Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

From Space.com (Sept. 2008):

As if the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy weren't vexing enough, another baffling cosmic puzzle has been discovered.

Patches of matter in the universe seem to be moving at very high speeds and in a uniform direction that can't be explained by any of the known gravitational forces in the observable universe. Astronomers are calling the phenomenon "dark flow."

The stuff that's pulling this matter must be outside the observable universe, researchers conclude. [read more]

I know this blog entry is old, but I only heard of this phenomena in October 2009 issue of Popular Science. No-one knows for sure why the phenomena is happening. One theory is that a parallel universe is causing the motion.

Order of Succession

If the Annointed One (Barack Obama) dies during his term in office this is the order of succession according to the Constitution:

1. Vice President: Joe Biden. Does not fill me with confidence, although he maybe less radical than Obama.

2. Speaker of the House: Nancy Pelosi. Yikes! 

3. President pro-temore of the Senate: Robert Byrd. This former KKK has his name plastered on almost every building in W. Virginia. Uh, no thanks. 

4. Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton. Hmmm. If Hillary could rig it so that Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Byrd could be in a plane at the same time and have it go down somewhere over an ocean then she could be President. Did I just write a plot for a political novel?

5. Secretary of the Treasury: Timothy Geithner. Like this country needs is a "new world order" person. Not too mention he did not pay his taxes.

6. Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates. Of the whole bunch so far, he's good.

7. Attorney General: Eric Holder. He called America a "nation of cowards."

8. Secretary of the Interior: Ken Salazar. 

9. Secretary of Agriculture: Tom Vilsack. 

10. Secretary of Commerce: Gary Locke. 

11. Secretary of Labor: Hilda Solis. She's for amnesty and open borders. No thank you. 

Obamanopoly

Let's all play Obamanopoly! The following cards and spaces are from Glenn Beck's book Arguing with Idiots. The cards in blue are made-up by me.

Community Organizer cards:

• BANK ERROR IN THEIR FAVOR. PAY $500.
• CHRYSLER. From sale of stock you get nothing.
• You are "too big too fail." Keep this card for 5 turns.
• If you got a loan from the government and can't pay it back, the government now owns your business after buying up your common stock. You lose the game.

Change cards:

• Advance token to the nearest railroad and pay the government twice the amount to which it is otherwise entitled. Don't expect anything in return.
• Employee Free Choice Act cripples your business. Pay $200.
• You forgot to choose a health care plan for an employee of yours when the employee does not choose for himself. Pay $700.
• If you have a "too big too fail" card then you can get a $100,000 loan from the government.

READING RAILROAD. Price: n/a. This railroad was nationalized, and is not for sale.

INCOME TAX. Player with the most money pays 70% to player with the least.

ELECTRIC COMPANY. Price: $150 Plus $500 carbon tax.

BOARDWALK. Price: $400 (Free for low income families).

The Wind-it Generator

From PopSci.com (July 7):

Soon the hum of high-voltage electric towers will come from the electricity they produce, not just what they conduct. The Wind-it, a design by French architects Nicola Delon and Julien Choppin and engineer Raphael Menard, inserts a vertical turbine inside the towers. Large wind farms need lots of land; Wind-it could be installed anywhere along the 157,000 miles of high-voltage aboveground wires in the U.S. The turbines also plug right into the grid, saving the cost of stringing cable to remote areas. The inventors are currently looking for an industrial partner to turn their scale model into a 330-foot-tall tower, which their computer simulations suggest could generate up to a megawatt of electricity—enough to power 400 homes. “The Midwest needs new power lines,” Menard says, “and because the towers will cross high-wind fields, it could be perfect for Wind-it.”

Now, I am not a wind-energy zealot, but if you are going to harness wind-energy this is not a bad way to do it. It uses existing technology (those electric towers--you don't have to build those huge wind turbines) and because you don't have to build those turbines you don't need lots of land to place them. I applaud the cleverness by the engineer and architect. Although, they should have the turbines the same color of the towers so it isn't so obvious that the towers are using wind-energy. Just a suggestion.

Government Bureaucracy in Action

The following list below is from Glenn Beck's book Arguing with Idiots. Interesting book. His Adventures in Capitalism cartoons are funny.

• Up to 12 different agencies are responsible for administrating more than 35 food-safety laws.

• There are 541 clean air, water, and waste pgms spread out over 29 agencies.

• 40 different pgms aimed primarily at job training are administrated by at least seven different federal agencies.

• 50 different pgms to aid the homeless are administrated by at least eight different federal agencies.

• Nine different agencies operate 27 teen-pregnancy programs and 11 agencies administer at least 90 early-childhood pgms.

Now, doesn't this list above fill you with confidence that the gov't can run health care effectively and efficiently?

We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment

Below is excerpts from an email correspondence of October this year from one climatologist to another:

Kevin, But what you said was "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment". Now you say "we are no where close to knowing where energy is going".

Tom.

Hi Tom > How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where > close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to > make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy > budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the > climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless > as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a > travesty! > Kevin

>>> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the >>> moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published >>> in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even >>> more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is >>> inadequate.

Kevin

Man-made Global Warming in Doubt

Below are portions of one of those hacked emails from Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The email dated October 1996 is from an environmental writer Fred Pearce to climate researcher Briffa Keith: 

For climatologists, the search for an irrefutable "sign" of anthropogenic warming has assumed an almost Biblical intensity. The leading figures of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claim that, in all probability, they have seen it. Last summer [ed: 1996], the IPCC's scientific working group, chaired by former UK Meteorological Office boss Sir John Houghton, concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". But it is like the "balance of evidence" suggesting BSE causes CJD. The judgment is far from "beyond reasonable doubt". The case remains "not proven".

Few investigators doubt that the world has warmed recently. Nor that the enhanced "greenhouse effect" of pollution from gases such as carbon dioxide, will warm the planet. But in the past five years, climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the "signal" of human influence.

The models' error was not, perhaps, too surprising. As Barnett points out, they do not include vital "forcing" mechanisms that alter temperature, such as solar cycles and volcanic eruptions. Nor can they yet mimic the strength of the largest year-on-year variability in the natural system, the El Nino oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, which has a global impact on climate.

Nonetheless, the findings should serve as a warning, Barnett says, that "the current models cannot be used in rigorous tests for anthropogenic signals in the real world". If they are they "might lead us to believe that an anthropogenic signal had been found when, in fact, that may not be the case."

Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

ScienceDaily (Nov. 24, 2009):

In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions -- the major cause of global warming -- cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses [my italics] or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day. [read more]

I like the word "provocative." Any theory I guess that questions global warming or as it is called now climate change ideology is heresy. I serious doubt CO₂ emissions are the major cause of global warming. My bet is still on that yellow star in the sky called the sun.

Then the author of the article has to mention the "global warming deniers" using the scientist's theory for their own purposes. Again, I guess you can't question science anymore? Science is about finding the truth. If you can't question a scientist's methodology or theory to find a kernel of truth then you don't have science anymore. You have a cult.

More on the House Health Care Bill

Section 552 says there will be an excise tax of 2.5% on medical devices. Yea, another tax. This country needs another tax like it needs another "stimulus" bill.

The bill requires the employer to give his/her name, date, and employer identification number to the following gov't people: the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury. Also, the employee has to give his/her name, address, and TIN to those same gov't people. What the social security number isn't good enough for id purposes? (See Sect. 412 (a)(3))

The employee has 30 days to choose if (s)he wants socialized medicine or his employer's private health plan. No other choice. If the employee does not make a choice then the employer chooses the one with the lesser premium. (Sect. 412 (c)(1) & (2)) If the employer does not pick a plan for the employee then he is fined $100 a day until he does. (Sect. 806)

If an employer has an annual payroll of more than $750,000 then he has to contribute 8% of the average wages of his employees. Otherwise, if the employer has an annual payroll of less $500,000 annual payroll he does not have to contribute anything. In between the two amounts is a progressive rate up to 6%. (Sect. 413)

If the Commissioner thinks you are not covered properly then you have to pay 2.5% of your gross income. (Sect. 59B)

ObamaCare and Individual Differences

In any bureaucracy, individual differences are for the most part ignored. This is done for efficiency and so that every one is treated the same way. People are classified according to what group you are in. Socialized medicine is no different. Even worse, because the bigger the bureaucracy the more individual differences are ignored.

