lied, messed up the country and put the interests of big business over anything and everything and, with my blog, I had a vehicle with which to tell more than just my friends and family exactly what I thought about it all. Yep. George W. Bush and his administration kept me busy for quite some time.

And the bastard got re-elected. The man who was allowed to dodge military service with preferential treatment stood by while scoundrels lied about the war hero, John Kerry. John Edwards, who had always been my choice for President anyway, spoke first with a concession speech of his own, and on the morning of November 3rd, 2004, I watched a blurry John Edwards tell me not to give up on my beliefs, as tears rolled down my face.

You don’t experience eight years as vividly and passionately as I did and forget the man who introduced you to that passion. This passion ran so deep, in fact, that I left my home and career to come to Washington to try and get involved in whatever way I could.

George Bush threw a switch inside me that changed the course of my life. He changed me fundamentally. Because of him, I became someone new. Because of him I found my passion and my calling.

Indeed, Obama gives me hope. His opponents will make me as angry as the Bush Administration always did, and that’ll keep my fire burning for sure, and well into the future.

But ole’ number 43 will always hold a special place in my heart. George W. Bush will always be my first love, that I loved to hate.

—————————-

Progressives are anti-American liars working towards Marxist rule.

So if I’m reading this guy correctly, being a progressive means loving to hate. What a world-class moronic philosophy.

Gio-

Oh My God!

Clinton names climate envoy

January 26, 2009 — Christopher Reeves

MATTHEW LEE | Associated Press

Hillary without Pantsuit

WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday appointed a special envoy for climate change, vowing that the Obama administration would restore America’s credentials and leadership in shaping environmental policy.

Pledging that the United States would play a primary role in international efforts to stem global warming, Clinton named Todd Stern, a former White House assistant who was the chief U.S. negotiator at the Kyoto Protocol talks in her husband’s administration, to the post.

“American leadership is essential to meeting the challenges of the 21st century, and chief among those is the complex, urgent and global threat of climate change,” she said at a State Department ceremony held shortly after President Barack Obama announced new policies to allow states greater latitude in limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Sterns‘ appointment, she said, sends “an unequivocal message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious about addressing global climate change and the corollary issue of clean energy.”

“The urgency of the global climate crisis must not be underestimated,” Clinton said. “Nor should the science behind it or the facts on the ground be ignored or dismissed. The time for realism and action is now.”

The Bush administration had come under fire for failing to act on climate change, walking away from the Kyoto Protocol on grounds it favored large developing nations like China and India, and refusing to allow states to bolster some environmental regulations.

“The time for denial, delay and dispute is over,” Stern said in accepting the job. “The time for the United States to take up its rightful place at the negotiating table is here.”

Stern will serve as the chief U.S. negotiator at United Nations talks on climate change including an upcoming session in Copenhagen as well as with individual nations and groups.

Prior to his appointment, Stern was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a partner in the WilmerHale law firm. He served in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 2001, first at the White House, handling the Kyoto Protocol and follow-up talks in Buenos Aires and coordinating the president’s Initiative on Global Climate Change.

He later worked at Treasury, where he was a senior adviser to the secretary, and after his Clinton administration stint, Stern taught at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

Redneck Love

 Submitted by GW west coast editor Eowyn. 

 Note: This is NOT our Will (I hope);-)

A REDNECK LOVE POEM

SUSIE LEE DONE FELL IN LOVE,
SHE PLANNED TO MARRY JOE.
SHE WAS SO HAPPY ‘BOUT IT ALL,
SHE TOLD HER PAPPY SO.

PAPPY TOLD HER, SUSIE GAL,
YOU’LL HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER.
I’D JUST AS SOON YO’ MA DON’T KNOW,
BUT JOE IS YO’ HALF BROTHER.

SO SUSIE PUT ASIDE HER JOE
AND PLANNED TO MARRY WILL.
BUT AFTER TELLING PAPPY THIS,
HE SAID, “THERE’S TROUBLE STILL.”

YOU CAN’T MARRY WILL, MY GAL,
AND PLEASE DON’T TELL YO’ MOTHER.
BUT WILL AND JOE, AND SEVERAL MO’
I KNOW IS YO’ HALF BROTHER.

