Obama at the Bat

This video is a spin off of "Casey at the Bat." Too funny.



(My e-mail subscribers and others can also watch the video by clicking here.)

L.o.L.o.L. - Lies, or Lack of Leadership

Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans in Congress have been butting heads for some time over whether or not the federal government's debt ceiling should be raised. Obama and the Democrats originally wanted it raised and the Republicans did not. Now, they're trying to negotiate a "deal." The Republicans say they will only support the raising of the debt ceiling if substantial spending cuts and tax breaks are included. Obama and the Democrats originally said they wanted to raise the debt ceiling and impose tax increases on the "wealthy" to pay for it. Now, the two sides are negotiating. All sorts of stories have come out during the "negotiation." One said that the Republicans would give in to the tax increases. Another one said that Senator Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky had proposed letting Obama raise the debt ceiling all by himself. Where will it end ?

The proponents of raising the debt ceiling say if it's not raised the federal government will default on it's financial obligations. The ones who oppose a debt ceiling increase say no such default will occur. Who's right and who's wrong ? Are we being lied to ? In the last few days, it's gotten rather ugly with Obama trying to scare senior citizens and the disabled by saying that he "... cannot guarantee that those checks (Social Security) will go out ..." if the situation is not resolved. He said the same thing about payments to veterans. He's also challenged Congressman Eric Cantor (R) by saying "... don't call my bluff." Where's the leadership ?

What is the debt ceiling ? Basically, it's the federal government's credit card limit. We've all got credit cards with credit limits. If you're credit card limit is $5000, once you purchase enough on that card to reach that credit limit, which is not advisable, you can't "charge" any more to that card until you pay some of it off. That's basically where the federal government is. They're gonna "hit the limit" on their credit card and can't borrow any more money. So, what do you do if you hit your credit card limit ? You only buy what you've got the cash to pay for. This is where the folks who say the federal government will default on it's financial obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised are wrong. If you and I limited out on our credit cards, we would have to pay cash for everything. The federal government could do the same. They would have to make it by on a cash basis and live within a budget. The problem is they don't want to do that. They're basically addicted to spending money.

In fact, a recent report on CNSNews.com reported that there is enough money to pay the government's bills if the ceiling isn't raised. The report was derived from daily reports produced by the U.S. Treasury that reported that current fiscal tax revenue was above projections and was adequate to pay the monthly interest. Furthermore, the same CNSNews.com report stated that current revenue is adequate to pay for the interest on current debt, Social Security, Medicare, and the monthly salaries and benefits of federal employees including the military. Interesting, huh ? Now you have to ask yourself, "who's telling the truth ?"

I do not believe there is a need to raise the debt ceiling. The country is indebted too much as it is. The federal government needs to learn to live within it's means like the rest of us. If they are that concerned about running out of money, they need to prioritize spending. Make the necessary payments - i.e. interest, payroll, Social Security, Medicare, defense, etc. Cut the ones that aren't needed. They could start by getting out of Libya, not spending the unused stimulus funds, cutting off foreign aid, cutting off federal employees travel, etc. Heck, Obama and Congress could even take a pay cut and stay at home instead of flying all over the world costing taxpayers millions. I know - that would make too much sense.

So, has Obama and Congress been lying to us or is there just a serious lack of leadership ? You have to make up your own mind, but I believe it's some of both. Think about it for a second. Can you still pay at least some of your important bills if your credit card is maxed out ? Of course you can. You prioritize. Congress and Obama can, too. They are lying to us when they say they can't. In addition, leadership is not shown by scaring people as Obama has attempted to do, and for him to imply, as he did, that he has some sort of control over social security checks is incorrect. If he would take a look a the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, he would see that only Congress has such authority over fiscal matters - not him. There has also been a lack of leadership on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Members have been demonized. Nancy Pelosi has called Republicans "Satan." That's not leadership.

I've been hard on Republicans for the last year or so. However, this time I applaud the ones who are standing strong and saying no to raising the debt ceiling and instead insisting on spending and tax cuts. They must continue to do so, because they are right. They should show leadership by accepting no deals. They were voted in to do just that. They need to stick to their guns - period. Nothing else is acceptable. The problem is that I suspect Obama's scare tactics will work and they will eventually give in, but I hope I'm wrong.

