Sunday, March 30, 2008

And the hits just keep on coming!


Barack Obama’s supporters, as Rev Jeremiah Wright would say…”have come home to roost!” The newest name to surface is but yet another black minister from Chicago, who Obama admits as being another spiritual advisor. Rev James Meeks, isn’t just outspoken as Rev Wright is, but he is also an Illinois State Senator, a man of power. As I looked over his good work in Chicago, it all seems to be over shadowed by his divisive, and racist comments. He has called white American mayors "slave masters," and referred to black preachers and politicians who "protect" the "white man" as "house n-ggers." "We don't have slave masters, we got mayors," exclaimed James Meeks, pastor of one of the largest churches in the state, in an August, 2006 sermon broadcast on a Chicago community television channel. He went on to say, "But they are still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able to be educated. You got some preachers that are house n-ggers. You got some elected officials that are house n-ggers. Rather than them try and break this up, they're gonna fight you to protect that white man." At the time he was referring to Mayor Daly of Chicago, protesting public school funding issues. In 2006 Mike Flannery, a political news editor of a local CBS news affiliate asked him about his inflammatory rhetoric, to which he replied, "They do the same thing. They preside over systems where they have the control of the lives of African-American and Hispanic people.” When questioned about his use of the “N” word he replied, "The N-word is not in the African-American community a bad word. It's a term of endearment. And I don't see it as derogatory or defensive, offensive." But Flannery retorted: "That is an insult. You weren't using that term as a term of endearment."
After that diatribe in 2006 he encouraged through the Rainbow Coalition PUSH for its members to stop using the “N” word.

Aside from his senatorial duties, Meeks is an Illinois super-delegate pledged to Obama, and also presides over Salem Baptist Church, described as the largest church in Illinois with some 20,000 members. He has served as an executive vice president for Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH organization.

In a 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama described Meeks as an adviser who he seeks out for spiritual council.

In my opinion it appears to be just another minister (supposedly a Christian man of god) spewing hatred, (yes Barack, HATRED, this goes way beyond anger). Maybe I don’t understand the black radical theology; maybe I don’t understand what it’s like to grow up black in America. I certainly have never been anyone’s slave, but then again neither has Obama, Wright, or Meeks. There are other ways of expressing one’s opinion then to put it into terms of racism.

Hannity and Colmes interview about Rev Meeks
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339770,00.html

Thursday, March 27, 2008

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
by Richard Harris
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.
That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.
Willis says some of this water is apparently coming from a recent increase in the melting rate of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.
"But in fact there's a little bit of a mystery. We can't account for all of the sea level increase we've seen over the last three or four years," he says.
One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.
But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?
Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.
That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.
"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.
It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.
"I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."
Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

An Open Letter to Democrats

You use a new catch phrase to define the people who don’t believe the way you do. That term is Neo-conservative, but what you don’t understand is that you have created that persona. As your party moves to the left, the defense of the Republican Party moves farther to the right. Our two parties used to meet in the middle, what exactly happened to widen the divide? Your desire to take from the rich and give to the poor? Your programs of entitlement? Your disrespect of the very things that our forefathers had intended while forming our country? The disrespect for our military? The cutting of funds to assure the strength of our military? The ability to outspend every dollar taken in the name of the down trodden? The need to hand our rights as a country over to a world court system? The desire to acquire unfettered control to enact an unfair world emissions treaty? Maybe the need to attach pork barrel to real programs so they will be voted down based entirely on the pork barrel and not the real issue? Possibly the need to keep illegal aliens in our country, thus alienating the legal aliens since the formation of our country? Eliminate religion from our schools and government buildings? The need to control every facet of our lives in the name of federal law? Maybe the social programs that not only include the people of our country, but for other countries as well.


What is it exactly that you wish us to do? Raise taxes the same magnitude as your party does? Congratulate you on your programs of entitlement and suggest more? Creatively interpret the Constitution? Cut funds to our fighting men and women on a much larger scale, and then spit on our heroes as they arrive home after a long fought battle for freedom? Hand over world trade and security to the United Nations? Let the UN tell us what emissions we are allowed to produce and then monetarily punish us for anything over that? Attach our own pork barrel programs to yours so the main bill now becomes a “side show?” Grant illegal aliens the same rights as citizens as our country, and let them access all government programs they have never paid a dime into? Form an all-volunteer “army” to remove the “Ten Commandments” from the Supreme Court Building, and remove all crosses from the Arlington National Cemetery? Eliminate all state laws and instead institute only federal law, making it very easy for a sitting president to declare martial law? Spend more money on countries outside our own, so they will like and accept us?


We are half the equation of balance in our country, just as you are, and we deserve and demand the same amount of respect!

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Tax cut for Venezuela?



Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez is cashing in on new Democrat energy policies, which are triggering higher oil prices. They are now threatening to add $18 billion in new taxes for oil companies. That should help. Coincidentally, Citgo, which is the oil company owned by Venezuela, is the only company which is exempt from Democrats’ new taxes.
Passing 236-182 on a House vote last week, H.R. 5351 terminates the tax deduction for major oil companies for exploration, extraction, refining and marketing of petrochemical energy. Thanks to the Democrats, the petro-dictator’s oil subsidiary retains its six-percent deduction for U.S. domestic manufacturing because Citgo buys from Chavez.
The rub for American consumers is that they ultimately will foot the $18-billion bill for a single winter’s worth of reduced-price heating oil given to a few thousand customers in two states, in addition to the privilege of suffering through secondary job losses and higher prices on goods. Remember that the next time you fill up at the pump after prices jump another 50 cents a gallon. Only in the twisted mind of Democrats does their professed revulsion at oil company profits justify such redistribution of wealth.
Reprinted from [The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US)]

“What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself”………..Abraham Lincoln

Friday, March 21, 2008

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the crazy uncle in the basement?


Senator Obama characterizes Rev.Wright as his religious mentor, and the very man who introduced him to Christianity. His connection with this man has lasted for two decades, and yet the Senator says there have been many times that he doesn’t agree with his incendiary remarks on race and government. We remember just a month ago when Senator Obama was defending himself about another supporter, Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. Farrakhan, and Rev. Wright have one thing in common, they don’t apologize for their bigoted comments, and in fact they thrive on them. The video clips we have seen on TV come from a DVD collection that Rev. Wright and his church chooses to market to the public. The very idea that he personally chose the clips to include on that DVD set, shows they were the crass remarks, and actions he wanted his followers to see about his character. Senator Obama likened the remarks of Rev. Wright to those of his “white grandmother”, although his grandmother was from another point in time and wasn’t in the position of inciting many people to take actions on her bigoted point of view. He also made a point of saying how the Trinity United Church of Christ is a church founded by white benefactors. These remarks on their own are incendiary, as they play the race card. It makes NO difference whatsoever, if his grandmother was white, or whites founded his church, he seems to miss the point entirely, that the remarks of the Minister were wrong, and yet he made the choice to play to white guilt, to drive home those points. There have been reports that a newscaster was in the church the very Sunday after 9/11, and had confirmed that Senator Obama was present also, to hear Wright’s ranting about how the US government has brought this on themselves. It seems to me that if Senator Obama didn’t agree with this assessment, he should have chosen to distance himself at that point in time. Senator Obama’s wife seems to share a lot of views that Rev. Wright does, recently voicing her opinion about how only since her husband has chosen to run for president, does she have anything to be proud of in America.

My opinion is this……Senator Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place right now. He rode the waves of bigotry, as a means to achieve the position as an Illinois, state and later a US Senator. He needed the support of Farrakhan to win his position, and now that he has the position he wishes to distance himself from the Nation of Islam. I think we are seeing a reverse discrimination of sorts, serving only to alienate the white vote that he has enjoyed. Although the black contingient wants us to believe that we are “cherry picking” statements in this discussion, I think they are stating a far deeper rooted problem of a problem in Illinois of a radicalism that doesn’t seem to go away. Obama has chosen to continue his friendship with Rev. Wright; even after admitting he has known about his inflammatory remarks for years. But the bigger problem seems to be, that Barack Obama wants to use his race to divide America, making the republicans feel guilty for condemning the left as a black and white issue rather then a moral issue. How can he pull the races of America together, when he surrounds himself with bigoted people?
An old proverb has said……. ”Show me your friends and I’ll show you your character”
If this is the case, Senator Obama sees fit to certainly “run with the wrong crowd”, and doesn’t apologize for it, only to try to explain it away.

Rev Wright’s DVD set



Partial interview on Hannity and Colmes truly shows this man's anger

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Live From Dearbornistan:




Live From Dearbornistan: Welcome to Islamofascist, Price-Fixing Walmart (Store's Agreement Not to Undercut Muslims Violates Federal Anti-Trust Laws)
By Debbie Schlussel



For the last two years, representatives from Walmart's corporate headquarters met with and pandered to the most extremist, Islamofascist leaders in Dearborn's Islamic community, including FBI award revokee and "former" Islamic terrorist Imad Hamad, so that they could plan the new so-called "Arab American" Walmart in Dearbornistan. But there's nothing "Arabic" about it. Walmart didn't meet with Chaldeans (Catholic Iraqis) or Maronite Christians from Lebanon or even the Druze community. They met only with Muslims.

