Saturday, January 31, 2009

Hillary Appointment UNconstitutional

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)).

The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to “support and defend” and “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution of the United States.

Under the “Emoluments” or “Ineligibility” clause of the U.S. Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to a civilian position within the U.S. government if the “emoluments” of the position, such as the salary or benefits paid to whoever occupies the office, increased during the term for which the Senator or Representative was elected.

Specifically, article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides, “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Life In A Jar!

There recently was the death of a 98-year-old lady named Irena Sendler who history forgot.

During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist.

She an ulterior motive...

She KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews, (being German).

Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of her tool box she carried, and she also carried in the back of her truck a Burlap sack, (for larger kids).

She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto.

The soldiers, of course, wanted nothing to do with the dog, and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.

During her time and course of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants.

She was caught, and the Nazi's broke both her legs and arms and beat her severely.

Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard.

After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it, and reunited the family.

Most, of course, had been gassed.

Those kids she helped were placed into foster family homes or adopted.

In 2007 Irena was finally nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize...


Al Gore won for doing a movie of his slide show on Global Warming which British Courts have found was so full of inaccuracies that it was not allowed to be shown in British public schools without a warning that its not true.

Learn More at:

Monday, January 26, 2009

Obama’s Unconstitutional Agenda: GLOBAL GOVERNMENT


Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government." This money will go to help fund giving out the pill, condoms and fund abortions.

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009


Can you see what is happening here?

Creepy Ain't It?

A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships.

Very Very Creepy!

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.

Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to (supposedly) revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and comes to be treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as those of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

Say What?

Benediction at Obama 's inauguration, Rev. Joseph Lowery: 'Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen'..

Will Obama Keep His Promise Today? I hope not.

We are only a moments away from the inauguration of President Barack Obama. During the campaign, Barack Obama left little doubt where he stands on the issue of abortion. Now that he is about to be sworn in, will he continue to be so stridently pro-abortion?

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama told the American people exactly what his first act as president would be:

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

-- Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

The Freedom of Choice Act is truly an insidious piece of legislation. It would basically invalidate every single restriction on abortion in every U.S. state - even those that the Supreme Court of the United States previously found consistent with Roe v. Wade.

The Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate all parental notification laws, waiting period laws, and all requirements for full disclosure of the physical and emotional risks of having an abortion.

It would also overturn the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and it would deny the right of religiously-based hospitals to refuse to perform abortions.

So that is what Barack Obama would accomplish.

On his first day.

Since 1973, more than 40 MILLION innocent babies have been chopped up and slaughtered in the American abortion mills.

What the United States has done is beyond imagination. The reality is that we have dissected our babies, burned them alive, sucked their brains out and yet the American people seem to care about this issue less than ever.

How far down the toilet have we gone as a society when we kill about a million babies a year, and nobody even gets upset about it anymore?

Is there any hope?

Is there any chance that Barack Obama could change his mind?

Well, Barack Obama is so rabidly pro-abortion that he even voted AGAINST a bill that would have provided medical care for infants that survived an abortion procedure. Even Hillary Clinton was not in favor of that.

For a full examination of what Obama believes regarding abortion watch the following video.....

Let's take a really quick look at one very cruel method of abortion which the Freedom of Choice Act would once again legalize.....

Five steps to a partial birth abortion:

1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's legs with forceps.

2) The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

3) The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.

4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.

5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

America must wake up while it still can.

This is a tragedy of unprecedented magnitude that cannot be ignored. Do you really think God will let us get away with this forever? Repent America!!

Monday, January 19, 2009

Here is why the head of NASA will be fired by Obama....

NASA Says Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change Jan 13, 2008

Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.

Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.

We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”

As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the NASA & SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.”

When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm. “The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the “Bi-Centennial Cycle” solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the ‘last great subsistence crisis.’ With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle’s impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the ‘perfect storm of global food shortages’ in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected.”

Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether the government has been notified. “Yes, as soon as my research revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House science committees as well as most of the nation’s media outlets. Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable. With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change, hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world’s brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth’s climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most important climate story of this century.”