5 passengers

An airplane was about to crash carrying 5 passengers but only 4 parachutes.

The first passenger said, "I am President Obama, the chosen one. The world needs me, I can't afford to die." So he took the first pack and left the plane. 

The second passenger, Nancy Pelosi said, "I am the former Speaker of the House and the smartest woman in American history. So, America 's people don't want me to die." She took the second pack and jumped off the plane. 

The third passenger, John Kerry, said, "I'm a Senator and a decorated war hero from the United States Navy." So he grabbed the pack next to him and jumped. 

The fourth passenger, former-President George W. Bush, said to the fifth passenger, a 10-year-old schoolgirl, "I have lived a full life and served my country the best I could. I will sacrifice my life and let you have the last parachute." 

The girl said, "That's okay. There's a parachute left for you. America's smartest woman took my schoolbag."

Can you spare .....

.... some change ?? Poor Nancy Pelosi needs your help. She has lost her job as Speaker of the House which means she must give up the use of her private, taxpayer funded jet (a 757 to be exact). The good news for her - "Bags" still fly free on Southwest.

 Image courtesy of www.FreakingNews.com.

Personally, I say , "Don't let the door hit ya on the way out, Nancy." Furthermore, we can't spare any more "Change."

Related articles

• Nancy Pelosi: Speaker of the House No More (freedomeden.blogspot.com)
• "Following Loss of 60+ House Seats ... Nancy Pelosi Says She Has "No Regrets!"" and related posts (scaredmonkeys.com)

Sheepdog on the Warpath - Part 1, The NRA

As I promised last week, I'm kicking of this week's series, Sheepdog on the Warpath, today. Today the target locked onto is The National Rifle Association (NRA). As a firearms enthusiast and a firm believer in The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, it was a tough post to write and one that I really did not want to do. However, it will become evident very quickly why I did it. The NRA has lost it's way and needs to be held accountable.

I have a number of bones to pick with the NRA. However, the last straw was their involvement in The Disclose Act. Back in January, The U.S. Supreme Court overturned The McCain-Feingold Act with it's decision in the Citizen United vs. Federal Election Commission case (see my February 5, 2010 post titled "Did Obama Make A Tactical Error ?"). Afterwards, the Congressional Democrats announced very quickly that they would begin composing new legislation to re-impose the ban on corporate political speech during elections. They did so with The Disclose Act. However, the new bill contained exemptions for large organizations such as the NRA. When the bill first began making it's way through the U.S. House of Representatives, the NRA fought vigorously against it because they were firmly in the bill's crosshairs. Suddenly in mid-June, it was announced that the NRA had been given a special exemption from the bill in exchange for not openly opposing and fighting against it. In press releases and other statements, the NRA has stated that no deal was struck between them and Congress. However, in an interview with Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President, on the Lars Larson radio show (click here and then scroll down to listen), LaPierre never directly answers Mr. Larson's question when asked whether or not a deal was struck. Furthermore, LaPierre basically says that the NRA will do whatever it takes to protect The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Apparently, that includes sacrificing the First Amendment protection of free speech.

The NRA has taken a lot of heat over The Disclose Act from folks both on the right and the left (please see article on Reuters.com - Groups oppose NRA exemption in campaign bill). Some have said there was a deal and others have said there was not (please see article by Timothy P. Carney on WashingtonExaminer.com - NRA isn't the villain in free speech fight). However, LaPierre's refusal to directly answer Mr. Larson's questions settled the debate for me because it told me that a deal was made. So, on August 12, 2010, I prepared the following letter listing a number of grievances I have with the NRA and mailed it to Mr. LaPierre :

Dear Mr. LaPierre,

I've been around firearms all my life but did not join the NRA until the 1990s shortly after Bill Clinton won the White House. I resigned my NRA Membership after the passage of the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban because I felt the NRA had not worked hard enough to keep those bills from passing. Around late 2007 or early 2008, I rejoined the NRA to give it a second chance and because the Democrats were nominating an anti-gunner, either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, for the presidency. I believed re-joining the NRA was the best way to keep informed about future anti-gun legislation.