This store is not "Arab-American." It's ISLAMIC. That's why the Walmart panderers met with extremist, Hezbollah-supporting Imams, and terrorist Hamad. And that's why Newsweek writes about his second wife (his first was a sham marriage for citizenship when he violated his student visa), Arwa Hamad (who has a penchant for filing insurance claims and lawsuits over "car accidents"--not, of course, mentioned in the Newsweek article). No mention if there are footbaths in the locker room for the store's many Islamic employees, but I'm sure they're there.
And, to make matters worse, Walmart hired Suehaila Amen, an openly anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, pro-Hezbollah Shi'ite Muslim to give ethnic sensitivity training to Walmart employees. Yup, an anti-Semite supporter of Islamic terrorists giving sensitivity training. Sounds about right. As a teacher in the Dearborn Public Schools, Amen violated campaign finance laws by using Dearborn Public School resources to campaign for her Muslim friend and Medicaid defrauder Ismael Ahmed when he ran for University of Michigan regent (he now runs the State of Michigan's Medicaid unit, after defrauding it). Yup, Walmart is into ethics . . . Islamic world "ethics".
But it gets even worse. Walmart is violating the law--engaging in price-fixing agreements with the Islamic community and agreeing not to underprice its local Hezbollah-financing Shi'ite stores, so as not to put them out of business. Why will they do this for Ahmed and Mohamed, but not Mom and Pop Smith in other American communities?
If I were one of the many businesses across America driven into the ground by Walmart, I'd sue Walmart on discrimination and unfair competition grounds, since the retail giant only helps its Muslim competitors stay in business. Who wants to join me in my complaint against Walmart to the Federal Trade Commission for unfair, anti-competitive practices and price-fixing? It's patently illegal. I wish I could say this is capitalism at its worst. But it's not capitalism or free market competition. It's whoring:
As Arwa Hamad strolls a new Wal-Mart, an eight-foot display of olive oil stops her in her tracks. "Oh, wow," she says, marveling at the sight of so many gallons of Lebanese extra virgin. "We could go through one of these in a week in my house." Around the corner, row upon row of gallon jars of olives—from Turkey, Greece, Egypt and Lebanon—soak in deep hues of purple, red and green. "Look at the size of these olives," says the stay-at-home mother of three and native of Yemen. Hamad, 34, has shopped at Wal-Mart before, but never one like this. She is overcome with nostalgia as she spots Nido powdered milk and Al Haloub Cow, canned meat she calls the "Arabic Spam." "My father loves this," she says. "People from war-torn countries, this is what you lived on when you couldn't go out of the house to shop." This Wal-Mart, though, isn't in a war zone. It's in Dearborn, Mich., home to nearly a half-million Arab-Americans, the largest concentration of Arabs outside the Middle East. [DS: Um, Dearborn is, indeed, a war zone. It's a silent cultural war. And we've lost.]
As America changes, so does the store where America shops. In Dearborn this week, the world's largest retailer opens a store like no other among its 3,500 U.S. outlets. Walk through the front door of the 200,000-square-foot supercenter and instead of rows of checkout counters, you find a scene akin to a farmers market in Beirut. Twenty-two tables are stacked high with fresh produce like kusa and batenjan, squash and eggplant used in Middle Eastern dishes. Rimming the produce department are shelves filled with Arab favorites like mango juice from Egypt and vine leaves from Turkey used to make mehshi, or stuffed grape leaves. A walled-off section of the butcher case is devoted to Halal meats, slaughtered in accordance with Islamic law (when a Wal-Mart manager noticed the pork section was too prominent he ordered it moved, since Muslims don't eat pork). In the freezer case, you'll find frozen falafel. You can also pick up a CD from Lebanese pop singer Ragheb Alama or buy Muslim greeting cards.

Wal-Mart's Arab-American emporium provides a preview of the retail giant's latest strategy to boost business as it reaches the saturation point in its American expansion. . . . The Dearborn store, though, is the most extreme example of the concept. Wal-Mart offers its standard fare, plus 550 items targeted at Middle Eastern shoppers. "In the past, Wal-Mart has been pretty cookie-cutter when it comes to merchandise," says Dearborn store manager Bill Bartell. "But this time, we really got to know the community. We're blazing a trail here." . . .
Wal-Mart started two years ago to meet with imams and moms, conducting focus groups at Middle Eastern restaurants.
Wal-Mart learned the community wasn't as concerned about seeing Arabic-language signs as they were with dealing with Arabic-speaking staff. So Bartell hired about 35 Arabic speakers, including Suehaila Amen, a local middle-school teacher who is providing ethnic-sensitivity training to the 650 employees. He also learned not to bother stocking traditional Muslim clothing, like the headscarf, or hijab, Amen wears. "The community told us, 'I would not feel comfortable coming to Wal-Mart to buy my hijab'," says assistant store manager Jordan Berke. "We're not here to overstep our bounds." [DS:; Translation. We're here to pander. How much further would you like me to bend over?]
Despite the sensitive sell, local shopkeepers still worry about Wal-Mart. "There is a fear factor in the business community," says Osama Siblani, publisher of Dearborn's Arab American News. To allay those fears, Wal-Mart is making an extraordinary promise: it will not undercut the prices of the small local merchants (though it will still go after Kroger). The insular company even agreed to be scrutinized by a "community advisory board" made up of local Arab-American leaders to ensure it isn't harming the mom-and-pop shops. One example: Wal-Mart agreed to charge one dime more than local grocers for a six-pack of pita bread.
Arwa Hamad says her devotion to Dearborn's Muslim merchants doesn't simply rest on one thin dime. After all, when her husband goes to their Arab butcher, he buys in bulk. "It's hard to get half a lamb at Wal-Mart," she says. And yet, the more she wanders the aisles, the more she likes. There are the Turkish sweets and dried dates her kids love, and the Nescafe coffee she adores. "This brings back memories from home," she says. "I'll never forget Mustafa's corner store, but as soon as this place opens, I'm coming here with my checkbook." Going native just might be the next way Wal-Mart wins.
Mustafa's "corner store" (the Green Market--a giant Hezbo-financed market with the blessing of Sheikhs Nasrallah and Fadlallah back in Lebanon) is well-known as a supporter of Hezbollah, and he's been under investigation for years (by then-U.S. Customs agents in Detroit) for money-laundering to the terrorist group. And we can't have Walmart hurting that. Can we?

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Obama’s new baggage, and how Hillary will use it

Second, after claiming to be the real victor, she will hang Antoin “Tony” Rezko around Obama’s neck, and throw them both overboard. “Tony who?” you ask. Rezko (a.k.a. “Tony the Obamanator”) is Obama’s Chicago fundraising patriarch, a “fixer” who was indicted in January on fraud, various extortion charges and money laundering for an Iraqi billionaire, Nadhmi Auchi, whom military analysts describe as one of Saddam’s bagmen. (No wonder Obama opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom.)
Rezko was jailed after being indicted, not because of a risk of flight, but for his own safety. Given the history of high-profile defendants in federal racketeering cases in Chicago, he would likely not survive outside of his solitary cell. (For the record, Rezko is not Italian, he is a Syrian immigrant.)
While Obama has yet to be directly implicated in any of Rezko’s mischief, their relationship demands far greater scrutiny than a fawning mainstream media has so far given it. After Rezko’s indictment, Obama returned $150,000 to Rezko associates, and donated $72,650 to charity, an amount equal to Rezko’s contributions to Obama’s campaign. This is a phony gesture usually reserved for anonymous campaign donors who show up on police blotters. But Obama and Rezko have been friends for 15 years, and Rezko “raised” a lot of graft for Obama’s first congressional campaign. Obama says he did not end his relationship with Rezko until recently because “there was no evidence of wrongdoing.”
For the record, Obama went to Harvard Law School, was elected Harvard Law Review’s first black president in its 104-year history, and completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude. I am confident, therefore, that Obama has the perspicacity to realize that his friend was a gangster. However, their relationship goes well beyond politics, and that is why Clinton has Obama by the, uh, has him cornered.
According to The Economist, “Mr. Rezko helped [Obama] buy his home in Chicago in 2005. The seller would close the deal on Mr. Obama’s house only if the adjacent empty lot was sold on the same day. In June 2005 Mr. Obama bought his home for $1.65 million, $300,000 less than the asking price, and Mr. Rezko’s wife bought the adjacent lot.” Obama’s Georgian mansion on Chicago’s south side and the adjacent lot were originally one parcel, but the owner divided it into two. You guessed it—the adjacent lot was purchased by Rezko for the full $625,000 asking price, about $300,000 above market value. (I know, given Obama’s rhetoric, you thought he lived in a government housing project and commuted by mass transit.) In other words, Rezko subsidized Obama’s discount with the purchase of the adjacent lot. Notably, Rezko’s lot purchase coincides with receipt of a “loan” from his Iraqi friend, Auchi. Rezko’s trial began Monday, and his relationship with Obama will be a hot topic for as long as the trial lasts. Of course, Hillary will have to let the Leftmedia do her billing, and withhold any direct accusations, lest Obama will have time to resurrect the Clinton’s association with Jim and Susan McDougal and their Whitewater real estate “deal.” Of course, we previously published a photo of the Clintons with Rezko.
Reprinted [The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US)]

“Al Gore should be sued”

“Al Gore should be sued for fraud”, said John Coleman to the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, on March 3 in New York. The weather channel’s founder is critical of the climate change alarmists, and claims that an open court is the only way for the true science to be heard. He went on to say that the weather channel has lost their way, and has made every mistake in the book, leading the way for an upcoming sale of the channel. “Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision, and stop telling us what to think” (referring to Heidi Cullen’s 2006 blog on global warming.) Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should “be punished by decertification by the American Meteorological Society. Coleman went on to say that he believes that a law- suit should be brought against all who sell carbon credits (this includes Al Gore.) Coleman says that such a public account would bring to light how the present policies on Climate Change have been arrived upon.

Asking a meteorologist about the cause of global warming is like asking the teller at your local bank about world economy. There are thousands of meteorologists in the world, and although some have gone on to other specific areas and obtained a masters or doctorate degrees, most don’t. Climatologists on the other hand number only 80 worldwide, and their study is very specific to climate change, and yet political figures on state and federal basis have sought to censure them, and enforce a political stance of their own agenda. Meteorology deals with short-term weather, such as predicting, while climatology deals with changes over long periods (usually millenniums.) So my question is this; if a meteorologist has problems with predicting a weather change in 7 days, why should we believe their opinion on global warming? If Heidi Cullen feels that another meteorologists’ credentials should be removed for not believing the way she does, then why can’t her credentials be removed for a bad weather forecast? Her position is only slightly better then Al Gore’s she actually did well in science in college. Personally, I’d rather believe a climatologist about global warming then to deal with people who keep telling us there should be no discussion on the subject because they are right……what are they hiding?

IPCC findings have been changed by the UN
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e page 23
Section entitled "What happened to Al's Mentor"
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/gores_grave_new_world.html

State climatologists castigated
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=6282&method=full

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6045&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Virginia+Governor%3A+Michaels+Does+Not+Speak+for+the+State&Cache=False

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html
19,000 verified scientists whom disagree with gore’s assessment of the cause of global warming
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm


“He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him.” —Thomas Jefferson

O’Malley should watch another governor’s career

New Jersey governor, John Corizine, has many similarities with Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, except Corzine had a head start on his state’s indebtedness. After spending an unprecedented amount of money on his bid for the governorship, John Corzine resorted to “strong arm tactics”(shutting down the government) to force state legislators to raise the state sales tax. Unfortunately for the residents of New Jersey, the spending has spiraled under the democratic governor to a public debt of 113 billion, yes that is BILLION, with no end in sight. In an attempt to halt the growth of the debt the governor has increased the retirement age for state employees as well as a limited retirement contribution for all new hires. He is now eyeing up the toll system as a way to raise additional funds, of course new tool booths will have to be constructed, new employees hired, etc etc…..isn’t that how the debt all got started? Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley should watch very carefully as New Jersey Governor Corzine’s career dissipation light slowly dims, a couple of years before his does.