BUT MAMA KNEW AND SAID, MY CHILD,
JUST DO WHAT MAKES YO’ HAPPY.
MARRY WILL OR MARRY JOE;
YOU AIN’T NO KIN TO PAPPY.

Rush 1 – Obama 0

Rush knocks another one out of the park!

Submitted by GW west coast editor Eowyn. 

The Obama-Limbaugh Bipartisan Stimulus Plan of 2009
January 26, 2009

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I have a serious proposal to make: the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan 2009.
There is a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. Recessions will end on their own if they’re left alone.  The average recession will last five months to 11 months.  The average recovery from each recession
will last six years.  What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.  The wrong kind of government intervention is precisely what President Obama has proposed.  I don’t believe that his stimulus plan is a stimulus plan at all.  I don’t think it’s designed to stimulate anything but the Democrat Party.  It’s designed to repair the power losses from the nineties forward of the Democrat Party and to entrench this party for, quote, unquote, eternal power like Franklin Delano Roosevelt did with his New
Deal.

Now, we have Keynesian economists who believe government spending on shovel-ready projects of all kinds, “infrastructure” — schools, roads, bridges — that’s the best way, they think, to stimulate our staggering economy.  There are just as many supply-side economists who make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound and recover.  The Heritage Foundation can provide those figures from the administrations of JFK, who cut taxes; from Ronald Reagan who cut taxes; and George Bush 43, who also cut taxes.  The blueprint is
there.  We can consult it. We know what happens when tax rates are cut in a
recession.  We know that it brings an economy back.  There is recent polling
that proves the American people are in favor of both of these approaches.

Keynesian, stimulus spending by the government on infrastructure, roads and
bridges and the like; and supply-side proposals — and it’s important to
remember this, because it is the people’s money in either case that’s going to
be spent here.  It’s our money.  It is not Washington’s.  Now, the Rasmussen people have a new poll out, and notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, Rasmussen finds, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much in the next year or two.  Only 17% worry that they
will cut taxes too much.  The American people, in polling, are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, despite what you’re hearing from the Drive-By Media.

So it seems to me that there may be an opportunity here and now for genuine compromise and to establish at the same time as this genuine compromise, evidence for how to deal with future recession so that this no longer becomes a matter of partisan debate each time it happens, because recessions are going to happen.  My proposal is designed to illustrate once and for all how to deal with them.  Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $1 trillion, $1
trillion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector.  Congress wants to spend — think of this now — $1 trillion that they don’t have until you and I go to work and pay taxes.  They want to spend this on a stimulus plan. They want to take it out of our pockets and redistribute this money in their way to their constituents and to their make-work projects like schools, roads, bridges, blah, blah, blah.

This does not have to be a divisive issue. It does not have to be in any way, shape, manner, or form a divisive issue.  So I have a proposal.  As has been noted, elections have consequences. President Obama in the meeting on Friday with House and Senate Republican leaders, Eric Cantor from Virginia in the House proposed a moderate tax cut plan. Obama said, Well, you know, “I won.” I’m going to trump you on that.  We’re not going to do that. Well, where’s the bipartisanship, President Obama?  There is no bipartisanship in President Obama’s plan.  President Obama’s definition of bipartisanship is when Republicans cave and agree with his plan so he can then claim it’s bipartisan. But he’s not compromising on anything here.

Mine is a genuine compromise.  So let’s look at how the vote came out, shall we? Fifty-three percent of voters in this country — we’ll say, for the sake of this proposal, 53% of Americans — voted for Obama.  Forty-six percent voted for Senator McCain, and 1% voted for wackos.  Let’s give the remaining 1% to President Obama, so let’s say that 54% voted for President Obama and 46% voted for Senator McCain.  As a way to bring the country together and at the same
time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009, $540 billion of the one trillion will be spent on infrastructure as defined by President Obama and the Democrats.  The remaining $460 billion, or 46% that voted for Senator McCain, will be directed towards tax cuts, as determined by me.

