Come Visit My New Blog: The Truth Server

Come Visit My New Blog: The Truth Server, at http://www.thetruthserver.blogspot.com/

Columnist Frank Rich Shows Why Liberals will Lose Big in November

In what is one of the most revolting and pointless and wrong columns I have read in a while, celebrated Liberal wordsmith Frank Rich goes completely off the rails in an offensively ignorant rant about those who would deign oppose Obama.

Rich tells us in his typically even-keeled style that a frothing and filibustering Karl Rove all but lost it in a debate with the Obama strategist David Plouffe. Of course, in Rich's eyes, ardent opposition makes one "frothing and filibustering," but Plouffe only gets the respectful title of "strategist."

Rich does not let a paragraph go by without dropping an insulting remark about Obama's opponents as he regurgitates every lie and distortion about both the health care "reform" bill and anyone who should deign to disagree.

Rich refers to "goons (who) hurl venomous slurs at congressmen" outside the Capitol last week. That simply didn't happen. There is not one shred of evidence anywhere to support it. Andrew Brietbert offered to donate $10,000 if anyone comes forward with video or audio proof. None has come forth, but the Left continue with the lie.

Rich continues the misinformation citing the Congressman who shouted “baby killer” during last Sunday's session. Wrong again. Randy Neugebauer said -- not that he should have -- that the bill is a baby killer, not Bart Stupak. Neugebauer even apologized for the outburst, but Rich doesn't bother to mention this.

Between calling all Tea Partiers a "mob," and tossing out the typical suggestion that we all are racist because we don't care that Obama is black, like Rich, or that we don't count Congresspeople by race and gender, like Rich, the writer finally gets around to telling us why we are so angry with the current administration:

The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.

Oh. Thanks Frank. I thought I opposed the health care "reform" because it was extra-Constitutional and would bankrupt the country.

I am glad Frank knows what I think better than I do. After all, if I opposed this bill because it extended the reach of government beyond what the Framers foresaw, it would be an argument framed in constitutional pieties. And, we certainly wouldn't want a piece of paper to get in the way of "progress," now would we.

In all, this column is an excellent example of why the Democrats are going to lose BIG in the elections this fall. They have no clue what it is the American people think and frankly don't care (pun intended). They are right, we are wrong, and that is that.

Keep it up, Liberals. Please.

The Health Care Vote Really Was Historic!!

The Liberals like to tell us that Sunday's vote on health care "reform" was historic. They are right.

Never before has the U.S. Congress voted on a bill so massive, so intrusive, that affects every person in the United States, all the while showing absolute contempt for the will of the American people and a total disdain for the voices of opposition.

Never before has Congress been so blatantly corrupt, so nakedly unashamed (and even proud!) of the backroom deals, bribery, threats, and extortion that were all required to get this bill passed by the slimmest of margins.

It was an historic event.

Hurricane Katrina was historic, too. As was 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Nixon's resignation, Clinton's impeachment, and the Mura building bombing.

Historic does not necessarily mean good for America.

With the health care "reform" bill, we saw an historic abdication of responsibility, an historic display of hubris and political self-gratification, an historic corruption of the American political process, and an historic shift in the government/populace relationship that might be forever damaged.

John Boehner was right, Democrats; you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I know I am ashamed of you.

If Repubs Filibuster, Obama Will Pass Health Reform Through Reconciliation

According to the Plum Line blog, if the Congressional Republicans try to filibuster ObamaCare in an attempt to get Obama to start over with the goal of producing a more modest bill that tries to curb costs and helps small businesses and people with health problems secure coverage, the Democrats will use parliamentary procedures to ram the package through anyway.

Health insurance coverage and medical care in this country will be changed dramatically with no input from anyone who opposes the plans. Plans overwhelmingly opposed by the American people will be slipped through the cracks in the floor, the voters be damned.

Among Obama's recently announced "improvements" is a plan to let the federal government control how much your insurance company can charge you for insurance. A Federal panel will monitor and block exorbitant rate hikes and other unfair practices by the insurance industry.