When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it."-- The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax

Obama’s contribution to world income redistribution

It seems funny to me that the media hasn’t picked up on this yet, and even funnier that Obama hasn’t been bragging about this on the campaign trail, maybe he doesn’t really want us to know, in fact he hasn’t even admitted it on his own website. Barack Obama has introduced a bill in Senate to substantially increase the United Nations’ Millennium Development Initiative, a far-reaching global welfare program. A history of 50 years of giving money to under-developed nations has shown to be a failure, but Senator Obama’s experience seems to be driving him to ignore the facts and push for the USA to designate .07 of the GDP to be divided by the United Nations to the poor nations of the world. You know the same organization known for corruption, and the very same crowd that supports the global warming alarmists. In just 6 short years, if passed, this bill will give 845 BILLION earned by American taxpayers to the UN, never to be seen again. We already give 15 billion a year to the UN for such grants, but the Democratic (eventual) nominee wants to increase that figure some 700 percent? We are already the country that gives the most of un-repaid aid in the world, and yet it seems that the democrats have run out of projects in our own country, and seek a better judge (UN) of economic aid. This Initiative also allows, once again, another “back door entry” to the Kyoto Protocol, the Law of the Sea Treaty, and most all of the previous UN previously initiated treaties, while disguised as a new plan. It really makes me wonder, when Obama only saw fit to vote 55 times out of two hundred times in the senate, and yet he has authored or co-authored some 573 bills since becoming a senator. It kind of makes you wonder if he thinks his agenda is somehow more important then any other senator’s. It appears to me to be nothing more then the conceit of a power hungry senator who wants to be our next president. How have we even gotten here?

Votes in the Senate by Obama
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/

Bills introduced by Obama
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery

An overview of the bill
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618845.shtml

the bill itself
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110hFUUcO

the actual UN program
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2006/MDGReport2006.pdf

Sneaking another tax increase by us

We knew it would only be a matter of time, before Gov. O’Malley found another “cash cow” to increase, personally I wondered why it took him this long! On Feb. 20th in a Budget and Taxation Committee meeting the next tax to be used to chase residents from our state came to light. All toll facilities will raise their rates to double by 2012, and that doesn’t include the incremental increases already in place by law. It took me a while to find the operating budget for 2008, but after finding it the program wouldn’t let me “cut and paste”; you don’t suppose that was on purpose do you? Double the toll rates, can you imagine paying $30.00 at the 95 toll in Perryville, if you are pulling a trailer? This is totally ridiculous, and it’s about to be forced upon us. Oh yea, I almost forgot this one! While looking through the budget I came upon wordage about how the MTA Police will be in charge at the Airport! You know the same ones we see asleep beside the light rail system……….it keeps getting scarier and scarier!

Quote from the budget page 29

Since it is doubtful that MdT A will have available bonding capacity in the future to fund its capital program, this would leave P A YGO toll revenues as the funding source. However, P A YGO funding of capital projects will be limited in the future by increasing operating and debt service costs. The ability to increase tolls higher than the currently forecasted toll increases is somewhat limited, since MdTA is already planning substantial toll increases to maintain its financial coverage ratios. Exhibit 17 shows the projected increase in toll revenues over the next 10 years. In its financial forecast, MdTA assumes toll increases in fiscal 2011, 2013, and 2015. By fiscal 2013, systemwide toll rates will be nearly double current rates.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2008RS/budget_docs/All/Operating/J00J00_-_Maryland_Transportation_Authority.pdf

http://omalleywatch.com/?p=332

Actions, not promises cement a politician’s legacy

Political positions are nothing more then ideas filled with conjecture and opinions. Public (majority) opinion is, however more easily documented. Majority opinion tends to stem from more mainstream ideas, generally from the center of each political party. When a politician tries to institute an idea that doesn’t appeal to mainstream America, he uses a little bit of his political “clout.” One or two of these ideas might be conveniently slipped by his constituents in his political term, but using too much of this political clout not only cements his record, (for good or bad) in history, but serves to alienate his voter base.
Support of a candidate by another tells us volumes about the one offering their support. It gives us insight as to the general policies the supporter approves of. Hillary Clinton’s campaign shows her support for many things that are not main-stream, and more accurately mirror the narcissistic, self serving, elitist, far left view. Many things she supports, are shared in principle by her supporters; support of illegal aliens in our country, forced socialized medicine, forced support of world governance, gay marriage, and “income redistribution.”
In a perfect world political candidates, would actually institute policies that they campaigned on, and not institute policies based on a hidden personally agenda. Governor Martin O’Malley campaigned on a centralist stance, and once elected has pushed far left wing ideologies. His support, along with Sen. Barbara Mikulski, for Hillary Clinton shows this far left stance.
As one radio show used to say, …”who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men?….only the shadow knows!

Obama’s public statements and actions don’t match

The debates about Barack Obama’s beliefs are coming back to the forefront, and are coming from different fronts. Statements on Snopes.com have previously said that Obama is a Christian, and that he never was schooled as a true Muslim. Obama himself has made public statements about his support for the Israel state, but his actions, and staff may well tell a different story. He has publicly denounced Louis Farrakhan and his “Nation of Islam” church, but yet he had several people who are in the NOI, in higher up positions in his staff. Cynthia K. Miller was treasurer of his US Senate campaign, who has since resigned because of the controversy that surrounded her. Jennifer Mason, another NOI member is still part of his staff. Mason is Obama's Director of Constituent Services in his U.S. Senate office and is also in charge of selecting Obama's Senate interns. Political pundits in the Chicago area have admitted that Obama’s senate district runs directly through NOI territory, and that his win could never have been possible had it not been for the NOI support. It appears that Senator Obama is playing both sides of the fence; he has many Jewish supporters and donors, while all the time employing the visions of George Soros, Bettylu Saltzman, and Robert Malley on their anti-Semite views. Obama has also engaged Zbigniew Brzezinski (whose anti-Israel credentials are impeccable), former advisor to President Carter, whose recent anti-Semitic book is now a clear indication of the views of his administration.
More important then being anti-Israel, is the fact that it would mean you are pro-Arab/ Muslim. Views like this are inexcusable in light of world terrorism as experienced in the last decade. Just the fact that he would entertain the views of such persons is scary, and needs to be addressed.
This article was written as a compilation of several sources, and I invite you to read all the articles and make a decision on your own.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obamas_middle_east_expe.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/samantha_power_and_obamas_fore_1.html

http://www.electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/obamas_nation_o.html

No lies evaluation of Obama based on his record

We have all read the lies about Barack Obama, painting his past history as a Muslim, his militant black church ties, and all the things Hillary Clinton tries to paint him with. A quick trip to snopes.com dispels most of the inaccuracies. Some people think that America isn’t ready for a black president, and some are. If we choose to put all that aside and judge him for what he really is and what he has done, we can get a better picture as to the character of the man. To begin with Obama makes a controversial claim to say the least. He claims to have never voted for the war in Iraq. This claim is nothing but a play on words, because yes he was a senator at the time, but he was a state senator and not in a position to vote for or against the war in the United States Senate. In his rather vehement denouncing of the war in Iraq, he may give you the wrong impression, as most people view him as a “dove” or pacifist. You would be mistaken however, as his position on the Middle east needs to be taken in it’s entirety to show an accurate picture of Obama’s position. Sen. Obama feels that we merely invaded the wrong countries. The top countries on Sen. Obama’s “hit list” are Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran, and his dislike for them makes him look more “hawkish” then Hillary. No matter how intelligent the public perceives him to be, or how great of an orator he appears to be, what a great author he looks like, the fact still remains that he is still a Junior Senator. Shall we look at his experience in the U.S. Senate? Since Obama has been in office 200 votes have come in front of the senate. This caring individual, a self- appointed spokesman for the “little guy”, the downtrodden has had been recorded as a NO VOTE 143 times. So important was this position to him, and yet he was either absent or it was his choice not to vote 71.5% of the time. He did however vote 55 times, but not one time against party lines. I’m afraid this democratic senator is just as transparent as the other one he is battling; sometimes the documented actions of a senator tell more of a picture then lies.

Votes by Barack Obama
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/

Obama’s Middle- east Policy
http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/me071202a.htm

The Democrat’s version of healthcare

Each and every Democrat running for the Presidency wants to start a national healthcare system. Lucky for us right now we can choose whether we want a PPO or an HMO. Granted the cost of health care has spiraled out of control, but this election time we will be made to choose between picking which health plan serves us best, or if we think that the government can pick that for us. Most people think that, whatever the government wants to do is fine as long as we can still pick a plan. A vote for the democrats will make all those choices for us. The democratic vote will be a vote for a standardized type of an HMO plan. Other wise known as “socialized medicine”, and tried most famously by Canada and England, and more infamously known for long diagnosis times, slow testing, and hard to reach specialists. The very healthcare that we receive today in the USA, although expensive, is some of the fastest, best care in the world. Canadians like to brag about their healthcare being “free” which is naïve to say the least. The average Canadian pays close to $20,000 a year for healthcare that has been added to the normal taxes they already paid. They claim their healthcare, because it is government run is a more efficient system then we have in America. If you were to compare their $20,000 HMO state run healthcare to our top of the line PPO policy, we come out way ahead, and best of all we have had the opportunity to choose, and not had the government decide for us. The democrats believe they can pick healthcare better then we can, and that everyone will receive healthcare the same way regardless of our ability to pay for better care. If the healthcare in Canada is so great, why are there situations like this poor man dealing with a cancerous brain tumor, who had to come to the USA for treatment, I guess he never had the chance to talk to Michael Moore…….

http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/brainsurgery.html

Clinton Health Plan May Mean Tapping Pay
By CHARLES BABINGTON (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
February 03, 2008 1:04 PM EST
WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

And the brown nosers line up

The democratic nominees line up, like children waiting for candy at Halloween, at Ted Kennedy’s house. What exactly do they want? An endorsement you say? What more could a Democratic Nominee want? The very fact that Clinton, Obama, and Dodd flocked to Kennedy’s house earlier this year to celebrate his birthday is one thing, but to be in competition for his endorsement speaks volumes. His peers finally consider the only remaining Kennedy family member of his era, whom is clearly the most liberal member of the senate, and out of touch with the mainstream of America, the “big catch” of endorsements? This should show America who they have to choose from in the Democratic Party. The very fact that they rally around an alcoholic, man slaughterer, son of a bootlegger, whom is known for his pork barrel voting in the senate, should tell the public, whom he appeals to. Don’t the Democratic nominees have a better role model? Let’s see, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha……….nevermind, I think I answered my own question. Ted Kennedy considered as a peer makes my skin crawl, how about you?