Obama's Inauguration Has Been Financed Partially by Bailed-Out Wall Street Executives

The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama. Why? Political favors later.

Employees at banks, brokerages and Wall Street firms donated $7 million Barack Obama's inauguration. Where did they get the money... from the tax payer via a bailout.

The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.

The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

And then there is the party bill.

"We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.

That's more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush's committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton's first inaugural in 1993.

Among the expenses: a Bruce Springsteen concert, the parade, large-screen TV rentals for all-free viewing on the national Mall, $700,000 to the Smithsonian Institution to stay open and, of course, the balls, including three that are being pitched as free or low cost for the public.

But there are plenty of rich donors willing to pick up the tab.

"They are not the $20 and $50 donors who helped propel Obama through Election Day," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. "These are people giving mostly $50,000 apiece. They tend to be corporate executives, celebrities, the elite of the elite." Payola Baby!

Now Obama owes them politcally and we owe the federal reserve for the money they loaned wall street big wigs to give it back to Obama.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Another Stake In Global Warmings Heart - by CRANKY GEORGE

With temps across this country dipping to (or even past) 15-year lows, I thought I might to do another blog entry on the issue of Global Warming. It just seems like a week doesn't go by without another fact or two that refutes the false belief that we are in the midst of a worldly overheating due to man-made CO2 emissions. Here are a sampling of things that I have read over the last few weeks that just help to blow a hole in all this Global Warming hype and panic.

One thing that the fanatical global warmists always point to as a disaster that could literally swamp the modern world we live in is the anticipated melting of the polar ice caps. The worst case scenario is one where we could lose half of California and all of Florida and much of the world's coast line cities to flooding as the polar ice melts . Well, surprise..surprise! In just two month's time, at the tail end of 2008, the polar ice caps returned to levels that haven't been seen since 1979 (See Full Story). The reason that this happening is the frigid temps that we saw in the last part of 2008 and that are continuing as of today.

With all of these cold temperatures upon us, it might be wise to read this 3-page story from the Russian news agency, Pravda, that, in essence, says we are now entering into another Ice Age (See Full Story). That article also takes aim at the liberal academics, and not necessarily scientists, who promulgating the carbon dioxide, greenhouse gas theory. Of particular importance is this graph of ice cores taken from the Russian science facilities at Vostok, Antarctica (Click To See Chart). Clearly, even the non-scientific person can easily see that there are regular periods of heating and cooling of this earth that have occurred over thousands of years and, 99.9999999999999999%+ of which occurred without any of the influence of man's carbon output from power stations and automobiles. My problem with most Global Warming theories is that they give too much prominence to the activities of mankind in this world than should be and they use such a small sample, this last century, to conclude that man is destroying the earth. To me, even with all of our cars and power stations and flatulent cattle and poultry, we still have less impact on this earth than most natural events like forest fires and volcanic eruptions. And, there is no way mankind can compete with the effects of sun activity.

The last bit of information that I find interesting comes from our own U.S. Climate Survey data for December of 2008 which, then, looks backwards to the year 1895 when official record keeping began (See Current Data). By their own statistics, this last December was almost a full degree cooler than the average of all Decembers in the last century. So, where's all this heating and the famous hockey-stick rise in temperatures that Al Gore has warned us of? I would think temperatures would be consistently getting warmer if, in fact, carbon dioxide was actually affecting our climate. Further, last December was the 35th coolest December in a century of data. Beyond all that, you always hear from all those silly people pushing this global warming theory that temperatures could rise as much as a full degree in the next decade. If you look closely at the text of the U.S. Climate Survey's review of December 2008, it clearly states that temperatures in America have only risen an average of one-tenth of a degree per decade. That's a degree every hundred years. Now, with temperature falling in the last two years, I don't see this disastrous one degree leap in temps that would cause us to act immediately or the world will be doomed. If you listen to Al Gore, it might already be too late to save the world! Please!