This sounds good on the surface; but of course, there will be no definition of "exorbitant rate hikes," so Obama can block any rate increase for any reason, including political reasons.

Remember Humana insurance, who sent an e-mail to customers about potential changes to their service as a result of these "reforms"? Are they in line to have their every cost increase labeled "exorbitant"?

You will be forced by law to have health insurance whether you want to or not, and Obama will tell you how much it will cost you. One person in the federal government will get to determine what your health plan covers or doesn't include and it will be illegal for you to pay a doctor for a service on your own. Sounds like America to me, doesn't it?

According to Plum Line, Eric cantor (R-VA) sums up the Obama/Reid/Pelosi health care juggernaut well:

The Obama plan costs a trillion dollars, puts government in control of personal health decisions, and allows the government to set prices in the private market. That mirrors the Pelosi/Reid plans that have already been soundly rejected by the bipartisan majority of Americans."

Is this really the Hope and Change you voted for America?

Obama Steals Credit for Success of Iraq War

In an interview with Larry King, Vice President Joe Biden delcared Iraq one of the great achievements of this administration.

Despite that President Obama campaigned as an opponent of the Iraq war, he bragged about not supporting the war from the beginning, and voted against the "surge" that apparently helped the U.S. "win" the Iraq war, President Obama seems poised to claim he is responsible for freedom in Iraq -- a victory for which he did nothing but continue the policy of the previous administration.

"You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer," Biden said. "You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama, Iraq is one of the great achievements of the U.S. Military.

Biden seems an odd ambassador for declaring Obama's victory in Iraq, as he has been a strident opponent of the conflict from the beginning.

On the day of the Democrats first rumble in South Carolina and a critical vote demanding the President begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Thursday that the troop surge plan in Iraq has failed.

As the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden called the surge a mistake.

...the (anti-surge) legislation is “not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It’s an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq.”

Even the notoriously right-wing Time magazine is reluctant to give much credit to Obama for his efforts in Iraq:

By negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government shortly before leaving office, Bush made Obama's job a lot easier — because that agreement sets a cast-iron deadline for withdrawing all U.S. troops...

The moment in which the U.S. was able to significantly change the outcome in Iraq passed sometime before Bush left office; Obama is simply wrapping things up.

A couple of years ago, Biden himself agreed:

Biden said he delivered this message in a recent meeting at the White House, where he told Bush: “Mr. President this is your war."

Obama's War on Child Obesity Shows What is Wrong with Government

Quick! What do you do if you want to lose weight? Take your time; I can wait.

Did you say: eat less, eat better, and exercise more? If you did, you are way ahead of Barack Obama, who today announced the he needs a "task force" to figure out what to do about the epedemic of childhood obesity.

Like everything Obama, it seems that obesity is yet another crisis that requires "a coordinated Federal response." When Obama was deciding about the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial, he reportedly allowed one person to make the call. But fat kids? The Obama team will partner with public health professionals and private companies to solve the crisis.

While childhood obesity is no laughing matter (full disclosure, I suffered from childhood obesity and again adult obesity), the typical government hysteria is hilarious.

Get this. It is going to take the secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Education; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady; the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; and the heads of other executive departments, agencies, or offices as the Chair may designate 90 days to figure out how to get kids to lose weight.

How about this: Hey kid. Put down the Wii controller and get outside and play real baseball. And tonight, no Chinese food take-out. Print out a few thousand posters for schools to put up and run a PSA or two. Done.

Here lies the problem with government. No matter what the problem, it takes a massive effort to do the simplest thing. Countless personnel, endless funding, blue-ribbon panels all to solve a problem that is none of their damn business anyway.

Add to that, the condescending attitude of this particular administration, who promises to empower parents with information and tools to make good choices for themselves and their families.

Thanks, Barack, for your support in believing that I am screwing up my kids. Thank God you and Michelle are here to set things right. What have we done without ye?