For example, let's say a person has a deadly genetic defect that runs in his/her family. This genetic defect causes an aggressive form of stomach cancer. First, the person has to be screened for the mutant gene. Then if the person has the mutant gene has to have surgery done or medication has to be given. In socialized medicine the person has to wait to be screened if the test exists. The wait could kill the person if (s)he gets the cancer. If (s)he is lucky to be screened then (s)he would have to wait for the operation or drug if she is found positive for the gene.

What could be worse is if the system decides the person is not worth the screening because the mutant gene is really rare.

When you go see your private doctor (s)he can look at your individual differences. Then make a diagnose and a prescription that fits closely to your individual bodily make-up. The examining and diagnosing can take time especially if the medical condition is unknown or complex to the doctor. The prescription can even take time if there are more than one option for the patient and the options are about equal. The patient would have to decide what to do. Under socialized medicine examining and diagnosing time is not under the doctor's control and prescription option would not be under the patient's control.

Obama's Plan for Gov't Takeover of Banks

The following steps below are taken from Dick Morris & Eileen McGann's book Catastrophe:

1. Get all banks and financial institutions to take TARP money.
2. Even if they want to give the money back, don't let them.
3. Because they're getting government money, make them obey federal regulations.
4. Make all banks pass a "stress test," allegedly to assure their financial solvency. 
5. After eliminating the stress test, make banks raise more capital, again, supposedly to assure solvency.
6. When the banks can't raise more capital by selling more stock, make them swap the preferred stock they gave the gov't in return for TARP money for common stock. This exchange lets them wipe the debt to the gov't off their balance sheets, but it gives the feds stock that entitles them to vote on company management (which preferred stock does not).
7. Use the voting power of the common stock to dictate how to run the banks.
8. Use the leverage of the banks to control the economy.

Like Dick Morris says and I agree these are steps to socialism. Any bank or financial institution that takes TARP money is a fool. They are asking to be a puppet. But I can understand if they are desperate. After all they are "too big to fail" or so we are told. Maybe that is the plan. Set up a situation (ie oppressive regulations) where a big corporations (eg Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.) have a hard time succeeding economically. Once they start failing, declare them "too big to fail." Then offer them a "TARP" deal. Then follow steps 2) through 8) above. Also, if you make the corporations enemy of the people then you can get away with the oppressive regulations and say you are doing it for the "good" of the country. 

Everyone in Britain could be given a personal 'carbon allowance'

From Telegraph.co.UK (Nov. 9):

Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalized if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say.

Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. [read more]

This global warming or climate change (whatever it is called now) mania is way out of control. God help America if it comes here. I agree with the economist Ruth Lea in the article this definitely is Orwellian. 

Storm Chasing with a Horse and Buggy

According to the National Association of Storm Chasers and Spotters website the first storm chaser was U.S. Weather Bureau climatologist Isaac Cline. In 1900 he road a horse and buggy down a Galveston, Texas beach as he nervously observed the increasing surf and winds. He was trying to spot a hurricane. 

So, I started thinking. How good would a horse and buggy be chasing tornadoes? I would think it would not be very effective. 

First, the horses would be spooked and probably would not be willing to chase after a huge swirling cloud of wind. Chasing tornadoes is not natural behavior for horses--or for people either for that matter. But somebody's gotta do it. I don't think a person could train horses to chase a tornado. They would just look at the trainer and think he's plain crazy. 

Second, the horses, the buggy, and even the storm chasers could be hurt. Not just from being sucked up by the twister (the buggy would probably weigh less than an average car), but being hit by flying debris like rocks, limbs, cows (I refer the reader to the Twister movie. The best tornado movie second to The Wizard of Oz. Got to love the tornado footage in the beginning of that movie), and chickens. Not too mention any hail knocking storm chasers and horses on the head. Ouch! Those suckers can get quite large. 

Finally, a horse and buggy just can't go as fast (about 8 - 10 mph) as a car. Plus, it cannot back up if a tornado comes right toward a person. The storm chasers would have to get out of the buggy, unharness the horses so they can escape (you wouldn't want them to be sucked up by the tornado would you?), and run for their lives. 

The above reasons is probably why storm chasing did not really get started in the 1950's. The cars were faster than the horse and buggy. Plus, they offer protection. I suppose they could have chase storms in the 1930's with the first cars but they would have been slower than the cars in the 50s. But with the cars in the 30's, a person did not have to worry too much about hail damage. The cars were mostly metal. Although, you did have to crank them up in front. 

The Fort Hood Attack

I agree with what Col. Ralph Peters said in his New York Post column that this was a terrorist attack. Not just someone who had a breakdown or went crazy. The attack was definitely not caused by combat stress reaction. The attacker never was in combat. That diagnoses is just plain stupid. Look at the facts we have now. Hasan yelled out "God is great" in Arabic when he shot those soldiers. He said was Muslim first, then American. He called homicide bombers heroic on his Facebook page. Getting rid of his personal possessions and going to a strip joint too suggested an attack of some sort. Those two actions were also done by the 9/11 terrorists. The 9/11 terrorists were preparing to get their virgins and I believe so was this militant Jihadist. He thought he was going to die. Add to this fact he tried to contact Al Qaeda. It does not matter if they did not reply. Plus, on his business card he put the initials "SOA." SOA stands for Soldier of Allah. This attack is not related to Islam? Really?

This terrorism should never had happened. Thanks to the Left the military has become a political correct mess (the terms "War on Terror" are not allowed in military documents anymore. Geez!). Diversity is one thing, but allowing someone who is so dangerous is another. You DO NOT screw around with the military. It is not a social experiment. These brave soldiers put their lives on the line to defend this country. Getting shot at in battle is one thing. Getting shot at by a fellow soldier stateside is another thing all together.

To prevent this from ever happening again a thorough background check should be done on every Muslim in all branches of the military not just the Army. Any militant Jihadist should be kicked out. The POTUS Barack Obama could issue this directive. He is the commander-in-chief of the military. The question is would he do it. My guess is no. Would this directive be profiling? Possibly. Is this racism? No. It's a security measure. You want to know something. Any Muslim who is a militant Jihadist probably wouldn't care if was kicked out. He might miss the money though. 

H.R. 3962 (Affordable Health Care for America Act)

I have read the 1990 pages bill and here is what I learned not in any particular order with comments by me. Yes, my brain is still intact from reading the bill. It did not melt. All italics are mine.

• SEC. 330. ENROLLMENT IN PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Members of Congress may enroll in the public health insurance option. Why is the section necessary? I mean if the bill so good why would any member of Congress not enroll in the bill? Also, notice the executive and the judicial arms of the gov't are not included in this section. One undeniable fact of life is the powers-that-be always take of themselves.

• INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.If the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists. Reducing benefits and increasing premiums sounds like an insurance company to me. As for waiting lists, that sounds like the Canadian health care system.

• CONTENTS OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL LIABILITY LAW. The contents of an alternative liability law are in accordance with this paragraph if---(B) the law does not limit attorneys fees or impose caps on damages. That should make the personal injury lawyers happy. No wonder you don't hear them protesting.

• SEC. 2537. MEDICAL-LEGAL PARTNERSHIPS. (1) awarding grants to, and entering into contracts with, medical-legal partnerships to assist patients and their families to navigate health-related programs and activities. Another bone to the lawyers. I guess the socialized health care will be so complex the everyday person can't understand it.

• There are a bunch of offices such as the OFFICE OF WOMEN’S HEALTH (no office of men's health?), and the OFFICE OF INDIAN MEN’S HEALTH. There is a whole section dedicated to Indians. No offense to Indians but why are they singled out?

• There is a Health Choices Commissioner. Think Health Czar.

• Employers are supposed to supply health info to their employees and encourage health screenings. Employers cannot mandate their employees to participate in the "health education" pgm but can entice them as long as it does not interfere with the Health Care Act. As it says in the bill "such reward is not tied to the premium or cost-sharing of the individual under the health benefits plan." The screening results are kept confidential. That is you know, the screener knows, and the Secretary (read the gov't) knows about your results.