I believe

I believe, that the United States of America is the best country in the world bar none.

I believe, the founding fathers wrote the Constitution of our country based on their belief in Christianity, and encouraged the practice of all religions but not at the expense of the others.

I believe, the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

I believe, the Constitution is a legal document, and not a living document subjected to constant change.

I believe, the course to peace is based on strong military, strong principles, and not a pacifist denial approach.

I believe, the second amendment is the right of every citizen in our country, and people not guns are the cause of murder.

I believe, in the death penalty as a form of public compliance to our laws.

I believe, a declared “hate crime” should not just be limited to describe the victimization of one race, or religion, but should be applied equally.

I believe, taxes are necessary to run our country and benefit our citizens, and not to give to foreign governments to “buy” friendships

I believe, the government should have no right to tax a dead man’s estate on money he has already paid taxes on.

I believe, the President should have the power of the Line Item Veto.

I believe, that Senator’s and Congressmen should have term limits the same as the other elected officials.

I believe, that Senators and Congressmen should eliminate the word “entitlements” from their vocabulary.

I believe, that taxation in our country is disproportionate according to annual salaries, and serves to polarize citizens within the system.

I believe, “Affirmative Action” is neither affirmative nor action, and should be eliminated, as it’s just another form of prejudice.

I believe, that “pork barrel” or “earmarks” should be eliminated, as they are detrimental to budgetary constraints of our country.

I believe, in a balanced budget amendment with the exception of a declaration of war.

I believe, that if it’s so easy to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for a Presidential
Position that pays $400K a year, then the amount raised should be taxed.

I believe, in governing our own country, and never handing power of a New World Order to the United Nations for any treaty.

I believe, to insure the safety of our citizens, we need to secure our borders and enforce existing immigration, and hiring laws.

I believe, that English should be declared our formally language, should be used in business dealings at home, and English should be taught in school systems to mainstream students.

I believe, that immigrants to our country should be made to assimilate to our culture, and not the other way around.

I believe, global warming is a reality, but to declare that man made emissions are the main cause, based primarily on computer based models, is akin to believing that weathermen can predict next week’s weather based on a “preponderance of evidence.”

First major challenge of the LOST treaty.

January 7, 2008 the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s navy decided to challenge the United States Navy, with fast moving small attack boats in the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow (30 mile) waterway bordering Iran. Iran and the United States of America are both signers to the “Law of the Sea Treaty”, but neither has moved to ratification. At one time, both countries invoked an 11-mile limit to their waters, but with the new LOST treaty, it seems that Iran has chosen to test the new limits of up to 350 miles. Iran’s foreign ministry has called the confrontation a “normal” and was resolved; they went on to say that their Navy didn’t recognize the United States vessels. The US Navy Frigate, Destroyer and Cruiser were busy acquiring firing solutions after the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 while in port in Yemen. The speedboats came within 500 yards of the Navy vessels, despite the rather large numbers that the navy has always displayed on all their ships.
One has to question a treaty that has been endorsed by Senator Joe Biden (DE) that encourages challenges such as this by rogue nations such as Iran. With increasing tensions in our world today, we should be looking at ways to avoid conflict instead of encouraging it. If Iran supposedly couldn’t identify our crafts, they could just as easily declare them “Pirate Ships” and detain them. This might not be a far fetched an idea at all as we remember the Iranian hostages taken from our embassy who were supposedly “diplomatically immune to detention.” Why should we give them a reason to detain our ships under a veiled excuse of “misidentification.?” We should not ratify this self-defeating law, which languishes in our senate right now. Ronald Reagan once referred to the LOST treaty as; ”this is why the people elected us…….to refuse bad treaties like this.” Not a lot has changed since then, minor wording, but nothing of substance. I encourage you to join hundreds of thousands of Americans that have already signed a petition to deny the Senate ratification of the LOST treaty.

http://www.grassfire.org/95/petition.asp

A Panel with no experts….

In an article by Paul Chesser on Jan 7, 2008 in the Examiner, he reveals two of the members of Martin O’Malley’s’ secretive “Maryland Commission on Climate Change.” These “experts”, include the State School Superintendent, and the Secretary of Transportation. Now what really makes me wonder is the title of the panel, where the words of Climate Change ARE the most prevalent. As a result of those words, wouldn’t you think that the governor would have at least picked a climatologist to the board? From their website, these are the members on the climate board.

The Commission consists of up to twenty-one members, including the Secretaries of Agriculture, Budget and Management, Business and Economic Development, Natural Resources, Environment, Planning, Transportaion[sp], Housing and Community Development, the State Superintendent of Schools, the Directors of the Maryland Energy Administration, Maryland Emergency Management Agency, and the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security, the Maryland Insurance Commissioner, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, and the Chancellor of the University System of Maryland, or their designees. Three other members are from/designated by the House of Delegates and Senate.
Do you see a major disappointment in the choice of board members? This is a scientific endeavor and yet not one scientist appears on the board. Obviously Martin O’Malley doesn’t care about the science, or the path to an unrealistic emission goal he has set for the state, he only cares about pushing his costly policy on the people of Maryland. This board has recommended reducing emissions 25% under the 2006 levels, and reducing them by 90% by 2050. The fact remains that no nation or state has ever been able to achieve such lofty goals. In fact the Kyoto Protocol that has been implemented by many nations, only one has been able to lower their emissions at all. That nation was the old “East Germany.” They were able to lower their emissions because of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and that enabled the western worlds technologies to triumph, but only to the tune of 2%. Every other EU countries emissions rose. Maybe the State’s School Superintendent knows more then the world of scientific recommendations behind the Kyoto Protocol’s treaty for world change. Maybe the opinion of the Superintendent of the Department of Corrections, might cast a new light on the solution. Of course logically, not one of the members on this board will be left alive in the year 2050, so criticism would only fall on dead ears by then. Wake up Mr.Governor!

So many ideas, unfortunately not many are original!

Recently Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, requested that the head of the EPA in California, sue the Federal government to enforce a new mandate to automakers to increase fuel mileage, thus decreasing emissions for the 2009 model year. Until the hearing, (which was heard in federal court in CA), the federal government made all decisions pertaining to CAFÉ (corporate fuel economy standards). The new ruling, certainly, to be appealed, will allow the great country of CA to make demands of automakers to build a lighter and more lethal form of transportation. Not to be outdone, our Governor, Martin O’Malley has decided to adopt the “California Emissions Standards”, as challenged by Arnold.
Both Governors make the stand about emissions and pollution, and target automobiles, causing ANOTHER raise in prices, to an already “pushed to the limit” industry, that has created vehicles that already produce a product that creates less CO per mile then a burning cigarette! Both Governors feel so fanatical about pollution, and yet neither one of these governors can stem the pollution from their own storm drain systems. California’s drainage system has contributed to approximately 1/3 of the “floating dump” in the Northern Pacific, which has just been recently measured at “twice the size of the state of Texas!” Governor O’Malley doesn’t have the same junkyard to his credit, but yet he can’t seem to curb the drainage overflow from the Gynn’s Falls. This pollution isn’t hard to prove, all one needs to do is visit the Inner Harbor after a medium rainfall. The Chesapeake Bay has always been under the control of the Governor, and the pollution from the Susquehanna, although popular to blame other states, isn’t the only answer to curbing our water pollution.
Maybe the EPA arm of the Federal Government should sue the states of California and Maryland to stop their water pollution of the Pacific Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay, if that would happen, maybe the “monkey see, monkey do” attitudes attributed to the California initiative would come to a screeching halt.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/eveningnews/main591770.shtml

If this weren’t such a blatant lie it would be funny!


Dems Cite Manipulation in Climate Report
By H. JOSEF HEBERT (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
December 10, 2007 6:17 PM EST
WASHINGTON - The White House has systematically tried to manipulate climate change science and minimize the dangers of global warming, asserts a Democratic congressional report issued after a 16-month investigation.
Republicans called the report, issued Monday by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., a "partisan diatribe" against the Bush administration.
The report relies on hundreds of internal communications and documents as well as testimony at two congressional hearings to outline a pattern where scientists and government reports were edited to emphasize the uncertainties surrounding global warming, according to Waxman.
document.write('');

Many of the allegations of interference dating back to 2002 have surfaced previously, although the report by the Democratic majority of the House Oversight and Reform Committee sought to show a pattern of conduct.
"The Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming," the report concludes.
It said the White House over the years has sought to control public access to government climate scientists, suppressed scientific views that conflicted with administration policy and extensively edited government reports "to minimize the significance of climate change."
The White House called the findings "rehash and recycled rhetoric" that has been addressed by administration officials in the past. "It's a thinly veiled attempt to distract attention from the administration's efforts ... at the Bali summit," said White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore.
The report was issued as government officials from across the globe were meeting in Bali, Indonesia, to map out a strategy for dealing with climate change after 2012 when the Kyoto Protocol on climate expires. The United States is a participant.
Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the House committee, issued his own report disputing the Democrats' conclusions.
The Democrats "grossly exaggerated" claims of political interference and ignored "the legitimate role of policymakers, instead of scientists, in making administration policy." said the GOP rebuttal. It said requests to the media about science were referred to scientists.
Among the findings cited by the Democrats:
- The White House Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ, made 294 edits to the administration's 2003 strategic plan for its climate change science program. It said the changes were to either emphasize uncertainties or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming.
- Media requests for interviews with climate scientists were routinely routed through the CEQ, which often sought to make available scientists whose views were more aligned with administration policy.
- Climate scientists' testimony before Congress was often heavily edited by political appointees. In cases cited in the report scientists were persuaded to play down the human influence on climate change and - in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - the link between climate change and hurricanes.
document.write('');

James Connaugton, the CEQ chairman, rejected suggestions that science was being ignored or suppressed.
"This administration has an unparalleled record of supporting funding, advancing and publicizing climate change research," said Connaughton in a statement. "Claims that this administration interfered with scientists and with the science are false."
He said that nearly $12 billion has been devoted to advance climate change science since 2001 and that peer reviewed findings by U.S. government scientists have been a prominent part of assessments issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group of international scientists spearheading research into global warming.
Mr. Waxman is slightly confused, maybe he needs to read about how the liberal alarmist UN and their panel known as the IPCC, has altered and censured the reports from actual scientists to appear as though there is actually “consensus” as Al Gore claims
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html
Or maybe he hasn’t read that some 19,000 validated scientists have now gone on record as opposing Al Gore’s reasons for global warming
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
Possibly he doesn’t know that many scientists have NOT agreed that man-made emissions are about to cause an eminent catastrophic event.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966
If anyone is responsible for altering scientific documents it’s the global warming alarmists
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/McLean_IPCC_press_release_9-10-07.pdf
To assume that our government can alter anything having to do with the UN is laughable at best!
If anyone is to blame for altering any documents about global warming, it’s the Democrats who wish to inflict further control over the American population, by way of a UN tax to aid poor countries. They refuse to see evidence of a mounting movement to discredit the ranting of Al Gore (a Nobel Prize winner) even though he has NO degree in science what so ever!