One last thing about the melting of sea ice and floating icebergs. When I was kid, I loved to watch the General Electric sponsored science show, Mr. Wizard. As part of that show, Mr. Wizard would do experiments that you could repeat at home with simple, everyday things. One experiment that always stuck in my mind was his "water and ice" experiment. By repeating that experiment, you can truly amaze and mystify all Global Warming friends. Take a straight-sided, clear drinking glass and fill it half way with ice. Then fill that glass with water to the absolute brim; but, not overflowing. You will note that the ice will float and, some of the ice will clearly protrude from the top of the glass. What you have just created is your own mini-iceberg. You know, the ice that all those global warmists fear will all melt and flood the earth. To the non-scientist, most people would bet that water will run all over the place as protruding ice in the glass completely melts. But, it won't. That's because the water level has already been adjusted to account for the complete (above and below water) volume of that ice. So, all the floating sea ice in the entire world can melt into oblivion and won't result in any increased level of the seas. Only ice that is land-based and that melts and runs off into our oceans will result in increase ocean levels. That volume of land ice is substantially less than the volume of ice that is floating around the polar areas. In fact, the area of the North Pole is all floating ice in what is also known as the Arctic Ocean. Only Antarctica, the South Pole, has a land mass and can be legitimately called a continent. However, the South Pole is the coldest place on earth so it would take more than a just degree or two of projected overall global warming before the ice in this part of our world would have any significant melting. The coldest temps in Antarctica can actually hit -130 degrees Fahrenheit in the dead of winter; and, that's about 162 degrees (on the Fahrenheit scale) below the point where ice would melt.


Monday, January 12, 2009

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Global Warming Myth Freezing To Death

Sound science put to rest numerous unsubstantiated global warming scares in 2008. Sensationalist predictions that the North Pole would melt, polar bear numbers would decline, hurricanes would run amok, devastating droughts would occur, and Antarctic ice sheets would flood the southern seas never materialized.

Unfortunately, this will not stop the purveyors of gloom and doom from creating similar false global warming scares and sensationalist predictions for 2009.

Keeping in mind the following 10 global warming truths will help us avoid falling prey to global warming scams in the upcoming New Year.

Global temperatures are not rising. The warmest year in the past century occurred a full decade ago, in 1998. Temperatures have been gradually and steadily falling for most of the past decade. Temperatures in 2008 were no warmer than temperatures in 1980.

The Earth is colder than its long-term average. For most of the past 10,000 years, global temperatures have been 1.0 to 3.0 degrees Celsius warmer than our current climate. Twentieth century temperatures appear unusually warm only when compared to the preceding Little Ice Age, which had the coldest global temperatures of the past 10 millennia. The rise of human civilization occurred in a much warmer climate than that of today.

Polar bear populations are not declining; they’re thriving. The global polar bear population has more than doubled since the 1980s. Moreover, polar bears had no problems surviving and flourishing in the much warmer temperatures that dominated the past 10,000 years.

Polar ice is not shrinking. Arctic sea ice has moderately declined in recent years, due in large part to a recent shift in regional wind patterns. But in the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctic sea ice has been growing at a record pace. Polar ice as a whole is right on its long-term average.

Global warming is not causing more droughts. Throughout the twentieth century and since, global precipitation has been increasing, as has global soil moisture. A recent paper in one of the world’s foremost peer-reviewed science journals noted, “the terrestrial surface is literally becoming more like a gardener’s greenhouse”--an environment that is great for plant growth.

Higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are not killing sea life. Numerous recent studies show that aquatic ecosystems become more productive and robust under higher carbon dioxide conditions. Assertions that higher carbon dioxide concentrations cause harmful ocean acidification are unsupported by real-world evidence, ignore the prevalence of shellfish during prior geological periods when there was much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and would apply to only a small subset of aquatic creatures versus the vast majority of aquatic life that benefits from higher atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Global warming is not causing more extreme weather. The frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other extreme weather events is no greater now than in prior decades and centuries. Even daily high temperature records were more frequently broken 70 years ago, in the 1930s, than they are today.