• SEC. 223. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Nine members who are not members of the gov't who are appointed by the President. Nine members who are not members of the gov't who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States. Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint. Each member serves a term of three years. On this committee are very experts in the health, insurance, and business community. There are even experts in "racial and ethnic disparities." Whatever that is.

• There are two registries: The National Medical Device Registry and the National Registry for Effective Programs.

• There are regulations on restaurants and vending machines (see Sec. 2572).

• The payments for the health care pgm are deducted automatically from your paycheck. (See page 1577 line 23)

• Retiree Reserve Trust Fund

All in all this bill is one bureaucratic mess with a crap load of subsidies. If you want to know how bureaucracies work you can read Moore's Laws of Bureaucracy. It's very interesting and enlightening reading.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 14

• I believe private citizens should buy their own health insurance just they do for auto and life insurance. It's not the responsibility of the gov't or for that matter your employer.
• You never compromise with irrational people, stubborn people, and evil people.
• Experimenting with the occult especially Ouija boards and séances is like randomly picking out strangers in a phone book to call. You may get a nice decent person or or may get a psychopath with caller id. You never know.
• A person without a conscience is like an automobile without breaks. Sooner or later he/she will go out of control and hurt him/herself or someone else.
• What's worse than fainting goats would be fainting horses or cows. They could get hurt or land on someone or a smaller animal. A fainting hamster would be weird albeit fun to have.
• I think there should be a separation between business and gov't like there supposedly a separation between church and state that the Left keeps bringing up.
• I sometimes believe the motto of the Left (especially the far Left) is: See no truth, hear no truth,...
• Conservative Derangement Syndrome: (noun) The irrational obsessive hatred of Conservatives by the Left. Derives from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
• Either Obama did not know about his radical appointees & did not vet them, or he knew about them being radical and agreed with their philosophy. There are really no other options. If I had to choose which option was Obama's mindset, I choose the latter one. Obama said if you want to know what he believes look at the people who surround him.
• Under ObamaCare I wonder how living wills and Do Not Resuscitates (DNRs) will be treated. Will living wills be invalid especially the Five Wishes you want your doctor and family to know? How about DNRs? Will everyone be required to have a DNR especially if you are elderly?

Are the Left Control Freaks?

Below is the list of traits of control freaks taken from an ehow.com article. The question is how close do these traits fit the Left.

1. You insist on running the show and calling all the shots. Definitely true. The Democrats in Congress have shut out the Republicans from any input in any bill. LBJ ran the Vietnam war in this manner.

2. You are skilled at manipulation and intimidation, and work extremely hard to keep everyone and everything around you in check. This one fits too. Obama has been trying to intimidate Fox News and now the US Chamber of Commerce. He has demonized the insurance business. Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts have been demonized by the Left. Big Labor wants the card check legislation. Black conservatives get persecuted by black liberals. The drive-by-media or what I call the Obama fan club made fun of people just protesting ObamaCare. As for manipulation, majority of the Left in Congress are trial-lawyers. Trial lawyers know how to manipulate language to try to get the jury to vote their way. Then there is Obama with all the doctors wearing white coats in the Rose Garden.

3. Wise in your own eyes, you believe that your wisdom and advice is far better than that of everyone else you meet, and you're always prepared to dispense it freely. In other words, arrogance. Obama definitely is arrogant as are most of the Left. He and the Left think that all government programs are good and if you don't want them then you just don't know what's good for you. Like some Leftist said on a talk show about ObamaCare "just drag the people to it."

4. Only your input is valid. You enjoy expressing your opinion in conversations and meetings, but hate it when other people follow suit. This follows from trait three. Arrogant people only love their opinions. They don't care about other people's opinions because other people are beneath them. Look at the politicians from the Left who preach ObamaCare at town hall meetings. They don't want the participants to ask questions. Just to listen to them.

5. You discourage the input and feedback of others, and feel threatened by it. The Left feel threatened by input and feedback because they are scared that the other people's input will be better than their input. They really don't want people to criticize their pgms because they fear that people might discover their gov't pgms aren't that good and sometimes are just plain crap. If you know in your heart and mind that your opinion is right or the truth then you don't have to force people to accept it. You just have to persuade them that it is right. Coercion and trickery only come from the insecure.

6. Instead of using your imagination to come up with creative solutions to problems, you spend more time daydreaming about the worst that could happen. Yea, the Left tend to be pessimistic. Global Warming is going to flood and burn up the earth. Everything is a crisis with the Left.

There are ten traits in all of a control freak, so it looks like the Left fits most of these traits I listed.

Experimental Russian ICBM Would Violate START, Senator Says

From NTI.org (Oct. 27):

U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) accused Russia last week of testing a new ICBM that, if deployed, would violate the terms of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the Washington Times reported (see GSN, Oct. 26).

Russia has successfully tested the ability of its RS-24 ICBM to deliver up to three independently targeted warheads, according to former Assistant Secretary of State Paula DeSutter (see GSN, Nov. 5, 2008).

"That would be illegal for the Russians to deploy under START. So why are they testing it?" Kyl asked in an Oct. 19 Senate floor address. [read more]

I am getting the feeling that world leaders are thinking Obama is a weak leader. Or at least not taking him seriously.

Questions about Islam

Glenn Beck says we should speak without fear, question boldly, and hold to the truth. Well in this entry I will try to do the first two. It's too bad Muslims cannot do that as well without fear of their life.

1. Why didn't Muhammad pick a successor since he did not have a son with all his wives. Surely he knew he wouldn't live forever. He could have said if I die without a son then this person will be the next messenger. That would have prevented the Sunni-Shia rift that exists in Islam.

2. If Islam is a religion of "peace" then why does it have honor killings, homicide bombings, fatwas, chopping off your hand if you steal, etc. All of which are condoned by the messenger Muhammad. Jesus never condoned violence. The worst thing He did was to knock over tables.

3. Why cannot Islamic countries coexist with other religions? Why do these countries have to have non-Muslims pay a tax when they live in their countries?

4. Why does Islam force believers to hold to a strict practice of praying five times a day, giving a percentage of money to the poor, etc. Christianity only requires a person to belief in Jesus as the savior.

5. Moderate or modern Muslims say Islam can coexist with democracy then why is there few democratic Islamic countries? Turkey is one, and possibly Iraq.

6. If moderate Muslims do not support militant Muslims then why do they not speak out against them? Fear could be an excuse but why don't moderate American Muslims speak out against them?

7. Why does Islam disrespect and oppress Muslim women? I disagree with Glenn Beck. Muslim woman cannot change the structure of Islam internally. Islam is way too sexist for that too happen.

8. Why is Islamic countries so worried about non-Islamic proselytizing? Why do most countries kill other religious believers proselytizing? Is their religion that weak?

9. Why did Allah say several times in the Koran that he was the "greatest deceiver."

10. Islam and Christianity has their versions of the Apocalypse. Muslims believe that the Mahdi will come and all the world will be converted to Islam. The question is who will be good guys and who will be the bad guys? Hint: See the previous question.

Am I being disrespectful of Islam? Maybe, but every fact here is true about the religion. Even Muslims know that. Christianity has had its issues, but I believe those issues did not stem from Jesus himself but from corrupt gov'ts, politics and twisting what the Bible says.

Iran Helped Syria Acquire WMD, Missile Technology

From NTI.org (Oct. 26):

Iran has reportedly helped broker Syrian purchases of missile and WMD technology from North Korea, the U.S. Congressional Research Service said in a report published this month (see GSN, Oct. 30, 2008).

"Iran purportedly has acted as an intermediary with North Korea to supply Syria with various forms of WMD and missile technology," states the report, Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses. [read more]

So much for Obama's Nobel peace price.

Obama and His Appointees

Either Obama did not know about his radical appointees & did not vet them, or he knew about them being radical and agreed with their philosophy. There are really no other options. Either one does not say anything good about who Obama is. If I had to choose which option was Obama's mindset, I choose the latter one. Obama said if you want to know what he believes look at the people who surround him.

California appears poised to be first to ban power-guzzling big-screen TVs

From LaTimes.com (Oct 14):

Reporting from Sacramento - The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions. [read more]

If California bans big-screen tvs what will stop them from banning other energy-hungry electronics? Nothing. The more power you have the more power you want. It's an addiction. And if you can rationalize the power away you will always continue abusing it.