"They feel like the deck is stacked against them. They feel guilty," (Michelle Obama) said. "We need to help them."

Ms. First Lady, we need your help like we need a shovel to the head. Speaking for myself, I do not need your help to make good choices for myself and my family, thank you very much.

What was it that we used to say when I was dealing with childhood obesity? Oh yeah. MYOB*!!

One last note, do you think that people will laugh at the ridiculously-titled Let's Move campaign the way they did for Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign? Yeah, me neither.

*mind you own business

Scott Brown and the Party of "No"

As Massacusetts Senator-Elect Scott Brown prepares to be sworn-in to the U.S. Senate today, all the typical voices are full-throated with claims of staus quo and the party of no.

Well, if all that Scott Brown does in his time in the Senate is say "No" to every Barack Obama proposal, I am OK with that:

Obama: I want to destroy the medical care system in the country.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to tax people who happen to carry their own insurance by 40%.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to control what kind of medical services your doctor can provide.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to cause energy rates to 'necessarily skyrocket.'
Brown: No

Obama: I want to cripple industry through this dubious cap-and-trade program.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to give full Constitutional and legal rights -- including full legal disclosure of intelligence secrets -- to admitted terrorists."
Brown: No

Obama: I want to spend trillions of dollars on 'stimulus' programs that don't seem to be working.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to burden future generations with untold deficits.
Brown: No

Sounds good to me. After all, Paul Kirk was hand-picked to replace Ted Kennedy simply because he would say "Yes" to everything Obama/Reid/Pelosi. So, when the voters of Massachusetts decide to actually elect a candidate to carry a different message, I say:
Go Scott! No!

A Taxing Problem for President Obama

An article from the Associated Press on last quarter's unexpected economic growth presents President Obama a problem. How to keep it going.

"The economy's faster-than-expected growth at the end of last year, fueled by companies boosting output to keep stockpiles up, is likely to weaken as consumers keep a lid on spending.

Many estimate the nation's gross domestic product will grow 2.5 percent to 3 percent in the current quarter and about 2.5 percent or less for the full year."

The economy felt a spurt, but the American people don't want to spend their money to keep it going. How to solve this dilemma?

"The economic recovery could falter if consumers, who account for 70 percent of economic activity, lack the income to ramp up spending."

With unemployment high and expected to "remain close to 10 percent through the end of the year," what can Washington do to spur consumer spending and confidence?

"...for all of last year, workers' compensation rose by the smallest amount on records going back more than a quarter-century."

How to put more money in people's pocket so they will spend the money and keep the economic engine revving up.

If only there were a way to CUT down on the TAXing nature of this problem. If only there were a way to REDUCE how much this problem TAXES our economy. We must LOWER the TAXATION this problem places on the economy in order to SPUR THE ECONOMY.

Obama: Not "Re-Litigating the Past" at State of Union Means Bashing Your Predecessor?

Last night, during the State of the Union speech, President Obama told us in a matter-of-fact way: I'm not interested in re-litigating the past.

I am not sure what he mean by re-litigating the past; did somebody sue the past and lose?

Whatever he meant, Obama certainly had no problem pointing back and tossing the blame for all our problems on the last administration. If you managed to slog though the 75-minute monologue, here are several examples of Obama not "relitigating the past":

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression.

One year ago is certainly not the past, is it?

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.

Certainly no criticism of past presidential decisions here.

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable.

Darn that last administration, why does the last administration have to be in past so Obama can't criticize how non-transparent and unaccountable they were?

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office.

When I took office (a year ago) sounds like a reference to the past. Maybe Obama means by not re-litigating that he wants to move on without blaming the Bush administration for all our problems?

The problem is that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.

Well, that's not it.

That's why -– for the first time in history –- my administration posts on our White House visitors online.

Not a swipe at the past, but a boring and meaningless self-aggrandizing plug. Wow, look how many times SEIU chief Andy "There are terrorist in the Senate" Stern has visited Obama! I wonder how many of his other visitors are completely insane?