Here is a disturbing new trend

Toni Vernelli, a 27-year-old Brighton England environmental activist that works for a charity, has been voluntarily sterilized to “ protect the planet.” I here you saying……whaaaaaaaat..already. She views having children as being selfish, because an additional life on this earth, eats more food, uses more fuel, placing additional strain on our already fragile planet. Ms Vernelli, a vegetarian since age 15, said she searched from age 21 to age 27 until she found a doctor who would perform the sterilization process, to avoid the situation of abortion she had undergone at age 25. Her first husband shared her view of not wanted to bring a baby into the world, and luckily so has her second husband. Ms Vernelli, now 35, has seen fit to describe children in the following light; "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." Her views aren’t hers alone; others in the UK have adopted the same eco-alarmist attitudes. She went on to say; "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet." Rather then to avoid having children for personal reasons, she has chosen a haughty statement about others choosing to have children. I guess this isn’t a lot different then the current controversy in our country over Roe vs. Wade ruling. It’s a good thing we can discuss these issues in our country, and not violate state laws for doing so.
It seems particularly funny to me…

That while Ben Cardin, and Barbara Mikulski, actively seek to add more residents to our state by way of the BRAC influx, that Martin O’Malley is driving them from the state. In an article on December 20,2007 the Examiner showed that since 2003 and ending in 2006 34,775 people have “voted with their feet”, and elected to move from our state. These figures don’t even begin to address the latest tax fest in secret by the 3 amigos, MoM, Mike Miller, and Busch. If the new figures show what is apparent to most Marylanders, this figure could possibly double in the next two years. So if we have just as many people leaving our state as coming in with the BRAC program, why do we need to spend a billion or more increasing an infrastructure, that we have trouble maintaining now? Has anybody in government thought about how much it will cost to maintain infrastructures that nobody is left to use?

Everybody’s business

Wow, looks as if it's apparent to other people as well!

Dec 19, 2007 3:00 AM (13 hrs ago) by Dan Gainor, The Examiner BALTIMORE (Map, News) - It’s sleeting outside, and I’m watching the ice build upon my car. None of that is any surprise. It’s winter. The ideal time to sit by the fire andhear tales of famine, war, fire, flood, apocalypse and global warming. Anything beats talking about the Ravens. Besides, it’s a global conversation. Al Gore just flew to Norway to get his Nobel Prize for talking about it. And thousandsof delegates from around the world just flew to the tropical paradise of Bali totalk about it. None of them admits they were leaving pollution in their wake or partying in the sun while we freeze. We should expect such scolds to be hypocrites,as well. If you are a businessman, a taxpayer or just an ordinary citizen, then this is themost important topic I can cover. Not because the Bay is about to flood and we’llall be swimming with the crabs. Even the United Nations “experts” predict no suchthing. It’s because climate change regulation and taxes are the biggest power grab for local, state, federal and global governments in history. No matter what Mother Naturecan do to destroy our lives and our homes, politicians can do it better. I imagine Gov. Martin O’Malley’s Irish eyes must be smilin’ at the prospect of newand unchecked power over everything. He’s already making plans — plans that coulddevastate state businesses more than his $1.5 billion in taxes. His Maryland Commissionon Climate Change has brought in outside eco-alarmists to dictate how we live ourlives. Next, they’ll change those lives. The commission is “poised to propose the nation’stoughest carbon cap when the legislature returns next month,” according to The AssociatedPress. Carbon output means business, growth and jobs — here and globally. Cut thatin crazy ways and we pay one way through the nose. What the commission and the Bali conference propose are incredible caps on carbonemissions — one of many so-called greenhouse gases some scientists link to globalwarming. We could debate the science all day. There are many scientists frozen outof the discussion who question lots of what the U.N. claims. That doesn’t matter. What matters is the U.N. and lots of well-meaning, but utterlyclueless enviro-nuts, are hell-bent on preventing a catastrophe … by causing one. I wish I was joking. The Bali deal creates a timetable for some global pact by 2009.The expectation is that industrialized nations will have to cut carbon emissionsby 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 or so, and we’re 25 percent above thoselevels now. Those cuts could wreck the U.S. economy. We’re also supposed to pay to keep Third World nations from deforesting, pay to supply them with technology and pretty much everything else. Just one climate billcurrently in Congress would cost every American man, woman and child almost $500a year for the next 40 years. No wonder the climate is warming. It’s all those politicians rubbing their greedylittle hands together creating global friction.

Pork barrel spending is not responsible spending

We hear about pork barrel spending, and some of us wonder what it really is. Pork Barrel is spending to benefit one personally or one’s state, but has nothing to do with real budgetary spending. Let’s call it what it really is, wasteful spending! How can we find the real culprits of wasteful spending? One website has found a way to identify the “masters of pork,” and they don’t care who they are! Although in the past Republicans were known for pork barrel spending, the Democrats have now assumed that role and with a vengeance! This site usually identifies pork barrel spending, and then combines the statistics for the last 50 votes and gives percentages of how many times the representative has voted against wasteful spending. They break down into two categories: senators and congress. Like I said earlier, they don’t slant things one way or the other, just wasteful spending. Check out your local senators and congressmen, then for a real laugh look at the candidates for the presidency to see how they might spend YOUR money!
First is Congress