U.S. blocks N.C. city's nonpartisan vote

From The Washington Times.com:

KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black. [read more]

So, according to the Justice Dept. black people are confused on who to vote for if there are no party labels. Hmmm. I don't know but that sounds like racism to me. The Justice Dept. is saying that black people are stupid and cannot decide on their own. If the Obama administration can do this to Kingston, N.Y. then they can do this to any city. The precedent has been set. Never mind this Justice action might violate the Constitution.

What candidates could do is register themselves as party "A" and party "B" just to dare the admistration to do something about it.

S.773 Cybersecurity Act of 2009

From Open Congress.org:

This is comprehensive legislation designed to address our nation's vulnerabilities to cyber crime, global cyber espionage, and cyber attacks. It would establish a new Cybersecurity Advisory Panel within the White House and stream-line the cybersecurity effort through all levels of government. The bill also calls on the Department of Commerce to establish and maintain a clearinghouse on information related to cybsecurity threat and vulnerability information to public and private infrastructure deemed "critical" by the President. The Secretary of Commerce would be given access to this information "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." The bill would also give the President new authority to "declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network." [read more]

This legislation is sponsored by Senator John Rockefeller. Cybersecurity is major concern. Chinese civilians on May 4, 2001 crashed the whitehouse.gov site by doing a distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS). The US intelligence community thought it was the Chinese gov't doing this but it wasn't. It was actually Chinese teenagers doing this for patriotic reasons. The Chinese gov't did not order this done but it did not discourage this behavior either.

If the President Bush's Homeland Security Act made critics nervous I wonder what they think of this bill. On the Open Congress site only 3% supported the bill.

Shutting down a major portion of the internet seems like overkill to me. Something has to be done, but that? Maybe recognizing and blocking DoS attacks would be better. Yes, recognizing malicious attacks like this is tricky but not impossible. Also, gov't sites should use firewalls, anti-virus pgms, and have hard to guess passwords on their websites too. Gov't sites are notoriously bad about internet security.

Sabotaging ObamaCare

There is a way to sabotage bad healthcare legislation. A Congressional member can append a line on a bill that says essentially: This bill applies to all US citizens. No exemptions. What that last line will do is have whatever healthcare legislation that is passed apply even to the Congress, the Executive power, and the Supreme Court. Since the three powers are US citizens they have to be included. The saboteur should not say a word about this to anyone unless the bill becomes law. If it does become law then no-one read the bill. Keep in mind the POTUS does not have line item veto power. So, even Obama cannot remove the line. If it passes then the saboteur can go on Fox News and other news venues and announce he found that inclusion line. That way everyone is aware that even the power-that-be are not exempt.
Now there might will be exemptions in the bill. Like exempting the Congress and the Executive power and Big Labor. But if there is a "no exemption" line in the bill that will override any exemptions or at least cause problems in implementing the bill.
It is up to the saboteur if he or she wants to out him/herself. If the saboteur does that then he won't be trusted by his colleagues again and will be criticized by the press. But he might just be loved by the majority of the American people. A politician that had guts to do the right thing. Outing himself is a decision he will have to make.
It will definitely be a self-sacrifice because the saboteur will be covered by the same bill. But that's the price he has to pay.

Scientist: Cap and trade will hurt Earth

From WorldNetDaily.com (10/9):

Carbon dioxide emissions are good for Earth and don't cause global warming, a noted geologist and best-selling author is warning Congress.

Leighton Steward, author of "Fire, Ice and Paradise," is storming Capitol Hill to convince senators that a cap-and-trade energy bill could harm the environment by reducing the Earth's CO₂ levels, according to U.S. News & World Report.

"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he said. "We are tilting at windmills."

Steward, member of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2, plans to meet with several lawmakers this week. [read more]

I hope he succeeds. That is a very bad bill. What he says makes sense. People and other animals breathe out CO₂ and plants and trees consume it and produce oxygen. CO₂ is noxious to us but not to plants. It is their food. You can say it is a complementary relationship. We need them and they need us. If you remove CO₂ the plants and trees die. If they die then we are screwed. The envirofascists just don't understand.

If you want to remove CO₂ the right way it's easy: Just plant more trees and any green-leafy plants.

The Self-managing, 'Unbreakable' Internet?

ScienceDaily (2009-10-06) -- High-powered internet applications typically need teams of experts to maintain them. Not any more, say European researchers who have built a system to create applications that manage and fix themselves. [read more]

Interesting. That sounds like what living organisms do.

Doctors For and Against ObamaCare

The doctors for ObamaCare are shown below:

Seems a lot of doctors supporting universal health care right? They look nice in their white coats. Everyone here raise your hand if you donated to Obama's presidential campaign. In total 150 showed up. Pretty good head count. Forty of the 150 were from Doctors For Obama America. That's an organization for socialized medicine.

Now, look at the two photos below. These photos are taken from the Million Med March that was held on Oct. 1. These are doctors against ObamaCare. Never heard of this march? That's because it did not get a lot of press coverage. It is estimated that 200 doctors showed up for this protest. Notice in the photo on the right, there is no-one wearing white coats. What's with that? Like doctors wear their white coats outside of their practice all the time. Sure, right. So, it seems according to the photos there is about the same amount of doctors for (minus 40) and against socialized medicine or if you prefer the government public option.

Bin Laden's Book List

Since Osama Bin Laden recommended Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid I started speculating what other books he would recommend and here's the list:

1. The Quran
2. Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
3. The Myth of American Exceptionalism by Godfrey Hodgson
4. The Camel, Its Uses and Management by Major Arthur Glyn Leonard
5. I Hate George W. Bush Reader: Why He's Wrong About Absolutely Everything edited by Clint Willis
6. Cave Animals by Francine Galko
7. The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie
8. Sex Tips from a Dominatrix by Patricia Payne
9. The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran by Robert Spencer
10. Cave Decorating by Osama Bin Laden

All these books by the way are real except for the last one. Some of these books of course Bin Laden would never read or even recommend for that matter.

The Olympic Commitee Rejected Obama

Or if you don't like that title how about "The Olympic Committee Wanted Obama to Fail." Sound better? This is pure and simple racism from the Olympic Committee. Where's is the national hemorrhoid Jimmy Carter's comment on this decision? After all Chicago was in the selection process before Hillary Clinton dropped out of the presidential race (can't blame President Bush on this decision). Maybe the committee wanted McCain for president. It couldn't be about anything else could it?

I mean surely the committee ignored the man-child messiah President Obama's negative remarks about America. Surely they could ignore Obama always apologizing for America. Not to mention Obama and his wife relating the Olympics to themselves when they were trying to convince the committee why the Olympics should be in Chicago. Narcissism anyone? Nah. The Olympic committee should have been mesmerized by Obama's charm and charisma like the rest of the world. Chavez sure likes Obama. It was racism even though Brazil's population is over 50% black people.

Sarcasm aside. Obama lost because him going there was overkill. If you remember Chicago was eliminated right off the bat. Wasn't his wife and Oprah enough? Couldn't he stay home and you know concentrate on growing the economy and winning the war in Afghanistan? Him going there was nothing but Obama repaying a favor to the Chicago powers-that-be in my opinion. We helped you out and now it's your turn to help us out. That sort of thing.

Only the committee itself knows why it did not pick Chicago. Unless someone asks the committee we will never know what the reason for their decision was. Here's an idea. Maybe the Obama Fan Club (the drive-by-media) could ask the members of the committee to find out why. Then again maybe the media does not really want to know why.