Again, I have no idea how one re-litigates (or litigates) the past, but Obama sure spent a lot of time passing the buck backwards. Regardless of your opinion of President Bush, aren't you getting a little weary of Obama tossing out the "Blame Bush" mantra and carping about all the problems "he inherited"?

Come to think, if Bush hadn't created all the problems that Obama is whining about, odds are on that Obama would not be president today.

Obama Spending Freeze Another Phony Photo Op

President Obama is poised to initiate a spending freeze on "domestic spending."

The three-year plan will be part of the budget Obama will submit Feb. 1, senior administration officials said, commenting on condition of anonymity to reveal private details.

On the surface, which is how most people look at these things, it sounds good. Liberals are apoplectic about the plan, which has to be good. But, a quick look at the numbers shows that this -- yet again -- might be a Barack Obama phony photo-op.

The savings would be small at first, perhaps $10 billion to $15 billion, one official said. But over the coming decade, savings would add up to $250 billion.

Now, $15 billion off the annual budget is a lot of money, no doubt; but when you consider that the federal budget for 2009 was $3.5 trillion. You do the math; too many zeros for me.

The proposals (Obama) described won't create jobs, but he said they could "re-establish some of the security that's slipped away."

That's certainly good news for the more than 15 million people out of work. I am sure they all will feel more "secure" when the late fees on bills add up, the cancellation notices appear, the foreclosure warnings start; with the sheriff knocking on the door, take heart that Obama has taken out his scalpel, left the hatched behind, and plans to nick 0.004% off his spending next year. I think that is roughly equivalent to the average family clipping a coupon to get a free box of Cheerios.

Himalayan Glaciar Claim Melts Down Faster than the Glacier

More Stories from the Man-Made Global-Warming is Neither Department

In the past few months, we have seen much of the "science" behind anthropological-caused global warming to be riddled with errors, improperly or not peer-reviewed, and just plain wrong.

Now comes two new stories that we "deniers" can add to the growing cachet of evidence that man-made global-warming is neither.

It seems that a couple of years ago, a critically-acclaimed and Nobel prize winning article by the UN included a claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 25 years. Well, turns out that this claim -- like so much in the pro-global warming debate -- is both bogus and fraudulent.

The scientist behind the claim that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr. (Murari) Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.'

In short, it sounded good so they threw it in just to scare people.

This bizzare charge came from an article by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) who wrote their article around two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which they took on faith. Dr. Lal spun the WWF article into an article of his own, without question.

Which is tragic, for had any of the scientists bothered to have someone take a second look, they may have noticed a tiny mathematical error.

The World Wildlife Fund article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

The time-line on the melting glaciers did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research, Dr Lal admitted. No kidding.

But, WWF did apologize on its Web site for the oversight saying the group regrets any confusion caused. {Note: The statement seems to have disappeared from the site, but ironically, one can find a piece called Separating Myth From Reality http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/act-for-our-future/myth-from-reality.html). No comment from Dr. Lal if he accepted WWF's apology for the inconvenience of having to apologize himself.

I made up a lie about global warming and I told two friends and they told two friends and so on...

Critics of the glacier claim seemed to have be aplenty before the UN study was published; however, Dr. Lal seems to have been more intent to scare people than inform:

...an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.

Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director, said the affair suggested the IPCC review process was ‘skewed by a bias towards alarmist assessments’. I couldn't agree more.

When reached for comment, Dr Lal reportedly said: "I am shocked, shocked to find that my claim is incorrect."

Part 2 tomorrow

United States Senator Scott Brown

Congratulations, Mr. Brown on your exciting and convincing victory in the Massachusetts Senatorial Special Election.

It was a great pleasure to finally again cast a vote that counted, and that matters.

Now, please go to Washington D.C. and be the senator you promised to be throughout your campaign. Do not turn into a typical politician (or self-serving-son-of-a-bitch as my wife would say about most or all politicians). Fight for us, the voters; fight for the United States of America; fight for our Constitution, from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Congratulations again, United States Senator Scott Brown.