Global warming is not melting Mt. Kilimanjaro’s alpine glacier. Temperatures at Mt. Kilimanjaro have been slightly cooling since at least the middle of the twentieth century, and those temperatures virtually never rise above freezing. Scientists have long known that deforestation at the base of the mountain is causing the mountaintop glacier to shrink, by reducing the moisture and resultant precipitation in mountain updrafts.

Global deserts are not growing. On the contrary, the Sahara Desert and others like it have been retreating for decades.

Scientists do not agree on a policy of alarmism. More than 32,000 scientists have signed a formal statement, prepared by a past president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-authored by an atmospheric scientist at Harvard University, saying there is no global warming crisis. By contrast, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has only 2,600 participants, many of whom are not scientists, and counts the staff of activist groups Environmental Defense and Greenpeace as its lead authors.

James M. Taylor ( is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Corrupt Federal Reserve - Robbing Americans Since 1913




The Government Computers Are Listening To ALL Cell Phone Calls and Reading Your Email

Nat Hentoff - The Village Voice
January 7, 2009

Barack Obama will be in charge of the biggest domestic and international spying operation in history. Its prime engine is the National Security Agency (NSA)—located and guarded at Fort Meade, Maryland, about 10 miles northeast of Washington, D.C. A brief glimpse of its ever-expanding capacity was provided on October 26 by The Baltimore Sun’s national security correspondent, David Wood: “The NSA’s colossal Cray supercomputer, code-named the ‘Black Widow,’ scans millions of domestic and international phone calls and e-mails every hour. . . . The Black Widow, performing hundreds of trillions of calculations per second, searches through and reassembles key words and patterns, across many languages.”

In July, George W. Bush signed into law the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which gives the NSA even more power to look for patterns that suggest terrorism links in Americans’ telephone and Internet communications.

The ACLU immediately filed a lawsuit on free speech and privacy grounds. The new Bush law provides farcical judicial supervision over the NSA and other government trackers and databasers. Although Senator Barack Obama voted for this law, dig this from the ACLU: “The government [is now permitted] to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines and e-mail addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, why it’s conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the communication of wrongdoing.”


Feds Giving Bailout Money Away But Will Not Tell To Who Or For What!

WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of a congressional panel overseeing the $700 billion bailout program said Friday that lawmakers need to "take a very hard look" at how banks have used the money.

"I'm shocked that we have to ask these questions," said Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren, "but what I will say is that I'm not giving up on this. The best news is that these questions have gotten a lot of attention and a lot of people are demanding answers and when a lot of people demand answers, things start to change."

Warren appeared on a nationally broadcast television show Friday as the Congressional Oversight Panel she heads released a report featuring questions about how banks are spending taxpayer money, how the money will combat the rising tide of home foreclosures and Treasury's overall strategy for the rescue.

But Treasury's Dec. 30 response "did not provide complete answers to several of the questions and failed to address a number of the questions at all," said the panel's second report.

The new document cited an Associated Press investigation that found none of the banks was willing to disclose what they were doing with hundreds of billions of dollars distributed through direct injections of federal money.

"For Treasury to advance funds to these institutions without requiring more transparency further erodes the very confidence Treasury seeks to restore," it said.

Appearing Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Warren said that Treasury "didn't put any tracking mechanisms on it."

"They didn't tell the banks what they had to do in order to get the money. It might be used for lending, it might be used to buy other banks ... Or it might just be stuffed in vaults and left there," she said.

"I think that Congress may want to take a very hard look at that question," Warren added. "Ultimately, we don't have a badge, don't have a gun. It's up to Congress."

"In my view, the heart of this problem started with the housing bubble and the mortgage foreclosure mess and in my view, that's where the solution should start as well," Warren said.

Most of the panel's report argues that better responses to unanswered questions are "essential" and explains why it believes Treasury's earlier responses were insufficient.

"Treasury has still not explained precisely what it sees as the problem," reads one assessment of a response deemed inadequate.