A Short Course on Political Power

Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, never can willingly abandon it. They may be distressed in the midst of all their power; but they will never look to anything but power for their relief.
-- Edmund Burke

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
-- Lord Acton

The second quote is well known, but not the first. Power corrupts people because people are imperfect. Most major religions and any good psychological school knows that people are imperfect and will always be imperfect. Examine this syllogism: Man is imperfect. Gov't is composed of men. Therefore gov't is imperfect. This syllogism will always be true. Of course if you think mankind can be perfected, then you'll probably think gov't can be perfected. And that is a dangerous idea to have. That's what the Soviet Union thought. The so called "New Man." Well, neither man or gov't can be perfected. It is a delusion. We can be better moral smarter people but not a perfect people.
The first quote is just saying that power can be an addictive drug. The more you have the more you want. The more you have the more you think you are god-like. Your ego gets bigger. You also become paranoid. You become obsessed with who has power and who doesn't have power that wants to take your power away even if they don't want to. Hitler killed a supporter because Hitler got paranoid that the supporter was becoming more popular than him. And get this. The supporter was giving speeches praising Hitler.
Abraham Lincoln said this about power: Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. Power is about what you do too another person. It can be for good or for evil. Or as William Hazlitt put it: The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves. Actually, "love of ourselves" maybe the wrong way to put it. Being narcissistic is a better term. Sociopaths are narcissistic people with no conscience who get their kicks out of controlling people. Show me a brutal world dictator and I'll show you a sociopath. You know why Satan was tempting Jesus? It was because he was trying to find out how human He was. To see if Jesus could pass up ultimate power or not. Jesus did not fall for the Devil's trick though like most politicians would.

The worth of men consists in their liability to persuasion. . . . Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals. Thus in a live civilization there is always an element of unrest. For sensitiveness to ideas means curiosity, adventure, change. Civilized order survives on its merits, and is transformed by its power of recognizing its imperfections.
-Alfred North Whitehead

Persuasion is hard. I took a class in it in college. There are several theories of how to persuade someone. All of them involve giving the person a choice to act. Coercion leaves a person no choice to act. True leaders don't need coercion. Using reason, listening, respecting free will, and trusting their fellow country men is all they need. Finally, a warning from founding father John Adams:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing. Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the People, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct [italics are mine] of their rulers. There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free 'government' ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among people.

Gee, he sounds sort of like Glenn Beck. Hmmm...

Indoctrination of Children

The below is from a Wikipedia article on Soviet Propaganda:

We must make the young into a generation of Communists. Children, like soft wax, are very malleable and they should be molded into good Communists... We must rescue children from the harmful influence of the family... We must nationalize them. From the earliest days of their little lives, they must find themselves under the beneficial influence of Communist schools... To oblige the mother to give her child to the Soviet state - that is our task."

Is this what the Left is doing to children in schools? I am not talking about turning them into Commies but maybe socialists? I mean substitute Communist with Socialists you don't get much difference.

On Glenn Beck's show and then on The O'Reilly Factor I seen a video of a teacher having her kindergarten class sing the "Mmmm, mmm" song. They would praises Obama and then go "Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm." If they would have added "good" at the end of the "mmmm" part they would have the Campbell's soup song. Exactly what does this song have to do with any kind of learning? The Left say this is cute and there is nothing wrong with what the teacher did. I wonder if they would have said that if instead of Obama the students were singing the praises of Bush. Probably not. No teacher should be having their students sing the praises of any president. Discuss their presidency yes, but not make up a song to them.

Then I seen a video of a Leftist "teaching" kids about how the gov't works. The Leftist said it is the responsibility of gov't to take care of its citizens. She wasn't talking about from military attacks. She was talking about the gov't being the parent, and the citizens being the child. She did not use the terms "parent" and "child" but I am sure that is what she meant. Then this person said pillow manufacturers put a neural-toxin in pillows and the gov't puts over 50% of the federal budget in the military. Both facts are wrong. By the way this video was funded by the far-left Tides Foundation.

One last example. I was the local news some months back and they showed a school teacher having her grade school kids march around carry signs saying "Health Insurance for Kids." The newscaster thought this was cute, but it made me nauseous. Exactly how is this educational? That is pure indoctrination. Those kids just wanted to take a field trip.

Nowadays if I was a parent I would be weary what the schools are teaching my kids. It might not be what you want them to be taught.

Thoughts on Universal Health Care

1. If America has Obama Care will the Hippocratic oath still apply? I mean doctors will no longer be working for themselves but the state so will the gov't change the oath or no longer use it?

2. Under Obama Care will the doctor-patient confidentiality contract still apply? Or will gov't be included in that contract. After all gov't will be approving/denying all the drug prescriptions and medical procedures a person has.

3. You can sue the gov't under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Under this act the gov't agency that is sued has six months to respond. You might want to think about that if America has universal health care.

4. Under Obama Care there is no second opinion. The only opinion that counts is the government's opinion.

Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times Part 4

• Why do we need a civilian force? We don't need one.

• Who is posing a threat to us? The jihadists but no-one domestically as bad as they are. Yes, there are radicals who want to change the structure of America. But that is what democracy is about. You can vote out the bums.

• Who will this "force" be made up of? According to a Wikipedia article it will contain middle school students, high school students, & college students. He will also create various corps like Americorps and the Peace Corps.

• Who is the real enemy? Anyone who disagrees with his policy.

• Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy? I don't know. As for the second question no-one who is sane.

• Why won't the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army? Because they adore the president still and don't see a story. Also they're philosophy is too much aligned with the White House. You aren't critical with your friends as much as your enemies.

Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times Part 3

1. Why does the FCC have a diversity "czar"? So there can be affirmative action in radio stations & TV stations.

2. Who is Mark Lloyd and how does he plan to "balance" the airwaves? He is the FCC diversity "czar." By restoring local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations, ensuring greater local accountability over radio licensing, and requiring commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting according to a Newsbusters.org blog.

3. Will he bring back the Fairness Doctrine or worse? Worse. The FCC would rescind any stations' broadcast licenses that would violate this thug's czar's rules.

4. Cass Sunstein once said he wants to balance the Internet; is that next? Could be. Sunstein calls for popular or partisan websites to be forced to carry links to opposing viewpoints according to a Techliberation.com article.

5. Will broadcasters who leave the airwaves be allowed to go to satellite or Internet without government regulation? Good question, probably not. If broadcasters go to the Internet then they we be bound by Sustein's rules. If they regulate private websites then could then presumably regulate satellite providers.

6. Is there any place (that has a mass audience) where the government won't regulate free speech? In a church. But even that is regulated. If a minister endorses a political candidate or expresses political views then the church may lose its non-profit status. Also, university professors and motivational speakers may not be regulated.

7. Why does it seem every member of the Obama advisory team hates capitalism, unless those companies (like G.E.) are in bed with the administration? Because Obama's team are radical leftists and they don't hate companies who share the same philosophy as they have or companies that want gov't assistance.

8. If Lloyd has his way, stations who don't comply to the governments definition of the "public interest" will have to pay a massive fine --- that helps support public broadcasting:

   What will be the definition of "public interest"? It's whatever the gov't defines it to be.

9. Why should it be balanced? Because it's public airwaves? (Well, there are public roads that go by my house and I don't count how many Republicans and Democrats are driving on them) Funny. Or counting how many Republicans and Dems who walk on the sidewalks. The airwaves don't have to be balanced. If you don't like what you hear or see turn the medium off or switch to another station.

Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times Part 2

• Who is "surrounding" the President in the White House? Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who was on the board of Freddie Mac while they misreported their net income in 2000 by 30.5%. He was the one that made the comment, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste; they are opportunities to do big things." When asked about the Town Halls this is what senior advisor Valerie Jarret said at a question-and-answer session:

  They are trying to scare people, elderly people, and I am ticked. It's what we are fighting against, but they underestimate the American people. and media is not focusing on the productive debates we are having, it's not just raucous. we need retail help from you all.

  The "you" she is talking about is far left groups.

• Do any of the President's advisers have criminal records? If you mean senior staff, no. Van Jones, the Green Czar was arrested twice.

• Are the President's advisers working to better the country or their own ideals? Better their own ideals. Unless you think making the country into a socialistic state is a good idea.

• Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington? According to US Chamber of Commerce these are some House members that got low scores: Nancy Pelosi (26), Henry Waxman (26), Maxine Walters (21), Jessie Jackson, Jr. (28), Steny Hoyer (32), Barney Frank (25), The number in parens is the average score. Some Senate member with low scores: Chris Dodd (32), Dick Durbin (34), Tom Harkin (37), John Kerry (38), Harry Reid (37), Charles Schumer (36), Harry Reed (36), Robert Byrd (32). If you noticed everyone I named is a Democrat. I did not deliberately look for Dems. I was just looking for names I recognize, then the score. Also, Obama got an average score of 32. Biden's average score was 36. Hillary Clinton's score was 46. These scores were when they were senators.

• What roles do they have in crafting bills? Congress always has a role in crafting bills. Obama and Biden has influence too.