BREAKING NEWS; Boston Globe Endoreses Martha Coakley for US Senate

The Boston Globe, in a truly surprise move, actually endorsed the Democrat candidate in a Massachusetts election. This is the first time since the last election in Massachusetts that the Globe did not support the Republican. In fact, I can't recall the Globe ever endorsing a Republican.

In a bizzare two Internet-page endorsement, the Globe rolled out a host of lies and distortions in their effort to bolster the Coakley campaign (much the same way that Coakley has in her recent negative campaign ad blitz).

From the editorial:

"Coakley, for one, deeply opposes the restrictions on abortion coverage (in Washington health care plans), but would not block the whole reform effort to get her way."

Here, the Globe celebrates a person who abandons her principles, to support the party-line. We do need more of that in the U.S. Seante.

"Blocking bills is easy; finding a politically acceptable response to complicated problems is hard."

While true that Coakley has never found "a politically acceptable response to complicated problems;" that is because she has never held a position that would require her to. It is hard to compromise on legislation when when has never held a representative elected position.

Scott Brown has. In fact, one "compromise" he made regarding emergency contraception is at the heart of a cruel lie being perpetuated by Coakley.

"She is by far the more qualified candidate, in experience and judgment. She has prosecuted hundreds of criminals and helped coordinate plans to protect the state from terrorist threats."

Exactly how does this qualify her to be a U.S. Senator? One could argue that state senate experience may not prepare someone for U.S. Senate, but to say experience being Attorney General does is ludicrous.

"But this year, a lot of people want to send a message. The message they should send is this: Massachusetts is fed up with Senate wrangling and wants clear answers on health care, climate change, and loose regulation of financial institutions. Coakley, with her hard work and proven skills, is well-qualified to carry this message to Washington."

Coakley supports measures opposed by the majority of MA voters; the current health care proposals, cap-and-trade, increased taxation. She will most certainly not carry the message to D.C. that the voters of Massachusetts want. She will certainly carry the voice of the special interests and lobbyists that she has been courting.

The true message that should be carried is that we are fed up with the way business is currently transacted in D.C. Sending a rubber-stamp vote to Senate is hardly the way to change this.

"Coakley wasn’t the most forceful or visionary candidate in the Democratic field"

Well, I can't argue with that. Nor is she the "most forceful or visionary candidate" in this race either.

"A cap-and-trade plan to reduce pollution is the cheapest and most efficient way to combat global warming"

First, there is no clear evidence that global warming even exists (and real evidence exists to suggest it is a ); and second, in Obama's own words, energy costs would "necessarily skyrocket" Doesn't sound like a cheap option to me.

"Brown hasn’t hidden his positions"

Again, true; but the editorial fails to mention how Coakley has hidden hers.

"It’s a vote for gridlock, in the form of endless Republican filibusters, and for the status quo in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. That’s what will happen if Brown gives the Republicans the additional vote they need to tie up the Senate."

Wrong again. Having a 41st vote will make it harder for the Dems to force things through with no input from the opposition. The majority party can pass anything with only 51 votes (or 50 with the vice president breaking the tie). The 60-vote threshold is for cloture, which moves a bill towards a majority vote.

Failing to achieve cloture is a relatively rare occurrence and is generally a sign that the bill is truly partisan.

In this article, they mention some of the more positive outcomes of a potential Brown victory:

...(Brown)would give the Republicans enough votes to block, under Senate rules, anything Obama wants to do.

And, conversely, Coakley would do anything that Obama wants to do, without question or hesitation.

Republican State Senator Scott Brown, who drives an old truck, channels voter skepticism more directly.

That is because, unlike Coakley, Brown actually listens to the voters.

In this bizarre endorsement, Coakley's name was mention 7 times; while Brown's name appears 14 times.

This is not an endorsement of Coakley as much as it is a screed against Brown. Which, knowing the Globe, is a backwards endorsement of Scott Brown, if you ask me.