Flake (R-AZ-6)
100%
50 / 50
Campbell (R-CA-48)
100%
50 / 50
Hensarling (R-TX-5)
100%
50 / 50
Broun (R-GA-10)
100%
12 / 12
Deal (R-GA-9)
100%
50 / 50
Franks, T. (R-AZ-2)
100%
50 / 50
Garrett (R-NJ-5)
100%
48 / 48
Heller (R-NV-2)
100%
50 / 50
Kline, J. (R-MN-2)
100%
50 / 50
Lamborn (R-CO-5)
100%
49 / 49
Pence (R-IN-6)
100%
44 / 44
Ryan, P. (R-WI-1)
100%
50 / 50
Sensenbrenner (R-WI-5)
100%
50 / 50
Shadegg (R-AZ-3)
100%
50 / 50
Thornberry (R-TX-13)
100%
50 / 50
Westmoreland (R-GA-3)
100%
50 / 50
Cooper (D-TN-5)
98%
49 / 50
Feeney (R-FL-24)
98%
48 / 49
Jindal (R-LA-1)
98%
42 / 43
Jordan (R-OH-4)
98%
47 / 48
Miller, J. (R-FL-1)
98%
49 / 50
Price, T. (R-GA-6)
98%
49 / 50
Bachmann (R-MN-6)
96%
48 / 50
Cannon (R-UT-3)
96%
48 / 50
Chabot (R-OH-1)
96%
48 / 50
Linder (R-GA-7)
96%
48 / 50
Myrick (R-NC-9)
96%
43 / 45
Akin (R-MO-2)
94%
47 / 50
Blackburn (R-TN-7)
94%
46 / 49
Musgrave (R-CO-4)
94%
45 / 48
Petri (R-WI-6)
94%
47 / 50
Sali (R-ID-1)
94%
47 / 50
Sessions, P. (R-TX-32)
94%
31 / 33
Sullivan (R-OK-1)
94%
44 / 47
Conaway (R-TX-11)
92%
46 / 50
Pitts (R-PA-16)
92%
46 / 50
Royce (R-CA-40)
92%
46 / 50
Terry (R-NE-2)
92%
46 / 50
Davis, David (R-TN-1)
91%
43 / 47
King, S. (R-IA-5)
91%
43 / 47
Barrett (R-SC-3)
90%
45 / 50
Inglis (R-SC-4)
90%
45 / 50
Mack (R-FL-14)
90%
45 / 50
Duncan (R-TN-2)
88%
44 / 50
Coble (R-NC-6)
87%
39 / 45
Issa (R-CA-49)
86%
43 / 50
Neugebauer (R-TX-19)
86%
43 / 50
Rohrabacher (R-CA-46)
86%
43 / 50
Walberg (R-MI-7)
86%
43 / 50
Wilson, J. (R-SC-2)
86%
43 / 50
Ramstad (R-MN-3)
84%
42 / 50
Smith, Adrian (R-NE-3)
84%
42 / 50
Stearns (R-FL-6)
84%
42 / 50
Tancredo (R-CO-6)
84%
21 / 25
Cantor (R-VA-7)
82%
40 / 49
Pearce (R-NM-2)
82%
41 / 50
Poe (R-TX-2)
82%
41 / 50
Fossella (R-NY-13)
81%
39 / 48
Bilbray (R-CA-50)
78%
38 / 49
Burton (R-IN-5)
78%
39 / 50
Graves (R-MO-6)
76%
38 / 50
Roskam (R-IL-6)
76%
38 / 50
Shimkus (R-IL-19)
76%
37 / 49
Gingrey (R-GA-11)
74%
37 / 50
Lungren (R-CA-3)
74%
37 / 50
Schmidt (R-OH-2)
74%
37 / 50
Johnson, S. (R-TX-3)
72%
28 / 39
Bishop, R. (R-UT-1)
71%
30 / 42
Burgess (R-TX-26)
71%
34 / 48
McHenry (R-NC-10)
71%
35 / 49
Nunes (R-CA-21)
69%
34 / 49
Hastert (R-IL-14)
68%
26 / 38
Keller (R-FL-8)
68%
34 / 50
McCarthy, K. (R-CA-22)
66%
33 / 50
Barton (R-TX-6)
64%
32 / 50
McCaul (R-TX-10)
62%
31 / 50
Marchant (R-TX-24)
61%
30 / 49
Boehner (R-OH-8)
60%
29 / 48
Buyer (R-IN-4)
60%
30 / 50
Platts (R-PA-19)
58%
29 / 50
Gohmert (R-TX-1)
56%
28 / 50
Mica (R-FL-7)
56%
28 / 50
Souder (R-IN-3)
55%
27 / 49
Putnam (R-FL-12)
54%
27 / 50
Rogers, Mike (R-MI-8)
54%
27 / 50
Buchanan (R-FL-13)
52%
26 / 50
Kingston (R-GA-1)
52%
26 / 50
Radanovich (R-CA-19)
52%
25 / 48
Biggert (R-IL-13)
50%
25 / 50
Herger (R-CA-2)
47%
22 / 47
Brown-Waite, G. (R-FL-5)
46%
23 / 50
Ehlers (R-MI-3)
45%
22 / 49
Camp (R-MI-4)
44%
22 / 50
Johnson, Timothy (R-IL-15)
44%
22 / 50
Foxx (R-NC-5)
43%
21 / 49
Upton (R-MI-6)
42%
21 / 50
Castle (R-DE-AL )
40%
20 / 50
Brady, K. (R-TX-8)
38%
18 / 47
Carter (R-TX-31)
38%
18 / 48
Fortenberry (R-NE-1)
38%
19 / 50
Tiberi (R-OH-12)
38%
19 / 50
Goodlatte (R-VA-6)
36%
18 / 50
Dreier (R-CA-26)
34%
17 / 50
Hall, R. (R-TX-4)
32%
16 / 50
Weldon (R-FL-15)
30%
15 / 50
Paul (R-TX-14)
29%
12 / 41
Davis, T. (R-VA-11)
28%
14 / 50
Bartlett (R-MD-6)
27%
13 / 49
Bilirakis (R-FL-9)
26%
13 / 50
Fallin (R-OK-5)
26%
13 / 50
Gallegly (R-CA-24)
26%
13 / 50
Hunter (R-CA-52)
26%
11 / 42
Walden (R-OR-2)
26%
13 / 50
Miller, Gary (R-CA-42)
24%
12 / 50
Shuster (R-PA-9)
24%
12 / 49
Blunt (R-MO-7)
22%
11 / 49
Hastings, D. (R-WA-4)
22%
11 / 50
Hulshof (R-MO-9)
22%
11 / 50
Granger (R-TX-12)
21%
10 / 48
Barrow (D-GA-12)
20%
10 / 50
Hoekstra (R-MI-2)
20%
10 / 49
Marshall (D-GA-8)
20%
8 / 41
Forbes (R-VA-4)
19%
8 / 43
Kirk (R-IL-10)
19%
9 / 48
Jones, W. (R-NC-3)
18%
9 / 50
Gerlach (R-PA-6)
16%
8 / 50
Smith, L. (R-TX-21)
16%
8 / 50
Bono (R-CA-45)
15%
7 / 48
Miller, C. (R-MI-10)
14%
7 / 50
Davis, G. (R-KY-4)
12%
4 / 34
Dent (R-PA-15)
12%
6 / 50
Diaz-Balart, M. (R-FL-25)
12%
6 / 50
Wamp (R-TN-3)
12%
6 / 50
Goode (R-VA-5)
11%
5 / 45
Cubin (R-WY-AL )
10%
4 / 39
Culberson (R-TX-7)
10%
5 / 50
Matheson (D-UT-2)
10%
5 / 50
Porter (R-NV-3)
10%
5 / 50
Wilson, H. (R-NM-1)
10%
5 / 50
Bean (D-IL-8)
8%
4 / 50
Boozman (R-AR-3)
8%
4 / 50
Brown, H. (R-SC-1)
8%
4 / 50
Cole (R-OK-4)
8%
4 / 50
Gillmor (R-OH-5)
8%
4 / 50
Manzullo (R-IL-16)
8%
4 / 50
Murphy, P. (D-PA-8)
8%
4 / 49
Taylor (D-MS-4)
8%
4 / 50
Bachus, S. (R-AL-6)
7%
3 / 42
Delahunt (D-MA-10)
7%
3 / 45
Blumenauer (D-OR-3)
6%
3 / 50
Carney (D-PA-10)
6%
3 / 50
Frank, B. (D-MA-4)
6%
3 / 50
Hill (D-IN-9)
6%
3 / 49
Hobson (R-OH-7)
6%
3 / 50
LaTourette (R-OH-14)
6%
3 / 50
Lucas (R-OK-3)
6%
3 / 50
Meehan (D-MA-5)
6%
1 / 16
McMorris-Rodgers, C. (R-WA-5)
6%
3 / 50
Shays (R-CT-4)
6%
3 / 50
Young, C.W. (R-FL-10)
6%
3 / 50
Young, D. (R-AK-AL )
6%
2 / 31
Crenshaw (R-FL-4)
5%
2 / 40
Costa (D-CA-20)
4%
2 / 50
Davis, L. (D-TN-4)
4%
2 / 50
DeFazio (D-OR-4)
4%
2 / 49
Doggett (D-TX-25)
4%
2 / 49
Drake (R-VA-2)
4%
2 / 50
Eshoo (D-CA-14)
4%
2 / 50
Everett (R-AL-2)
4%
2 / 50
Gordon (D-TN-6)
4%
2 / 50
Gutierrez (D-IL-4)
4%
2 / 49
Kanjorski (D-PA-11)
4%
2 / 50
Latham (R-IA-4)
4%
2 / 50
Lewis, R. (R-KY-2)
4%
2 / 50
LoBiondo (R-NJ-2)
4%
2 / 50
Lofgren (D-CA-16)
4%
2 / 50
Mahoney (D-FL-16)
4%
2 / 50
McKeon (R-CA-25)
4%
2 / 50
Moran, Jerry (R-KS-1)
4%
2 / 50
Pryce, D. (R-OH-15)
4%
2 / 50
Reichert (R-WA-8)
4%
2 / 50
Reynolds (R-NY-26)
4%
2 / 49
Saxton (R-NJ-3)
4%
2 / 45
Simpson (R-ID-2)
4%
2 / 50
Smith, C. (R-NJ-4)
4%
2 / 50
Space (D-OH-18)
4%
2 / 50
Waxman (D-CA-30)
4%
2 / 50
Weller (R-IL-11)
4%
2 / 49
Wexler (D-FL-19)
4%
2 / 50
Whitfield (R-KY-1)
4%
2 / 50
Wolf (R-VA-10)
4%
2 / 50
Woolsey (D-CA-6)
4%
2 / 49
Wu (D-OR-1)
4%
2 / 50
Brown, C. (D-FL-3)
3%
1 / 35
Clarke (D-NY-11)
3%
1 / 31
Stark (D-CA-13)
3%
1 / 38
Ackerman (D-NY-5)
2%
1 / 49
Allen (D-ME-1)
2%
1 / 50
Baird (D-WA-3)
2%
1 / 48
Berkley (D-NV-1)
2%
1 / 50
Berman (D-CA-28)
2%
1 / 50
Berry (D-AR-1)
2%
1 / 50
Bishop, S. (D-GA-2)
2%
1 / 48
Bonner (R-AL-1)
2%
1 / 50
Boren (D-OK-2)
2%
1 / 50
Boswell (D-IA-3)
2%
1 / 49
Boyd, A. (D-FL-2)
2%
1 / 50
Brady, R. (D-PA-1)
2%
1 / 50
Braley (D-IA-1)
2%
1 / 49
Capps (D-CA-23)
2%
1 / 50
Cardoza (D-CA-18)
2%
1 / 50
Carnahan (D-MO-3)
2%
1 / 49
Castor (D-FL-11)
2%
1 / 48
Chandler (D-KY-6)
2%
1 / 50
Clay (D-MO-1)
2%
1 / 45
Cleaver (D-MO-5)
2%
1 / 50
Clyburn (D-SC-6)
2%
1 / 50
Cohen (D-TN-9)
2%
1 / 50
Courtney (D-CT-2)
2%
1 / 50
Crowley (D-NY-7)
2%
1 / 49
Cuellar (D-TX-28)
2%
1 / 49
Cummings (D-MD-7)
2%
1 / 50
Davis, A. (D-AL-7)
2%
1 / 50
Davis, Danny (D-IL-7)
2%
1 / 50
Davis, S. (D-CA-53)
2%
1 / 50
DeGette (D-CO-1)
2%
1 / 50
Dicks (D-WA-6)
2%
1 / 49
Dingell (D-MI-15)
2%
1 / 50
Doolittle (R-CA-4)
2%
1 / 50
Doyle (D-PA-14)
2%
1 / 50
Ellison (D-MN-5)
2%
1 / 50
Emanuel (D-IL-5)
2%
1 / 50
Engel (D-NY-17)
2%
1 / 50
English (R-PA-3)
2%
1 / 50
Farr (D-CA-17)
2%
1 / 50
Fattah (D-PA-2)
2%
1 / 50
Ferguson (R-NJ-7)
2%
1 / 50
Filner (D-CA-51)
2%
1 / 48
Giffords (D-AZ-8)
2%
1 / 49
Gillibrand (D-NY-20)
2%
1 / 50
Green, A. (D-TX-9)
2%
1 / 50
Hare (D-IL-17)
2%
1 / 50
Harman (D-CA-36)
2%
1 / 48
Hayes (R-NC-8)
2%
1 / 45
Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD-AL )
2%
1 / 50
Higgins (D-NY-27)
2%
1 / 45
Holden (D-PA-17)
2%
1 / 50
Honda (D-CA-15)
2%
1 / 43
Hooley (D-OR-5)
2%
1 / 50
Hoyer (D-MD-5)
2%
1 / 45
Jackson-Lee, S. (D-TX-18)
2%
1 / 50
Jefferson (D-LA-2)
2%
1 / 50
Johnson, E. (D-TX-30)
2%
1 / 50
Johnson, H. (D-GA-4)
2%
1 / 48
Jones, S. (D-OH-11)
2%
1 / 44
Kilpatrick (D-MI-13)
2%
1 / 45
Kind (D-WI-3)
2%
1 / 50
King, P. (R-NY-3)
2%
1 / 50
Klein, R. (D-FL-22)
2%
1 / 45
Langevin (D-RI-2)
2%
1 / 50
Lantos (D-CA-12)
2%
1 / 45
Larsen, R. (D-WA-2)
2%
1 / 50
Larson, J. (D-CT-1)
2%
1 / 50
Lee (D-CA-9)
2%
1 / 49
Lewis, John (D-GA-5)
2%
1 / 50
Loebsack (D-IA-2)
2%
1 / 50
Lowey (D-NY-18)
2%
1 / 50
Lynch (D-MA-9)
2%
1 / 50
Maloney (D-NY-14)
2%
1 / 50
Markey (D-MA-7)
2%
1 / 50
Matsui (D-CA-5)
2%
1 / 50
McCarthy, C. (D-NY-4)
2%
1 / 50
McCotter (R-MI-11)
2%
1 / 50
McCrery (R-LA-4)
2%
1 / 49
McDermott (D-WA-7)
2%
1 / 49
McGovern (D-MA-3)
2%
1 / 50
McHugh (R-NY-23)
2%
1 / 50
McNerney (D-CA-11)
2%
1 / 50
Meek, K. (D-FL-17)
2%
1 / 48
Meeks, G. (D-NY-6)
2%
1 / 50
Melancon (D-LA-3)
2%
1 / 50
Miller, B. (D-NC-13)
2%
1 / 50
Miller, George (D-CA-7)
2%
1 / 48
Mitchell (D-AZ-5)
2%
1 / 50
Moore, D. (D-KS-3)
2%
1 / 50
Moore, G. (D-WI-4)
2%
1 / 49
Moran, James (D-VA-8)
2%
1 / 49
Nadler (D-NY-8)
2%
1 / 48
Neal (D-MA-2)
2%
1 / 49
Oberstar (D-MN-8)
2%
1 / 50
Perlmutter (D-CO-7)
2%
1 / 50
Pickering (R-MS-3)
2%
1 / 48
Pomeroy (D-ND-AL )
2%
1 / 50
Rahall (D-WV-3)
2%
1 / 50
Rodriguez (D-TX-23)
2%
1 / 50
Ross (D-AR-4)
2%
1 / 50
Rothman (D-NJ-9)
2%
1 / 50
Rush (D-IL-1)
2%
1 / 49
Salazar, J. (D-CO-3)
2%
1 / 50
Sanchez, Linda (D-CA-39)
2%
1 / 50
Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA-47)
2%
1 / 50
Schakowsky (D-IL-9)
2%
1 / 50
Schiff (D-CA-29)
2%
1 / 50
Schwartz (D-PA-13)
2%
1 / 50
Scott, D. (D-GA-13)
2%
1 / 50
Scott, R. (D-VA-3)
2%
1 / 50
Sestak (D-PA-7)
2%
1 / 50
Shea-Porter (D-NH-1)
2%
1 / 50
Sires (D-NJ-13)
2%
1 / 50
Skelton (D-MO-4)
2%
1 / 45
Slaughter (D-NY-28)
2%
1 / 50
Smith, Adam (D-WA-9)
2%
1 / 50
Solis (D-CA-32)
2%
1 / 49
Spratt (D-SC-5)
2%
1 / 50
Stupak (D-MI-1)
2%
1 / 50
Sutton (D-OH-13)
2%
1 / 50
Tanner (D-TN-8)
2%
1 / 50
Tauscher (D-CA-10)
2%
1 / 50
Thompson, M. (D-CA-1)
2%
1 / 50
Tierney (D-MA-6)
2%
1 / 49
Turner (R-OH-3)
2%
1 / 50
Udall, M. (D-CO-2)
2%
1 / 50
Waters (D-CA-35)
2%
1 / 48
Weiner (D-NY-9)
2%
1 / 50
Wicker (R-MS-1)
2%
1 / 50
Wynn (D-MD-4)
2%
1 / 50
Yarmuth (D-KY-3)
2%
1 / 50
Abercrombie (D-HI-1)
0%
0 / 41
Aderholt (R-AL-4)
0%
0 / 50
Alexander, R. (R-LA-5)
0%
0 / 50
Altmire (D-PA-4)
0%
0 / 50
Andrews (D-NJ-1)
0%
0 / 50
Arcuri (D-NY-24)
0%
0 / 50
Baca (D-CA-43)
0%
0 / 50
Baker (R-LA-6)
0%
0 / 50
Baldwin (D-WI-2)
0%
0 / 50
Becerra (D-CA-31)
0%
0 / 45
Bishop, T. (D-NY-1)
0%
0 / 50
Boucher (D-VA-9)
0%
0 / 50
Boustany (R-LA-7)
0%
0 / 50
Boyda, N. (D-KS-2)
0%
0 / 50
Butterfield (D-NC-1)
0%
0 / 50
Calvert (R-CA-44)
0%
0 / 50
Capito (R-WV-2)
0%
0 / 50
Capuano (D-MA-8)
0%
0 / 49
Carson (D-IN-7)
0%
0 / 50
Conyers (D-MI-14)
0%
0 / 46
Costello (D-IL-12)
0%
0 / 49
Cramer (D-AL-5)
0%
0 / 49
DeLauro (D-CT-3)
0%
0 / 50
Diaz-Balart, L. (R-FL-21)
0%
0 / 50
Donnelly (D-IN-2)
0%
0 / 49
Edwards (D-TX-17)
0%
0 / 50
Ellsworth (D-IN-8)
0%
0 / 50
Emerson (R-MO-8)
0%
0 / 49
Etheridge (D-NC-2)
0%
0 / 50
Frelinghuysen (R-NJ-11)
0%
0 / 50
Gilchrest (R-MD-1)
0%
0 / 46
Gonzalez (D-TX-20)
0%
0 / 49
Green, G. (D-TX-29)
0%
0 / 50
Grijalva (D-AZ-7)
0%
0 / 50
Hall, J. (D-NY-19)
0%
0 / 50
Hastings, A. (D-FL-23)
0%
0 / 50
Hinchey (D-NY-22)
0%
0 / 50
Hinojosa (D-TX-15)
0%
0 / 39
Hirono (D-HI-2)
0%
0 / 49
Hodes (D-NH-2)
0%
0 / 50
Holt (D-NJ-12)
0%
0 / 50
Inslee (D-WA-1)
0%
0 / 50
Israel (D-NY-2)
0%
0 / 50
Jackson, J. (D-IL-2)
0%
0 / 50
Kagen (D-WI-8)
0%
0 / 49
Kaptur (D-OH-9)
0%
0 / 49
Kennedy, P. (D-RI-1)
0%
0 / 49
Kildee (D-MI-5)
0%
0 / 50
Knollenberg (R-MI-9)
0%
0 / 50
Kucinich (D-OH-10)
0%
0 / 44
Kuhl (R-NY-29)
0%
0 / 50
LaHood (R-IL-18)
0%
0 / 34
Lampson (D-TX-22)
0%
0 / 50
Levin, S. (D-MI-12)
0%
0 / 49
Lewis, Jerry (R-CA-41)
0%
0 / 49
Lipinski (D-IL-3)
0%
0 / 50
McCollum (D-MN-4)
0%
0 / 49
McIntyre (D-NC-7)
0%
0 / 50
McNulty (D-NY-21)
0%
0 / 43
Michaud (D-ME-2)
0%
0 / 48
Mollohan (D-WV-1)
0%
0 / 50
Murphy, C. (D-CT-5)
0%
0 / 49
Murphy, T. (R-PA-18)
0%
0 / 50
Murtha (D-PA-12)
0%
0 / 49
Napolitano (D-CA-38)
0%
0 / 48
Obey (D-WI-7)
0%
0 / 48
Olver (D-MA-1)
0%
0 / 50
Ortiz (D-TX-27)
0%
0 / 34
Pallone (D-NJ-6)
0%
0 / 50
Pascrell (D-NJ-8)
0%
0 / 50
Pastor (D-AZ-4)
0%
0 / 50
Payne (D-NJ-10)
0%
0 / 46
Peterson, C. (D-MN-7)
0%
0 / 50
Peterson, J. (R-PA-5)
0%
0 / 49
Price, D. (D-NC-4)
0%
0 / 50
Rangel (D-NY-15)
0%
0 / 50
Regula (R-OH-16)
0%
0 / 50
Rehberg (R-MT-AL )
0%
0 / 50
Renzi (R-AZ-1)
0%
0 / 50
Reyes (D-TX-16)
0%
0 / 49
Rogers, H. (R-KY-5)
0%
0 / 50
Rogers, Mike D. (R-AL-3)
0%
0 / 50
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL-18)
0%
0 / 50
Roybal-Allard (D-CA-34)
0%
0 / 50
Ruppersberger (D-MD-2)
0%
0 / 49
Ryan, T. (D-OH-17)
0%
0 / 50
Sarbanes (D-MD-3)
0%
0 / 50
Serrano (D-NY-16)
0%
0 / 50
Sherman (D-CA-27)
0%
0 / 50
Shuler (D-NC-11)
0%
0 / 50
Snyder (D-AR-2)
0%
0 / 50
Thompson, B. (D-MS-2)
0%
0 / 50
Tiahrt (R-KS-4)
0%
0 / 50
Towns (D-NY-10)
0%
0 / 50
Udall, T. (D-NM-3)
0%
0 / 50
Van Hollen (D-MD-8)
0%
0 / 50
Velazquez (D-NY-12)
0%
0 / 50
Visclosky (D-IN-1)
0%
0 / 49
Walsh (R-NY-25)
0%
0 / 50
Walz (D-MN-1)
0%
0 / 50
Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL-20)
0%
0 / 50
Watson (D-CA-33)
0%
0 / 50
Watt (D-NC-12)
0%
0 / 50
Welch (D-VT-AL )
0%
0 / 49
Wilson, C. (D-OH-6)
0%
0 / 50
If you are looking for your congressman in MD you need to look at the bottom of the list: Gilcrest, Ruppersberger, Cummings, etc…..0 for 50 isn’t real good odds for responsible spending, but that pales when compared to our senators