• What was "STORM"? What happened to the founders, where are they now? STORM stood for Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement. It was a communist revolutionary organization founded by now Green Czar Van Jones.

• What qualifications must one have to be a Presidential adviser? Trustworthy, knowledgeable in his/ her field, & pro-American.

• What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist? A community activist takes on community issues. A community organizer organizes communities for social causes. A community activist can be a community organizer too to accomplish his/her goals.

• Do the czars have power? Yes, too much power.

• Should a communist have the ear of the President of the United States? No, because they are anti-democracy and anti-capitalistic.

• What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills? The group claims it influenced the "stimulus" package. It is an alliance of business, labor and environmental groups. Those groups have lobbyists. It is not too far fetched to think the Apollo Alliance has lobbyists too.

• Does the President know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance? I think he might be talking about Jeff Jones. Jones is a director of the New York State Apollo Alliance. He might know about him.

• How many people in the administration are connected to the movement for a democratic society? Van Jones.

• What role does George Soros play... CONSTITUTIONALLY? None whatsover.

Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times Part 1b

• Did President Obama know of Van Jones’ radical political beliefs when he named him special advisor? Don't know. If Obama didn't know he should have known. Then again if he did know and was alright with Van Jones' beliefs that tells a lot about Obama's beliefs. Obama said in so many words, judge me on the people I surround myself with.

• The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill—why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill? Because they have connections to Congress. Two of the founders are Democrat congressmen. Basically this group is an alliance of big business, labor unions, and environmental groups.

• If politicians aren’t writing the bills and aren’t reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1000 page plus bills actually impose on the American people? No, and if they did know they don't care.

• If the ‘public option’ health care plan is so good why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan? Because they know it isn't good and politicians always look out for their best interests.

• If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn what’s on our minds—why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening? Because they don't want to learn what's on our minds. They want the town hall participants to shut-up and not ask any questions. Just absorb and agree with what they are saying.

• Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldn’t come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss and speech you give is scripted? Good one Glenn. He has a point. I mean they are accusing the town hall participants of doing what they do most of the time.

• Why would you want to overwhelm the system? To create a chaos and fear in the American people. Then you try to convince them that gov't intervention is needed to solve the crisis.

• Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about "not letting a crises go to waste"? Probably. That way you hope people are so wrapped up in their personal lives they are not paying attention to what is going in the gov't.

• What are the czars paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices? As for the first question Glenn Beck answers that on czar page. Most salaries are unknown, and some are not paid at all. As for the budgets of the czars, who knows. Obama does not list any czar salary or budget on the White House website. So much for transparency.

Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times Part 1a

Below are questions Glenn Beck asked on his TV show. I am going to attempt to answer them.

• Our unfunded liability for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America? No, not really. I myself would not have created these socialistic programs in the first place. They should be made optional. Social Security is a ponzi scheme. It depends on the elderly dying off and the young making a lot of money. The gov't should encourage people to save their money for when they need it in their old age by cutting taxes and making a non-taxable "old age" savings account like IRAs.

• We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and health care programs before we stop the flow of red-ink? We shouldn't. Congress should live within a budget like all families do or should. You don't spend money you don't have. Congress is like a compulsive gambler. If you give the gambler more money to get out of his debt the more money he will gamble away. His debt increases. Unless he recognizes he has a problem, he will continue his gambling ways. That's Congress. The American public does not help either by enabling Congress. Both Congress and the public has got to have discipline. Congress has got to stop waste full spending and the public has got to stop signaling to Congress it does not need anymore wasteful pgms. Or any program at all until America is in the black.

• The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN. How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy? It doesn't. You just get more ACORN employees that's all. All ACORN is is a political community agitator organizer for the Left. You can make an educated guess why they got the money.

• If it was so important for congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent 6 months later? Because they were in such a hurry to write it and to pass it they did not have time to read and comprehend it. Now they decided to read it.

• Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them, how exactly does that work? I have no idea, but what he did smacks of socialism. Obama has taken that idea to another level. The free market is not perfect because people are not perfect. But neither is gov't or the for that matter the justice system because they are composed of people. So how does one imperfect system make another perfect? It can't.

• Why won’t members of Congress read the bills before they vote on them? Either they don't want to be bothered with reading them or they put total trust in the person creating the bill. Or both. Neither excuse works.

• Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them? Because the congress is arrogant and full of themselves.

• Was the cash-for-clunkers program meant to save the earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either? Could be both. But I think to save the earth more. On the cars.gov FAQ it states you have to buy a fuel efficient vehicle to decrease CO2 emissions and to reduce oil dependence. If the program was to save the economy it didn't work because more people bought foreign cars more than domestic. I don't believe it saved the earth either.

• How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist become a special advisor to the president? I don't know. The White House won't even answer.

Making Congressional Bills Less Complex

The health care bill coming out of the House it way too long. Over a 1000 pages? Are you kidding me? This are my ideas how to make them shorter.

First, if the bill is over five pages the lawmakers that sponsor it has to write the bill by hand in either pencil or pen. Heck, use a crayola I don't care. But they have to write it by hand using in their own hand. I don't want no ghostwriters writing it. Or no staff writing it. If Congressman X sponsors a bill then I want to see that Congressman's handwriting. No one else. Only one person should write the bill. If more than one person sponsors a bill then the sponsors have to get together to decide who's going to write the bill. If writer doesn't want to use cursive then he can print it. It doesn't matter to me. The founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution by hand using a freakin' quill dipped in ink! (Yea, I know they had no choice. They didn't have typewriters or a computer.)

Second, once the bill is written it has to be examined by a independent team or panel of handwriting experts. If the panel determines that the any of the rules in the first part are violated then the bill invalid. Otherwise the read next paragraph.

Third, after the bill is validated by the handwriting panel then all the sponsors' peers has to read it in its entirely. Not only do they have to read it but sign a letter saying they have read and understood the bill. And then give a summary of the bill in their words. What I mean by peers is if you are a representative for example then your fellow representatives have to read the bill.

Or the sponsors do a walk through of the bill. Explaining line by line what the bill does to all of his peers. Then the sponsors peers can ask questions of the bill if they want. Both the walk though and attendance of the walk through is mandatory. When I went to college me and my fellow computer scientists had to give walk throughs of their computer programs. If it is good enough for programmers it is good enough for Congress.

What's the point of my idea? To slow down the process of making huge complex laws. If you have to write the bill by hand then your hand will get tired if it is too long. If you have your peers read it you better not make it too long or they'll will get ticked off at you. Or if you choose the walk through option you're voice will go out if the bill is too long.

Will Congress ever do this? Probably not. But I can dream. Keep in mind Congress not only makes laws for you but for themselves too. So, they are not going to make it rough on themselves.

Am I being mean? Maybe. But what is worse is to have a complex bill that is vague and no-one understands that is forced upon the constituents.

One final thought. If cars were built like bills are made no-one would ever buy a car. The complexest programs ever made are computer operating systems. And even they don't work all the time. But at least they are tested and updated. Can you say that about bills passed in Congress?

The Four Horsemen of America's Economic Apocalipse

Below I believe are the four legislatures that can wreck America's economic future if they are passed:

1. ObamaCare. Also known as socialized medicine. It's pretty simple economics why this won't work. It hasn't worked in Canada and England and it won't work here. Canada and England even has less population than the U.S. You offer health care "free" you will get shortages. Supply and demand. If you have too much demand (people in need of medical help) and not enough supply (doctors, nurses, medical equipment) to meet the demand, you will get a shortage. America is in debt and doesn't have enough money to pay doctors decent wages and not enough money to buy state-of-the-art medical equipment. Medical equipment businesses may initially sell equipment to the gov't but as soon as they don't receive their money (like the car dealers who haven't received their money from the gov't in the cash-for-clunkers pgm which ends today) they will stop selling equipment to the gov't and make something else. Again shortages. Taxes will have to be raised to pay for the medical resources. Either the income tax or the gov't might tax ingredients it deems unhealthy like sugar, saturated fats, cholesterol, salt, etc. The powers-that-be will use America's health as an excuse to do it. This will hurt the economy even more by causing inflation.