These tax cuts will consist primarily of capital gains tax cuts and corporate tax rate cuts.  So Obama gets $540 billion to spend his way.  The other people of this country who did not vote for his way get $460 billion spent the way they would like it spent.  This is bipartisanship! This is how bipartisanship really works.  Okay, Obama wins by a 54-46 majority, so he gets 54% of the trillion bucks.  Spend it his way.  We get 46% of the trillion bucks to spend our way, and then we compare. Then we see which stimulus actually works and
works the fastest, and I will guarantee you that if this plan is adopted, just the announcement that $460 billion will go toward paying for tax cuts, capital gains, and corporate tax rates — we could throw in some personal income tax rate reduction in order to make sure that the voters don’t think it’s all about helping the big guys.  But we need jobs, do we not?

Who hires people?  Businesses!  Businesses need tax cuts.  The US corporate tax rate is obscene.  It is the highest of all industrialized nations.  It’s 35%. Cut it.  Cut it in half.  Make the capital gains rate go away for three months, and then get out of the way to see what happens on Wall Street.  And once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, you watch what happens to the rest of the private sector.  It will follow right along.  This would ensure a bipartisan compromise bill, as Democrats have said that they’re always about.
It would satisfy the American people’s wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a test, going forward, as to which approach best stimulates the growth of jobs — and it can be measured side by side.  It could be determined where the new jobs are coming from.

And if President Obama would merely say — if he would merely say — that he will take this proposal under serious consideration, we would then see the reaction from the financial markets, which tend to be a barometer of the economy going forward.  That is, if President Obama said that he thought this compromise proposal was worth his time to look at, the markets could react to that, just the way they did when President Clinton announced that he had reached agreement in principle with Republicans to balance the budget in the nineties.  The market reacted positively to that news.  Not to a formal bill signing, but to the news.  If we have learned anything in recent months, the
financial markets more than ever look to Washington for direction.

That’s bad.  The markets should be looking at the market.  But they’re not.  The markets are looking to Washington.  That’s where we are.  That’s what “is” is.

So let’s float a trial balloon on this compromise.  This satisfies every claim and demand of bipartisanship.  This satisfies the people who lost the election. Those people are also people for which the president is the president.  He’s not just the president of the people who elected him.  His job, he says, is to get the economy going.  This would do it.  This would not disenfranchise the people who did not vote for him.  And as I say, not only would it work but it would provide a side-by-side test where we could see which part of this stimulus plan does better, so that the next recession we will know what to do.

The problems Americans face are great, but they are not insurmountable.  They never have been insurmountable.  There is no reason to get up every day and tell the American people that their future is bleak.  There is no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes.  There is no reason to suppress the notion that recovery can happen quickly, because it can, if we work together.  In this new era of responsibility, let’s use elements of both the Keynesians and the supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy — and if elements of both work, so much the better.  We will know.  The economy doesn’t have to be liberal versus conservative, or Democrat versus Republican.

And it certainly shouldn’t be focused on whether or not one party gets reelected.  The reason it has is because there is such a division in how the economy is viewed by the two parties.  I got a question from a friend just a moment ago when I was talking about the Obamas redecorating the White House, using the same decorator that redecorated the executive suite at Merrill Lynch.

Question: “How come taxpayers get so mad at businesses who misspend their money but can’t make that connection when Congress misspends their money?” It’s a great question.  How is it that people that misspend a trillion dollars — who know how to waste money and lose money faster than anybody — are thought of as saviors; whereas the people in the private sector, whose job is to generate income for people, are so despised?

And here’s the answer.  The people, unfortunately in this country today, see themselves benefiting when government overspends.  They see the rich getting richer when private sector executives overspend.  So the Democrats have foisted, successfully, class envy.  The economy need not be right versus left, Republican versus Democrat, but it is because one group wants the economy to be hands off — government hands off, let the people who make this economy work, let it work.  The other belief is that that leads too much inequity, unfairness. Government must choose winners and losers so that nobody’s feelings are hurt blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  Well, that’s old hat.