Coburn (R-OK)
100%
15 / 15
DeMint (R-SC)
100%
13 / 13
Burr (R-NC)
100%
15 / 15
McCain (R-AZ)
100%
2 / 2
Kyl (R-AZ)
93%
14 / 15
Chambliss (R-GA)
93%
14 / 15
Ensign (R-NV)
93%
14 / 15
Graham (R-SC)
92%
11 / 12
Barrasso (R-WY)
90%
9 / 10
Bunning (R-KY)
87%
13 / 15
Brownback (R-KS)
80%
8 / 10
Sununu (R-NH)
80%
12 / 15
Inhofe (R-OK)
80%
12 / 15
Cornyn (R-TX)
80%
12 / 15
Feingold (D-WI)
80%
12 / 15
Isakson (R-GA)
79%
11 / 14
Sessions, J. (R-AL)
73%
11 / 15
Grassley (R-IA)
73%
11 / 15
Vitter (R-LA)
73%
11 / 15
Thune (R-SD)
73%
11 / 15
Enzi (R-WY)
69%
9 / 13
Allard (R-CO)
67%
10 / 15
Crapo (R-ID)
67%
10 / 15
Lugar (R-IN)
67%
10 / 15
Dole (R-NC)
62%
8 / 13
Martinez (R-FL)
60%
9 / 15
Lott (R-MS)
60%
9 / 15
Corker (R-TN)
60%
9 / 15
McConnell (R-KY)
53%
8 / 15
Hutchison (R-TX)
53%
8 / 15
Craig (R-ID)
50%
5 / 10
Hagel (R-NE)
50%
7 / 14
Gregg (R-NH)
47%
7 / 15
Smith, G. (R-OR)
47%
7 / 15
Hatch (R-UT)
47%
7 / 15
Shelby (R-AL)
40%
6 / 15
Roberts (R-KS)
40%
6 / 15
Bennett (R-UT)
40%
6 / 15
McCaskill (D-MO)
40%
6 / 15
Bayh (D-IN)
36%
5 / 14
Coleman (R-MN)
33%
5 / 15
Alexander, L. (R-TN)
33%
5 / 15
Obama (D-IL)
33%
2 / 6
Voinovich (R-OH)
29%
4 / 14
Collins (R-ME)
27%
4 / 15
Snowe (R-ME)
27%
4 / 15
Murkowski (R-AK)
20%
3 / 15
Biden (D-DE)
17%
1 / 6
Rockefeller (D-WV)
17%
2 / 12
Domenici (R-NM)
15%
2 / 13
Warner (R-VA)
15%
2 / 13
Lincoln (D-AR)
14%
2 / 14
Dodd (D-CT)
14%
1 / 7
Carper (D-DE)
14%
2 / 14
Stevens (R-AK)
13%
2 / 15
Cochran (R-MS)
13%
2 / 15
Bond (R-MO)
13%
2 / 15
Specter (R-PA)
13%
2 / 15
Harkin (D-IA)
13%
2 / 15
Landrieu (D-LA)
13%
2 / 15
Tester (D-MT)
13%
2 / 15
Bingaman (D-NM)
13%
2 / 15
Webb (D-VA)
13%
2 / 15
Clinton (D-NY)
11%
1 / 9
Kennedy, E. (D-MA)
9%
1 / 11
Brown, S. (D-OH)
8%
1 / 13
Lieberman (I-CT)
7%
1 / 15
Sanders (I-VT)
7%
1 / 15
Pryor (D-AR)
7%
1 / 15
Boxer (D-CA)
7%
1 / 14
Feinstein (D-CA)
7%
1 / 15
Salazar, K. (D-CO)
7%
1 / 15
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
7%
1 / 15
Akaka (D-HI)
7%
1 / 15
Inouye (D-HI)
7%
1 / 15
Durbin (D-IL)
7%
1 / 14
Cardin (D-MD)
7%
1 / 15
Mikulski (D-MD)
7%
1 / 15
Kerry (D-MA)
7%
1 / 15
Levin, C. (D-MI)
7%
1 / 15
Stabenow (D-MI)
7%
1 / 15
Klobuchar (D-MN)
7%
1 / 15
Baucus, M. (D-MT)
7%
1 / 15
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
7%
1 / 14
Reid, H. (D-NV)
7%
1 / 15
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
7%
1 / 15
Menendez (D-NJ)
7%
1 / 15
Schumer (D-NY)
7%
1 / 15