2. The Cap-and-trade bill. Or as some call it "cap-and-tax." This is how it works according to Conservapedia:

   In a "cap and trade system," a regulating authority (the government) sells permits to companies for the right to emit pollutants. As with all costs of business, this additional cost would be passed on the consumer. A company may emit pollutants up to the permitted amount. Should a company find they routinely under-pollute, these permits may be sold back to the regulating authority or sold to other companies.

   Each source can design its own compliance strategy to meet the overall reduction requirement, including sale or purchase of allowances, installation of pollution controls, implementation of efficiency measures, among other options. Individual control requirements are not specified under a cap and trade program, but each emissions source must surrender allowances equal to its actual emissions in order to comply. Sources must also completely and accurately measure and report all emissions in a timely manner to guarantee that the overall cap is achieved. [read more]

   Italics added by me. When Spain passed this stupid legislature its electricity and energy increased by 31 percent. That will happen here. Even Obama had to admit that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." His words. Heritage.org did an analysis of the bill. Below is some of what they discovered:
   • Gasoline prices will rise 58 percent (or $1.38) above the baseline forecast, which already contains price increases;
   • Electricity prices will rise 90 percent;
   • A family of four can expect to pay $1,241 more for energy costs per year;
   • Including taxes, a family of four will pay $4,609 more per year;
   • Job losses will be nearly 2.5 million;
   • The national debt will rise an additional $12,803 per person.
   If that does not make you cringe you can read more of the article. Why do we have to have this legislature? To try to control a gas that all animals exhale out.

3. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Also called Card check. Basically this is employees voting if they want a union or not without a secret ballot. Think of it in this way: It would be like if you voted for a political candidate while the candidate looked over your shoulder. That wouldn't be right. That can lead to intimidation. Not "free choice" anymore is it? Why should unions care if you vote to join a union or not if unions are popular. It's because they are not. Union membership is dropping. In a March Rasmussen poll only nine percent of non-union workers want to join a union. According to an Heritage.org article:

   The EFCA applies only to workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which does not cover government employees, agricultural workers, the self-employed, or railway or airline workers. The Act also excludes supervisors. Still, the EFCA would disenfranchise 105 million American workers, which encompasses more than two-thirds, or 68.8 percent, of the American workforce. [read more]

   Even liberal George McGovern and an ex-labor union leader does not support card check. McGovern and the ex-union labor union leader are not alone in their opinions. 30% say it’s okay to form a union without a secret vote, 52% disagree according to a July Rasmussen poll.

4. Finally, Amnesty. If you just let all the illegals be legal that will cause high unemployment, and put a drag even more on the health care system (illegals are covered in the House ObamaCare bill). Not to mention it will give incentive for even more illegals to come over here. Inflation will rise because now you have to pay them minimum wage, health benefits, etc. I understand why they are coming over here. Mexico has low wages, high unemployment, and deadly drug gangs. It's like a storm that follows low pressure systems. America is the low pressure system. The Left wants amnesty because they want to increase labor membership. They really don't care about the individual lives of illegals coming over here. They just see the numbers.

So, how can the four horsemen be stopped? Vote for any politician that will reverse the four legislatures. God help this country if any of the four passes.

The Psychology of Town Hall Meetings

More actually this blog is about the reactions of people in town hall meetings to Obamacare.

There is a psychological theory for what the people in the town hall meetings (and most of America including myself) is feeling it is called Reactance Theory. When you perceive you're freedoms are threatened or lost you react--hence the name. Makes sense doesn't it?

How do you react when you're freedoms are threatened? You get angry. You get frustrated. You can even attack whatever is causing you to lose your freedoms. The more you value a particular freedom that is threatened--the more you will react. The more freedoms you lose the more you will react. This theory is describing exactly the psychological dynamics going on in town hall meetings.

People are reacting to losing their choice of doctor, medicine, etc. If you don't like your doctor you can choose another in a free market system. If a medicine isn't working or you don't like the side effects you can choose another medicine. Under socialized health care the gov't makes those choices for you. You may get another doctor or may not. Same with the medicine. You may not get a second, third, etc. opinion. So, because of not having those choices, naturally according to the theory they are confronting Congressmen. What does Congress and the Left do? Say the town hall gatherers are being misinformed without giving any details of the plan themselves. These Congressmen and Obama say trust us, we won't do you no wrong. Here's a message to Congress and Obama: Do not treat the American people like children! We are adults and treat us as such. We are more informed than you would like to believe.

Not only can a single person threaten your freedom or take it away like a kidnapper but so can a gov't--even worse so because you can attack a kidnapper. How do you respond to a gov't once an oppressive law is made? America's founding fathers knew this well. That's why America has the Bill of Rights--too keep the gov't from oppressing its people. Like a wise man once said when a gov't fears its people you have freedom. When people fear their gov't you have oppression.

Also, keep in mind that health care is one of the basic needs of a person. You never want to restrict the basic needs (food, water, shelter) of a person or else they will react. Having a person wait in line for a drivers license is one thing. Having them wait while they are in pain or needing a life-saving operation is a totally different thing. Don't mess with basic needs.

Missile Defense Budget Could Open Vulnerabilities, Report Warns

From NTI.org (Aug. 13, 2009):

The Obama administration's proposal to emphasize battlefield missile defenses over systems for intercepting strategic ballistic missiles would save the nation money while potentially making it more vulnerable to future attack, says a report published yesterday by a Washington-based defense think tank (see GSN, June 2). [read more]

What Obama administration doing makes sense from their world view. Obama (and most libs) think that if America disarms so will the rest of the world. Well, maybe and maybe not. Every country has its own agenda. It's possible that that friendly countries may disarm. I'm not worried about friendly countries though. I am more worried about the dangerous countries like Iran and N. Korea. They will do whatever is in their best interest. And that doesn't include America.

Obama thinks that America is source of the world's problems (he keeps apologizing for America) and our enemies will happily disarm if we be nice and disarm. It doesn't work that way. A bad man with a knife approaching you will still cut you if you put down your weapon. Having wrong perceptions during a crisis can decrease your chance of survival. Thinking you caused the bad man being bad is not only stupid but can get you killed. Even if you made him mad at you--the criminal still has free will. He can choose not to harm you.

Just like the potential victim in the above scenario putting down his weapon won't make him safe, cutting military defenses in a dangerous world does not and will not make a country safer. But it can make a country less safe.

Obama's Email Controversy

Is it possible that Obama is collecting the emails for a mailing list? I mean people have received unsolicited emails from his advisor David Axelrod. When asked about this his press secretary could not answer the question whether or not the Obama administration was sending out those emails. The answer is either is yes, no, or I don't know but let me look into the matter. But Robert Gibbs (I am sorry this guy is a bonehead--he is the worst press secretary I've seen) acted like a pinhead. This suggests three possible scenarios: 1) The Obama gang is keeping Gibbs in the dark, 2) Gibbs knows but is protecting Obama's behind, or 3) Gibbs did not understand the question. You choose which three. I seriously doubt Gibbs did not understand the question.

I remember reading in a computer magazine article (I'm sorry I forgot the name of the magazine) the author claimed Obama was a spammer. This might be true. I remember a caller on the Rush Limbaugh said he went to a gov't website to get help with his mortgage. Later on he got phone calls from almost every mortgage lawyer in the country. And now I read that the White House is using chain emails to counter the "lies" about Obamacare. Keep in mind Obama and his crew are not adverse to using computer technology. Obama uses a Blackberry to communicate.

If the White House does not care about people's names and emails then why do you have to forward the email to the White House? Couldn't you just say my friend/brother/sister says this about Obamacare without naming names? What he could have done to get people's take on Obamacare is to use a contact form like the general "contact us" form on the White House.gov site. I noticed on that form your name and email is required. But a form could be made that did not include either one. That would make snitches people less nervous about giving Obama info about his health care system. Keep in mind according to law the White House has to save any correspondences it has with anyone as a matter of public record.

Programming a Teleportation Device

In the movie "The Fly" the main character (played by Jeff Goldblum) built a matter transportation ie teleportation device. The device he hoped would teleport a person from booth A to booth B or vise versa. It works perfectly for animals so he uses himself as a guinea pig. He enters booth A and turns the device on. Unbeknown to the main character a fly flies into booth A at the same time. The computer that runs the teleporter gets confused because there is only supposed to be one animal at a time in a booth. So, it combines the DNA of the main character with that of the fly. And then the scientist is teleported by the computer. Slowly the main character turns into a fly. Hence the name of the movie. A pretty disgusting ending in my opinion.