The NRA has blown its second chance as I'm upset with it again for several reasons. First, why does the NRA continue giving good grades and endorsements to my Congressman, Jim Cooper (TN-5) ?? The NRA-PVF website gave him a B- in 2002, a B and the endorsement in 2004, a B+ in 2006, and an A and with the endorsement in 2008. Cooper voted in favor of the Brady Bill and for the Assault Weapons Ban before he voted against it. He only voted against the Assault Weapons Ban after the funding to put additional police officers on the street was stripped from it. He was fine with stripping gun owners of their God-given rights as protected by The Second Amendment as long as additional cops were on the street. Apparently, he did not believe gun owners were capable of protecting themselves so he supported less freedom and a bigger nanny state. Tennessee's gun owners were so angry over these votes that we gave him an "F" and voted him out of office in 1994 as the NRA should have done. Unfortunately, Tennesseans voted him back into Congress in 2002. In 2008, Cooper's Republican challenger for re-election, Gerard Donovan, was a gun rights supporter and a Tennessee concealed carry permit holder, but the NRA backed Cooper. It's only a matter of time until Cooper WILL betray you and gun owners again. Since his 2008 re-election, he has voted in favor of ObamaCare, the bailouts, and the stimulus bills. He's part of the reason the country is falling apart. Thanks for nothing. Strike one NRA.

Secondly, I'm upset with the NRA over The Disclose Act. This law's purpose was to infringe on the political speech of various organizations. On June 15, 2010, I received an e-mail from the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) stating that the NRA had struck a deal with Pelosi, Reid, etc. to exempt it from the bill's provisions as long as the NRA did not publicly oppose the bill. Did they promise no future gun control bills, too ? If you believe there will not be any, I've got some ocean front property here in hills of Tennessee that I'll make you a great deal on. Maybe Congressman Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd can help you get a great, low rate on the mortgage, too. I've done my homework by reading all the NRA press releases and e-mails claiming that no such deal was struck. I've listened to your interview with Lars Larsen on his radio show and read your comments elsewhere which basically state that the NRA will do anything to protect The Second Amendment. I do not believe the NRA's denials no deal was made. Apparently, the NRA took notes from Sen. Ben Nelson and Sen. Mary Landrieu selling out the First Amendment thinking it would protect the Second. You've let down the American people and we expect better. One part of The Constitution and our freedom can NEVER be sacrificed in order to protect another. Such a deal will only result in us losing all of our freedoms. Strike two NRA.

Thirdly, I've got a big problem with your "Friendly to Incumbents Policy." The NRA endorsed Congressman Jim Cooper in 2008 (see above) in accordance with this policy. The same policy was applied this year in the Republican Primary for Tennessee Senate District 17. The NRA endorsed the incumbent Mae Beavers over State Representative Susan Lynn. Both of them have been rated A+ by the NRA on numerous occasions. Some would say they have an identical pro-gun record. However, that is not true. While a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives, Mae Beavers voted in favor of Rep. Jimmy Naifeh being Speaker of the House on four occasions. During his gun-hating career, Naifeh has single-handedly killed numerous pro-gun bills, including ones that would have expanded Tennessee's carry laws. Yet the NRA endorsed Beavers anyway. Rep. Lynn, on the other hand, has always supported gun owners. In fact, my first contact ever with Rep. Lynn was to ask her to oppose, which she did, an anti-gun bill working its way through the Tennessee Legislature. In regards to the "Friendly to Incumbents Policy," the argument could be made that both were incumbents in this race since both were holding seats in the Tennessee General Assembly at the time. In this race, the NRA should have given them both A's or A+'s and issued a statement to the effect that gun owners would have been safe voting for either. Beavers definitely should not have been given the endorsement and I would argue that her grade should have been lowered due to her support of Naifeh. Any vote(s) supporting an anti-gun colleague for Speaker of the House, as Beavers did, should earn you an F every time. Strike three. The NRA is out.

Lastly, you have been hypocritical in the letters I have received from you. For instance :

• In a March 30, 2009 letter offering the membership in the Golden Eagles, you wrote, "And, the NRA's Golden Eagles are leaders who see the big picture - that, in the long run, the biggest danger we face is the gradual chipping away of our rights bit by bit in what our friend Charlton Heston long ago called a 'cultural war'.
• In a December 4, 2009 renewal letter to me, you said, "And the one organization in America today that can defend not just the Second Amendment, but freedom itself is the NRA."
• You also said in that December 4, 2009 that, "Your (membership) card says that you're part of one of the most powerful armies of freedom-fighters that the world has ever seen. An army that takes no prisoners ... An army that stands up for its friends and relentlessly attacks its enemies ... An army whose highest allegiance is not to any individual or any political party but only to the cause of freedom."