Conrad (D-ND)
7%
1 / 15
Dorgan (D-ND)
7%
1 / 15
Wyden (D-OR)
7%
1 / 15
Casey (D-PA)
7%
1 / 15
Reed, J. (D-RI)
7%
1 / 15
Whitehouse (D-RI)
7%
1 / 15
Leahy (D-VT)
7%
1 / 15
Cantwell (D-WA)
7%
1 / 15
Murray (D-WA)
7%
1 / 15
Byrd (D-WV)
7%
1 / 15
Kohl (D-WI)
7%
1 / 15
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
0%
0 / 10

This is so sad, look at the ratings for Obama, Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Kennedy, Cardin, Mikulski, Kerry, Reid……and these are the ones we are supposed to trust to run our country? Really makes you think doesn’t it?

Here is the website if you want to keep “score”

http://clubforgrowth.com/index.php

Harry Reid’s popularity slipping in Nevada

Harry Reid (D-NV), now 0 for 41 in proposed legislation to withhold money to the armed forces, is less popular in Nevada then the very person he despises, President George Bush. According to Brad Coker, managing partner of Mason-Dixon Polling and Research Inc. His companies’ recent polling of residents of the state of Nevada shows a 51% unfavorable rating, and a 32% favorable rating while President Bush shows a 34% favorable rating. Reid’s favorable rating has slipped some 14 points since May, while his unfavorable rating has grown some 9 percent in the same time period.

If Senator Reid were a major league coach, his losing record on passed legislation on armed forces funding would have him tossed out on his ear. Fortunately for Reid, he doesn’t come up for re-election until 2010. He has done nothing but belligerently preened in front of cameras, declaring his demand to end the Iraqi war, by threatening to cut off the very money that assures safety to our troops. You would think after 41 unsuccessful tries, he would eventually get the message along with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Reid’s glaringly unfavorable rating has now surpassed the national 50% unfavorable rating of her highness Sen. Hillary Clinton of the great state of New York, speaking volumes for once again revisiting term limits on Senators and Congressmen. I for one would like to see him deal with something besides war, it surely isn’t the only item needing attention!

Monday, March 17, 2008

The next time you hear…….

The next time you hear a politician say that he’s going to raise taxes, ask him who bears the worst brunt. The democrats tell you not to worry, it will be paid by only the “rich”, but just who are the wealthy? Certainly the term wealthy means different things to different people, but the definitive term of wealthy can best be answered by the IRS, well at least in dollars and cents as of 2005, while you can decide the definition of “wealthy!” The war cry of the liberal left has always been that big business and the wealthy always need to be taxed more, but is that actually true? The most recent stats according to the IRS say that the top 1 percent of wage earners, those making $365,000 a year and more paid 39% of all federal taxes, just up from 1999 when they paid 36 percent. This is where things get interesting; people in the top 5% of wage earners who made $145,000 a year and higher paid 60% of all federal taxes! This figure is up from 55% in 1999. The top 10% of wage earners, that is the ones who earned $103,000 and up paid 70% of all federal taxes. Other figures include; the top 25% of earners who made $62,000 and higher paid 86% and the top 50% who made $31,000 and higher paid 97%.

If you now wish to hear the bad news, you would ask, “What do the people who earn less than $30,000 contribute to the federal taxes? They paid 3% of the total federal taxes in 2005 that is less then they paid in 1999, only amounting to 4% of the taxes. Let’s consider now who will vote for what party according to what they make. The recipients of social programs see no benefit to voting for someone who will raise their taxes or delete their benefits, to put it another way they have no political stake in our country. A group called the “Tax Foundation” estimates that 41% of whites, 56% of blacks, 59% of American Indian and Eskimos, and 40% of Pacific Islanders had NO federal tax liability! Why would someone paying virtually no tax care about a tax refund? Is this tax equity, or is it a way for the politicians who vote to increase the taxes on the “rich” to insure votes based on what they have done for them? The next time someone criticizes a “Bush” tax cut, calmly explain to them that the president has no power to collect taxes. He may propose, or veto a tax but the actual taxes are the responsibility of the US Congress, and the movement as shown here will only get worse as time goes on if the democrats control the Congress. The transference of a “black eye” is what they do best!

Barb Mikulski replies to me:

On November 13, I sent an email to Senator Mikulski to voice my opinion about the “LOST” treaty, below was my email to her:

Dear Senator Mikulski,
Please reconsider your vote on the LOST Treaty, because of my concern on the extension of the UN as a world governing body. I also have reservations on the ability of this treaty to allow a “back door” entry into the Kyoto Protocol. I believe our country should be self governed, and not controlled monetarily by an outside body. I also believe that the US should have more say then a land locked country will. One vote per country does not accurately reflect the relationship of linear miles of shoreline. The seas have been the last open and free area, and signing this agreement for ratification will give the UN control over 7/10ths of the world’s surface, and that is unacceptable.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Alfred C. Ritter

Barbara returned an email to me today as follows:
Dear Mr. Ritter:
Thank you for getting in touch with me to express your views about the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty. I appreciate hearing from you.
I understand your views about the U.S. ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty. This treaty went into effect worldwide in 1994 after 60 member states of the U.N. had signed it. It sets international guidelines for the communal use of the oceans for fishing, mining, and navigation, while protecting the sovereign rights of nations.
I believe the U.S. must continue its important role in the United Nations and live up to its responsibilities. Multinational agencies and their agreements allow the U.S. to share the burdens and costs of global problems with other nations.
Again, thanks for getting in touch with me. Knowing of your views will be helpful to me should this treaty come for a vote before the full Senate. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely, Barbara A. MikulskiUnited States Senator
Today I replied to her as shown below:


Dear Senator Mikulski,
I felt as if your reply to me was that of a dismissing nature. I sent you a letter voicing my concern about a certain treaty giving the United Nations (the world’s most corrupt organization) control over 7/10 of the world’s surface. The territorial limits once limited to 11 or 12 miles would now extend to 350 miles, causing untold disputes by rogue nations. Another problem I have with this treaty is, land locked nations will have the very same vote as we do as a nation. No credit or additional votes will be available to nations with thousands of shoreline vs. the lack of shoreline, one nation one vote. No Naval exercises will be allowed in waters beyond our territorial limits, and our submarines will be required to be on the surface, and fly a flag if ever in another territorial water, there by putting the lives of our servicemen at risk. The terms “international waters must be used for peaceful activities only” can be construed many ways, and needs further clarifications. The LOST treaty also enables a back door entry into world pollution control, as you already are aware. As part of your past voting history, I also see that if offered for ratification, you would vote in favor of the Kyoto Protocol. My knowledge of the LOST treaty, as you can see rivals yours. My concerns are for many Articles such as I invite you to look over this treaty paying special attention to the following articles:
20, 27, 39, 57, 70, 73, 76, 82, 88, 159, 160, 183, 194, *212, 289
Through the following link: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Your stance as stated in your quote:


I believe the U.S. must continue its important role in the United Multinational agencies and their agreements allow the U.S. to share the burdens and costs of global problems with other nations.

Again, thanks for getting in touch with me. Knowing of your views will be helpful to me should this treaty come for a vote before the full Senate. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

This arrogant statement shows me that you and Senator Cardin both believe that the people of the United States of America should somehow share their wealth with the world in some kind of sick World Welfare Reform. Since when have we as a people elected you to turn over world governance to the United Nations? I would like to remind you that, you are in office to vote the will of your constituents and not hand out our taxes. Your reply to me was a real slap in the face, followed by an offer if you can be of any further assistance to contact you. What you meant to say is that I could contact you IF I agreed with your point of view. Well Senator I do NOT agree with you, and I will share this arrogant reply to me, with all my mailing list, whom for your information vote also!
Alfred C Ritter Sr.