The main character may have been a brilliant inventor but he was a dumb programmer. If you are going to build a device that teleports you from point A to point B or from point B to point A you have to have some safeguards. If a telepod as it is called in the movie have two or more objects in it don't teleport and let the teleportee know there is something else in the telepod with him or her. Or even better yet have the computer teleport just the person and ignore the other object or person. If that object is another person that person has to wait his turn.

Another issue is if both telepods are occupied at the same time. This is not covered in the movie by the way. The computer does not do any teleportation. It has to wait for the receiving telepod to be empty. It could even tell one of the teleporterees to leave his or her pod. For instance it could tell whoever entered the pod last, to leave because the other person has the "right of way." If both teleportees entered the pods at the same time (which would be really rare because the computer could be programmed to measure the time to the nearest millisecond) then it could randomly choose a person to teleport. There could be a signal light in the pods to indicate what state it is. If a green light is on then you can teleport to the other pod. If a red light is on then someone else in the other pod and is about to be or is teleporting to that pod. If no light is on then the teleporter is not working.

It could be possible to have telepods in a network where you could teleport to any pod in the world. You just enter the position of the receiving pod.

I know the teleporter was just a plot gimmick. After all the movie was called "The Fly" not the "The Teleporter." I just thought the concept was interesting.

They could remake the movie call it "The Gnat" or "The Flea" or even "The Ladybug." Although the having the main character turn into a ladybug would not have been so gross. How about the "The Cockroach?". That would be disgusting too.

Assertive Training for Conservatives

Below is from Daniel G. Amen's book Magnificent Mind at Any Age (2008). The tips weren't exactly for conservatives but for anyone trying to be assertive in their life. I copied these tips for conservatives because it's the Left that tends to be angry all the time and demeaning. Although since the Left argues from an emotional point of view some of these tips may not work.

1. Do not give in to the anger of others just because it makes you uncomfortable.
2. Do not allow the opinion of others to control how you feel. Your opinion, within reason, needs to be the one that counts for you. Work on knowing what you think and believe.
3. Say what you mean and stick up for what you believe is right.
4. Maintain self-control. Being angry, mean, or aggressive is not being assertive.
5. Be kind, if possible. But above all be firm in your stance.

Obama is Watching You

The title of this blog sounds ominous doesn't it? Then again... On the White House.gov blog there is this message:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Mr. President since you did not apparently read your own bill how would you know what is fishy or not? I have looked at the bill. It is long and full legalese. I almost went brain dead. Two, who are these people spreading "rumors" about the bill you are talking about? Could they possibly be the same people polled who don't like ObamaCare? According to Rassmussen Reports 53% now oppose congressional health care reform. Then these same people show up to town hall meetings and ask honest questions and get ridiculed and dehumanized by you and people in Congress. Saying they are faking anger and being told to show up by the RNC. The powers that be should have more respect for people they are supposed to represent. They are not royalty--even though that how they think of themselves.

I just wonder what Obama is going to do about with that list of dissenters. Possibly a hit list? Who knows. Redstate.com comments that what Obama is doing, asking people to snitch, could be against the law. You know possibly an infringment against free speech. Maybe instead of flag@whitehouse.gov it should be bigbrother@whitehouse.gov. Just a suggestion.

In other related news, on the Cars.gov website was this message:

“This application provides access to the DOT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a federal computer system and is the property of the United States Government.

“Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.”

Emphasis added by me. Isn't that nice. Actually, a Constitutional watchdog brought this to the attention to that rascal Glenn Beck (Glenn you got to stop exposing what the gov't is doing. They don't like that!) He mentioned it on his TV and radio show then the message was changed by the White House to be less unnerving. The question is even though the message is less frightening is the gov't still going to do what the message said?

Let's just do this. Replace the stars on Old Glory with a hammer and sickle or if you wish Obama's logo. Rename the United States of America, United Socialist States of America. Put in Government or Obama We Trust on all paper currency. That should do it.

While we're at it let's annex Mexico to save the illegals from coming over to America since we are going include them in ObamaCare anyway. After all we are just one big continent right?

Meet Obama's Czars

If you ever wondered who Al Capone's bosses Obama's czars (sounds like we are in Soviet Union doesn't it) are, well check out the list below:

1. Border Czar: Alan Bersin. As Secretary of Education and district head under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bersin took little action against the numerous illegal immigrants in schools under his supervision. Yea, Bersin sure sounds qualified like a drunk doing brain surgery.
2. Car Czar: Steven Rattner. He previously served as a reporter for the New York Times, advocating liberal approaches to economics, and is expected to continue to endorse such positions during his tenure as czar. As a czar, Rattner is not accountable to anyone except President Obama, and his responsibilities are similarly nebulous. Now, doesn't that make you feel all nice and warm.
3. Drug Czar:Gil Kerlikowske. Kerlikowske ran two small police departments in Florida, then became chief of police in Buffalo, N.Y. in 1994. He became Seattle's police chief in 2000 and brought the city's crime rate to a 40-year low, despite a resurgences in youth and gang violence. Kerlikowske has maintained a national profile, paying special attention to gun control, immigration and electronic data mining of private records.
4. Economic Czar: Paul A. Volcker
5. Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Browner. A lobbyist hired by President Barack Hussein Obama as energy czar and was the Environmental Protection Agency administrator in the Clinton Administration. She is also the former head of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. She has years of experience with environmental issues and takes an extremist viewpoint on Global Warming.
6. Government Performance Czar: Jeffrey Zients. A management consultant recently appointed as Chief Performance Officer, for Government Performance Czar in the Obama Administration. His role is to "promote technological innovation in government" (what's the point of that?), though his precise responsibilities are somewhat unclear. Zients was previously the Secretary of Technology in Virginia.
7. Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis. Selected by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson, her responsibilities will include coordinating a number of federal agencies on issues relevant to Great Lakes, including invasive species, polluted harbors, sewage overflows and degraded wildlife habitat. Ms. Davis is one of a number of environmental czars, joining Chuck Fox, charged with directing cleanup of the Chesapeake bay. Prior to her appointment, Ms. Davis served as the head of the liberal environmentalist organization Alliance for the Great Lakes.
8. Green Czar: Van Jones. Was an admitted radical communist and black nationalist leader.
9. Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle. She has been a tireless advocate of socialized medicine for many years.
10. Homeland Security Czar: John Brennan. He served in the administration of George W. Bush, where Brennan has generally used strong means to ensure the safety of Americans, and was an architect of the interrogation techniques criticized by many liberals.
11. Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair. A retired four-star admiral. As intelligence czar, Blair has pledged to end the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (no more loud rock music) and work closely with the FBI.
12. Pay Czar: Kenneth R. Feinberg. He is changed with setting the salaries of officials at many companies which benefitted from the Bush and Obama administration's bailouts in 2008-9.
13. Regulatory Czar: Cass R. Sunstein. Sunstein has little background in regulation, and his appointment appears to have been motivated by his ties to Obama through the University of Chicago law school.
14. Science Czar: John Holdren. Professor Holdren has advocated multinational population restrictions, including mandatory abortion in the United States. Worse yet, in a book (Ecoscience) that he wrote in 1977, he advocated subtly poisoning the water supply with "sterilants."
15. Technology Czar: Vivek Kundra. He previously worked under the administration of Tim Kaine, the governor of Virginia, and, like many other Obama appointees, for Obama's 2007-9 presidential campaign.
16. Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion, Jr. He previously acted as Borough president of the Bronx, where he was criticized for his actions following a large March 7, 2007 fire.
17. WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore. Samore was previously a high-profile negotiator for the Clinton administration, where his policies towards North Korea are widely accepted to have been largely unsuccessful.

Well, that's all the czars except for the Cyber Czar. Obama has not picked anyone for that yet. A lot of the czars could be combined like for instance the Great Lake Czar and Green Czar could be part of the "Environmental" Czar. Some of the "technology" czars can be combined. I believe he has more czars than any president before him. Keep in mind the czars are only accountable to Obama and no-one else.

In full disclosure I should say that the words in italics are mine and not Conservapedia.com where I got the info from. A thanks to them for that info.