I have pointed out, above, how the NRA has contradicted the quoted passages above by not fighting for freedom (The Disclose Act Deal), not attacking its enemies (endorsements of Jim Cooper), and not stood up for its friends (withheld endorsement from Lynn and gave to Beavers). The NRA has also aided in "the chipping away of our rights" by not standing for and proclaiming it's 100% opposition to ANY infringement of free speech in regards to The Disclose Act. For these reasons, I am giving my resignation, effective immediately, in the NRA as a member and as a Golden Eagle. I have previously done so via telephone but felt it should be done in writing, too. I will also be encouraging all of my blog readers, Facebook friends, family, and others resign, too. There are other Second Amendment advocacy groups locally and nationally that fight for and support our rights fairly and without sacrificing any part of The Constitution. I am also requesting a full refund of my Golden Eagles dues for this year. The check can be mailed to my address above.

The NRA's policies, grades, endorsements, and backroom deals have betrayed mine and other Americans trust and damaged our Republic and Constitution. Please do NOT send me any more magazines, renewal notices, or other solicitations. If you do, they will be marked " REFUSED - RETURN TO SENDER" and returned to you. The NRA is as out of touch with everyday Americans, such as myself, as Congress. Charlton Heston has to be rolling over in his grave after The Disclose Act deal. Your failure to adamantly oppose that bill was a slap in the face to our military men and women. They sacrifice time with their families and often their very lives to protect and defend our freedoms and the very Constitution that the NRA shredded with The Disclose Act deal. Your organization is no better than Obama and the other Socialists, Marxists, and Communists in D.C. The NRA is a hypocritical joke.

Sincerely,

Johnny Black,

Patriot and ex-NRA Member

Since mailing the letter to Mr. LaPierre, I have found a website by the name of NRAwol.net which details even more "indiscretions" of the NRA. I have not had the time yet to go through and confirm the site's claims, but I plan to. I encourage everyone, especially gun owners, to do your own homework and research these issues for yourself.

In my opinion, the NRA is caught up in the same lust for power and money that is infecting others in D.C. I have given them two chances. They have failed both times. I will continue to advocate for The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. However, it will not be as a member of the NRA. I'm encouraging gun owners to get involved locally instead of giving your hard earned money to the NRA anymore. Most states have some sort of gun owners association and there are at least two other national associations that I'm aware - Gun Owners of America and National Association for Gun Rights. Do your research on them and then consider joining.

P.S. The Disclose Act was voted down and failed to become law. However, rumor has it that it will come back up and be snuck into law as an amendment on another bill. Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. The NRA sold it's soul to the devil (Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, etc.) on this one. Scuttlebutt is that they are considering endorsing Harry Reid for re-election, also. Pathetic.

"Fundamental Transformation" of U.S. health care system now a reality

Last night, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats achieved their goal. By a margin of 219-212, including Tennessee District 5 Congressman Jim Cooper, the Constitution-disregarding-Socialists voted to began the complete overhaul of the best health care system in the world. For months, Obama, Pelosi, and the Sociali-crats have been blaming the Republicans and others for being the party of "No." All of that was nothing but spin. The responsibility for the health care and economic boondoggle that will follow this vote lies completely upon the Democratic party. Why ?? Because the Republicans have no power. They are significantly in the minority and had no voice in this debacle.

The roll call as to how each member of the House voted is available on The New York Times website.

Even though George W. screwed some things up, I think I can honestly answer this question with a resounding YES !!

SHOCKING REPORT : Pelosi and Democrats may pass health care takeover without a vote !!

A shocking report in The Washington Post yesterday (March 16, 2010) says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats may try to ram through the government takeover of health care without even taking a vote !! Pelosi is considering using a maneuver called the "self-executing rule" or "deem and pass" which would allow members of the house to vote on corrections they want to make to the Senate version and just "deem" the health care overhaul as passed. Pelosi is considering this option "because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure." Well .... duh. It's a cover-up. When the majority of Americans are opposed to the bill, Congress wants to CYA so we don't know how each of them voted.