At several points, the report tartly explains the meanings of simple terms such as "strategy" and "oversight."

Referring to a question of why Treasury has required Citigroup, but not other firms that got money, to modify mortgages, the report says: "Treasury's refusal to answer this question is one of the most troubling aspects of their letter. The panel intends to do more fact finding on this matter."

Line after line of the column marked "Treasury Response" says simply, "No response."

The panel repeatedly states its reluctance to take Treasury's reassurances at face value.

"Treasury may be 'confident' that it is 'pursuing the right strategy to stabilize the financial system and support the flow of credit to our economy,' but once again, the function of oversight is to evaluate that claim," the report reads. "The question remains unanswered."

The panel's next official action will be a public hearing next Wednesday.

Friday, January 2, 2009

Global Warming Lie Used to Justify 50% increase in Gas Tax & tracking every where you drive

What Will We Do When We Can't Afford Gas Anymore?

WASHINGTON -- A 50 percent increase in gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is being urged by a federal commission until the government devises another way to control traffic, pay for roads, and offset our carbon footprint. 

The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing, a 15-member panel created by Congress, is the second group in a year to call for higher fuel taxes.

In a report expected in late January, members of the infrastructure financing commission say they will urge Congress to raise the gas tax by 10 cents a gallon and the diesel fuel tax by 12 to 15 cents a gallon. At the same time, the commission will recommend tying the fuel tax rates to inflation.

According to a draft of the financing commission's recommendations, the nation needs to move to a new system that taxes motorists according to how much they use roads.

"Most if not all of the commissioners have a strong belief and commitment that we need a fundamental transformation of the current system," said commission chairman Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a technology policy think tank in Washington.

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, in a report issued in January 2008, to call for an increase of as much as 40 cents a gallon in the gas tax, phased in over five years.

Charles Whittington, chairman of the American Trucking Associations said Congress may decide to disguise a fuel tax hike as a surcharge to combat climate change.

"Instead of calling it a gas tax, call it a carbon tax," Whittington said. The point is to try to make americans drive less by making them pay more.

The financing commission thinks the long-term solution is a mileage-based revenue system. While details have not been worked out, such a system would mean equipping every car and truck with a device that uses global positioning satellites and transponders to record how many miles the vehicle has been driven, the type of roads and time of day. 

Using this kind of technology to track driving would violate drivers' privacy, and you can be  assured that such a system would be used to  track every americans movements. 

The police will not give speeding tickets anymore. If you go over the posted speed limit, the satellite tracking system will report it and automatically take the money from your bank account electronically. 

Welcome to the Obamanation!

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Four Quick Facts To Share With Friends To Prove Global Warming Is A Lie:

Polar Ice Cap Is Growing Not Shrinking!

By Daily Telegraph

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved, according to the Telegraph’s Christopher Booker. Sceptics have long argued that there are other explanations for climate change other than man-made CO2 and here we look at some of the arguments put forward by those who believe that global warming is all a hoax.

1. Temperatures are falling, not rising
As Christopher Booker says in his review of 2008, temperatures have been dropping in a wholly unpredicted way over the past year. Last winter, the northern hemisphere saw its greatest snow cover since 1966, which in the northern US states and Canada was dubbed the "winter from hell". This winter looks set to be even worse.

2. The earth was hotter 1,000 years ago
Evidence from all over the world indicates that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today. Research shows that temperatures were higher in what is known as the Mediaeval Warming period than they were in the 1990s.

3. The earth’s surface temperature is not at record levels
According to Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements, the meteorological December 2007 to November 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Their data has also shown that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s.

4. Ice is not disappearing
Arctic website Crysophere Today reported that Arctic ice volume was 500,000 sq km greater than this time last year. Additionally, Antarctic sea-ice this year reached its highest level since satellite records began in 1979. Polar bear numbers are also at record levels.

Email this to a friends and family. It's too important to allow everyone to believe a lie!

The President Can Now Declare Martial Law For Any Reason Any Time

The president should NOT be able to suspend the Constitution on a whim and without congress. This is madness!