The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents, moderates, whatever they want to call themselves, but our economy doesn’t know the difference.  Our economy should not be focused on whether or not one party gets reelected.  This is about jobs now. It’s about families. It’s about solving a real and significant problem.  So let us come together as one.  The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify all of the people in this country if we just set aside the politics.  The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Obama) can get this done.  This will have the overwhelming support of the American people, because it will bring both sides together.  The Obama-Limbaugh… Let him call it his. The Obama Stimulus Plan of 2009.  Let’s stop the acrimony.  Let’s start solving our problems, together.

Why wait one more day?

END TRANSCRIPT

Gore’s Global Warming On Hold

GioWorld member Steve just sent me this flash from Drudge. I love it!!!

Al Gore’s Global Warming to testify during D.C. Winter Storm. May freeze him out! Hahahaha…hehehehe…

——————–

Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the ‘urgent need’ to combat global warming.A ‘Winter Storm Watch’ has been posted for the nation’s capitol and there is a potential for significant snow… sleet… or ice accumulations.

But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings.

 

“I can’t imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside,” a Republican lawmaker emailed the DRUDGE REPORT. “And if the ice really piles up, it will not be safe to travel.”

A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry, who chairs the committee, was not immediately available to comment on contingency plans.

Global warming advocates have suggested this year’s wild winter spells are proof of climate change.

Developing…

—————

Hehehehehehehe…

Gio-

Need A Good Laugh?

Submitted by GW west coast editor Eowyn. 

(So blame her if you have a stroke from laughing too hard) Enjoy….

HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE TWO DUCK HUNTERS FROM WISCONSIN? ABSOLUTELY A TRUE STORY HEARD ON A WISCONSIN RADIO STATION REPORTING ON THE INCIDENT.

A guy buys a new Lincoln Navigator for $42,500.00 (with monthly payments of $860.00).

He and a friend go duck hunting in upper Wisconsin It’s mid-winter; and of course all of the lakes are frozen. These two guys go out on the ice with their GUNS, a DOG, and of course the new NAVIGATOR.

They decide they want to make a natural looking open water for the ducks to focus on, something for the decoys to float in. Now making a hole in the ice large enough to invite a passing duck, is going to take a little more power than the average drill auger can produce. So, out of the back of the new Navigator comes a stick of dynamite with a short 40-second fuse. Now our two Rocket Scientists, afraid they might slip on the ice while trying to run away after lighting the fuse (and becoming toast, along with the Navigator), decide on the following course of action:

They light the 40 second fuse; then, with a mighty thrust, they throw the stick of dynamite as far away as possible.

Remember a couple of paragraphs back when I mentioned the NAVIGATOR, The GUNS, and the DOG…???

Let’s talk about the dog: A highly trained Black Lab used for RETRIEVING; especially things thrown by the owner. You guessed it: The dog takes off across the ice at a high rate of speed and grabs the stick of dynamite, with the burning 40-second fuse, just as it hits the ice.

The two men swallow, blink, start waving their arms and, with veins in their necks swelling to resemble stalks  of rhubarb, scream and holler at the dog to stop. The dog, now apparently cheered on by his Master, keeps coming. One hunter panics, grabs the shotgun and shoots the dog. The shotgun is loaded with #8 bird shot, hardly big enough to stop a Black Lab.

The dog stops for a moment, slightly confused, then continues on. Another shot, and this time the dog, still standing, becomes really confused and of course terrified, thinks these two geniuses have gone insane. The dog takes off to find cover, UNDER the brand new Navigator

The men continue to scream as they run.

The red hot exhaust pipe on the truck touches the dog’s rear end, he yelps, drops the dynamite under the truck and takes off after his master.

Then  ” “” “” “” “” BOOOOOOOOOOOOM “” “” “” “” ! !

The truck is blown to bits and sinks to the bottom of the lake, leaving the two idiots standing there with “I can’t believe this just happened” looks on their faces.

The insurance company says that sinking a vehicle in a lake by Illegal use of explosives is NOT COVERED by the policy. And he still had yet to make the first of those $860.00 a month payments.

The dog is okay. . .doing fine.

And you thought Rednecks only live in the South………

————————

Gio-