Newsflash for Pelosi - even though the "self-executing" rule may be a legislative tool at her disposal, it's completely unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution says in Article 1, Section 7(2) :

"..... But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

In plain English it says that there must be a vote and the "yeas" and "nays" must be recorded. These people still aren't listening. We have told them time and time again to follow The Constitution and they refuse. At least now we know exactly what happened to the Soviet Union when it fell. It migrated a few thousand miles west to Washington D.C. If Pelosi and the rest of the House pull this stunt, we voters need to show them this fall that by using the "self-executing" rule, each one of them "self-executed" their political career. Stick a fork in 'em ..... they're done !!

Did Obama make a "tactical error ?"

I've been "chewing on" Mr. Obama's State of the Union Address for the last week and a half. I'll be honest. I did not watch it. I just read the news reports afterwards, read some commentaries, and briefly read part of the speech's transcript. In doing so, it has occurred to me that the Community Organizer in Chief may have made what could be referred to as a "tactical" or "strategic" error. Let me explain.

About a week before the speech, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down it's opinion in the Citizen United vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case which overturned the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold Act). McCain-Feingold prohibited both for-profit and not-for-profit corporations from running campaign advertisements either for or against a candidate in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. Now, with the CU vs. FEC decision, corporations can run such political advertisements. However, they still can NOT make campaign contributions to a candidate.

During his speech, with the nine Supreme Court Justices and all 535 members of Congress in attendance, plus millions watching on TV, Obama basically called out the Supreme Court by saying :

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Afterwards, Justice Alito, who cast the deciding vote, was seen shaking his head and muttering, "not true" which caused a controversy similar to when Congressman Joe Wilson yelled, "you lie." However, can you really blame him since Obama basically insulted the nine justices on national TV ??

Now - here's why I say Obama made a tactical / strategic error. The Supreme Court is "The Supreme Law of the Land." The 535 members of Congress can pass any bill they want and Obama can sign it into law. However, if a legal challenge is made to that law and it makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, then if just five of the nine justices decide the law is unconstitutional, the law is void and can NOT be enforced. It's the same as if the law never passed. So think about this - Obama's health care reform plan has still NOT passed, but state's attorney generals from all across the country are already planning court challenges if it does. If ObamaCare passes, is then challenged in court, and makes it to the Supreme Court, the same nine justices he dissed on national TV will decide it's fate. How long do you think they are gonna remember the dissing they took ?? Could it effect their decision ?? I'd like to think that those nine justices are more professional than that, but who knows. They are human and we humans can be vengeful.

Furthermore, there is still this controversy swirling around about whether Obama is or is not a natural born U.S. citizen, and there have been several lawsuits filed challenging his legal status. However, to my knowledge they have all be dismissed for "lack of standing." For arguments sake, let's say that one of those suits comes before a judge that was offended because his or her colleagues on the Supreme Court were disrespected. Let's also suppose that judge decides the case does have STANDING and allows it to proceed. As it works it's way through the system, the case winds up before the Supreme Court. Now Obama's in between a rock and a hard a place because the justices he basically called stupid will decide whether he remains in office. Can you say "oops ?"

Lastly, Obama saying the CU vs. FEC decision will allow foreign corporations and special interests to basically buy elections shows either no knowledge of Federal election campaign laws or he's simply twisting the truth. It is still unlawful for corporations to contribute to a candidate. All the decision does is allow corporations to put together advertisements supporting or opposing a candidate or the candidate's policies. I think Obama and the Democrats are afraid the decision hurts their chances of getting re-elected. Why ?? Groups like the tea partiers, pro-life groups, pro-gun organizations, and others can now run ads to support candidates that line up with their values and oppose the ones who don't. However, it also will allow unions to do the same thing for Obama and other Democrats. Think about this - Fox News and the NRA can now spend money to help conservative candidates and that makes Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and others awful nervous, plus they know who just went to work for Fox News - Sarah Palin.

Oops.

Obama calls for "Beer Summit 2," Biden THRILLED !!

Last night, the Democrats took a punch in the gut. They stunningly lost the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for over 40 years. Shortly after the victory speech by Senator-Elect Scott Brown, a number of newsworthy items occurred :

• Shortly, after 10 p.m. EST, Massachusetts residents felt an earthquake. Sources say it was Ted Kennedy flipping, not rolling, over in this grave.
• Around 10:30 p.m. EST, Mr. Obama announced that "Beer Summit 2" would be held this weekend at the White House in an attempt "to rally the troops and regroup." When asked about the summit, Vice President Joe Biden (pictured right) said, "Did you say beer ...... summit ? Man, I love those things, and Barry really knows how to throw them. I never leave thirsty. Heck, why wait till the weekend ?? I'm ready to drink ..... um, I mean meet now."
• On Wall Street this morning, Anheuser Busch stock "necessarily skyrocketed" as news of the beer summit and Joe Biden's enthusiasm spread like wildfire. One trader said, "It's like a bailout for the beer industry. We love Joe !!"
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is missing this morning. Staff members said she left around 11 p.m. EST last night to make the beer run for the summit. Pelosi a.k.a. The Wicked Witch of the West left on her broom after filing a flight plan with the FAA and hasn't been heard from since.

I think it's safe to say this won't be the only Democratic defeat in 2010. The message has been sent. The people have spoken loud and clear. The question is - is Washington listening ??

ObamaCare has plenty of "incentives" to go around

A few days ago (December 1st), I told you of the bribe that Sen. Landreiu (LA - D) received for her yea vote on pushing the Senate health care reform bill out to the Senate floor for debate. Others have received what we'll call "incentives" to vote yea, also. The only reason I'm not using the term "bribe" is because they are not public officials.

By now everyone has heard that ObamaCare has received the "endorsement" of the American Medical Association (AMA) and the AARP. However, most people have not heard how those "endorsements" came about. Ask yourself :

1. Why would the AARP endorse legislation which could lead to health care rationing and the so-called "death panels" directly effecting seniors ??
2. Why would the AMA endorse legislation allowing Uncle Sam to mandate how they practice medicine ??

For both organizations, "it's all about the Benjamins" - money, and lots of it. In recent years, the AARP has become an insurance salesman by being a huge supplier of Medigap policies for seniors. Medigap policies pick up coverage where Medicare leaves off. If ObamaCare passes, huge cuts are in store for Medicare Advantage plans causing more seniors to need Medigap policies resulting in mega profits for the AARP. The AMA was scheduled to receive a 21% cut in physician reimbursement rates starting next year, but Obama promised to eliminate the cut if they backed his bill. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what they decided.

Others received similar "incentives." To read more, check out the entire Newsmax article (here). Basically the whole ObamaCare fiasco boils down to one thing - corruption. It's time we, the American voters, put a stop to it. We still have time as it is under debate in the Senate now. Contact (here) your Senators and tell them to vote "NO" on ObamaCare. The sheep (the American taxpayer, the uninsured, and the elderly) are everywhere. The wolves (Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Hussein Obama, Chris Dodd, and Tom Daschle) are among us, too. Myself and other sheepdogs need more of the sheep to join our pack as we try to put a stop to these Obam-inations. We need to heed the words of the 1986 rock anthem "We're Not Gonna Take It" by Twisted Sister by getting to the polls in droves next year and issue pink slips to each and every Senator and Congressperson that votes in favor of this legialstion. We do need to make some changes to our health care system to get more people access. However, the current piece of crap that's been proposed is not the way to do it.

P.S. The AARP is already paying the price for stabbing seniors in the back. Over 60,000 of their members have told them "where to go" in the last few months by either resigning their memberships or not renewing. Good for them. If you're an AARP member, I'd encourage you to do the same because they have sold you out.

P.P.S. Check back next week for a new special series. It's one I promised a few weeks ago and it's gonna be "Czar-castic."

The Pope and Pelosi

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

The Pope leans towards Mrs. Pelosi and says, "Did you know that with one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with Joy ? This joy will not be a momentary display, like that of your followers, but go deep into their hearts and they'll forever speak of this day and rejoice !"

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

So ... the Pope slapped her.

Cap and Trade

What's cap and trade ?? It's a way for a government to control emissions by capping the amount of pollutant a company can emit. Permits are sold for a fee (basically a tax) which allows the company to emit the amount of pollutant on the permit. Companies that do not use all of their allowance may sell / trade their remainder to companies that have gone over their allowance. Some refer to it as a "Carbon Tax". Cap and trade came about based upon global warming / greenhouse gas emissions concerns. However, depending on which scientist you talk to on a given day, global warming may or may not be a problem. Some claim it is a scam for making the so-called "green industry" investors rich. Recently, we learned an EPA report disputing the effects of so-called "greenhouse gases" on global warming was suppressed by the Obama Administration. The report said the earth's temperatures are no longer rising, are stable, and may even be falling (read it http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html). A few countries have already implemented Cap and Trade with disappointing results. Australia is scrapping their carbon tax proposals because of what's happened in Spain and Germany. One of the reasons the Obama Administration is pushing this legislation is because they claim it will create millions of "green jobs" which will be good for our bad economy. However, since Spain implemented their own cap and trade, the country's unemployment rate has climbed to over 18%. For every 1 "green job" created, 2 jobs have been lost. Germany has seen emissions drop 18%. However, according to The Washington Post half of that has been due to a dramatic fall in it's industrial output. In other words, it's due to a decrease in manufacturing NOT an actual decrease in emissions. At the same time, German homeowners have seen their utility bills increase 25% while the electric companies are enjoying record profits.

In late June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (also know as the Waxman-Markey Bill) by a 219-212 vote (see how your Respresentative voted http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml). It would implement cap and trade in the U.S. The U.S. Senate is to take up the legislation soon. Mr. Obama has stated that "under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Estimates are the average American home's anuual electricity bill would increase $150 to $3000. However, these numbers vary depending upon which "expert" you listen to. The $3000 number seems to be the worst case scenario. If the increase were to be $3000, that equates to about $250 per month. Why ?? Because cap and trade will lead to increased costs for the electric companies as they pay the cap fees (tax). They will pass that on to us the consumers. Can you afford an extra $250 per month on your electric bill ?? Also, under this plan, the cost of a new car is estimated to increase by $1300 due to new increased fuel mileage standards. However, the increased costs don't stop here. Think about it. All prices in the U.S. economy are driven by energy prices. Remember how the cost of everything shot up when fuel prices skyrocketed - same thing will happen due to this legislation. ALL U.S. businesses will see their costs of doing business increase. Who will they pass that along to ?? Yep ..... you guessed it - the sheep a.k.a. you and I ?? So, we know the sheep are gonna pay for this. Now - who are the wolves a.k.a. the money makers in this deal ??

1) Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House - has $50,000 -$100,000 invested in Clean Energy Fuels Corp. She could make a ton.

2) Rep. Edward Markey - author of the bill has $51,000 - $115,000 invested in Firsthand Technology Value Fund (solar energy manufacturers). The solar energy industry stands to make huge profits from this bill.

3) Al Gore - has a venture capital firm that is highly invested in a new software company that's making software that helps companies track emissions. He, too, will make a fortune.

Does anything about this group jump out at you ?? I believe these the same people that cried "Foul" and said the Bush Administration was corrupt. Does this sound like a conflict of interest to anyone but me ?? These and others in the "green industry", including General Electric, stand to make millions possibly even billions on this deal. They will get rich off our backs. What can we do about it ?? The U.S. Senate still has to vote on this bill. So, I want to encourage you to go to this link (http://www.senate.gov/) to find the contact information for your two Senators. Call or e-mail them and tell them to vote NO in opposition to the The American Clean Energy and Security Act. Why ?? Our economy is in one of it's worst recessions in history. This is not the time to be increasing energy costs. It will only make the economy worse. We can NOT afford it. Besides, global warming may or may not be an issue. Why spend billions on something that may not even exist ?? Well, obviously you would not. Unless of course your name is Pelosi, Markey, or Gore.

Oh yeah, there's one other thing in this bill that you need to know about. If it passes, it will give the Federal Government the authority to tell us what we can set our thermostats on. This bill is not about combating pollution and global warming -it's about control and greed. I actually called my Congressman, Jim Cooper - D, to get his office to explain why he voted for this bill. The guy that answered the phone stammered uncontrollably and transferred me to another staff member's voice mail. She hasn't returned my call. If I was a betting man, I'd bet she won't.

Monday's post will discuss Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination. Her Senate hearings begin next week. You will not want to miss it.