Friday, July 15, 2011

LGBT Added to California Social Studies Curricula

The Post:
Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill making California the first state in the nation to add lessons about gays and lesbians to social studies classes in public schools.

Brown, a Democrat, signed the landmark bill requiring public schools to include the contributions of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in social studies curriculum. The Democratic-majority Legislature had passed the bill last week on a largely party-line vote.

“History should be honest,” the governor said in a statement Thursday. “This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books.” California governor signs landmark law adding lessons about gay history to social studies classes

I am not sure how this will actually be implemented. I don't think kids have to take special classes about LGBT topics, there will just be textbook chapters and mentions in class lessons. Of course a problem is that until recently sexual orientation and gender identity were kept secret -- what is a teacher going to say about J. Edgar Hoover? What about Leonardo da Vinci? Even Liberace stayed in the closet. Only in recent years have gay, lesbian, and transgender people come out in the open, so much of history is unclear.
California law already requires schools to teach about women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor. The Legislature over the years also has prescribed specific lessons about the Irish potato famine and the Holocaust, among other topics.

I wish we'd had these things when I was growing up.

Of course you've got these guys...
Randy Thomasson, president of, a conservative family group, said under the new law parents will have no choice but to take their children out of public school and homeschool them to avoid what he said was “immoral indoctrination.” The new law applies only to public schools, not private schools or families who homeschool.

“Jerry Brown has trampled the parental rights of the overwhelming majority of California fathers and mothers who don’t want their children to be sexually brainwashed at school,” Thomasson said. “This new law will prohibit textbooks and teachers from telling children the facts that homosexuality is neither healthy nor biological.”

Neither healthy nor biological. That's good.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It takes a special kind of nut to think teaching students the truth about history and historical figures means students are being "sexually brainwashed."

I wonder who brainwashed Randy Thommason to be so afraid of the truth.

July 15, 2011 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I went to public school aqnd I think we were taught about all those who made significant contributions, regardless of their sexual preferences. If that's all this law really is then, while it is superfluous, I have no objection.

I suspect this law is actually trying to encourage discussion of their sexual preference itself, which is generally irrelevant.

We really shouldn't have things like gay history month. There are gay people throughout history and their sexual preferences are generally known, but not really imprtant to discuss in the classroom. I really don't think any historical player has been ignored because they are homosexual.

And all kids use google, bing and wikipedia so if they are given a research project on these people, it's sure to come to their attention.

Still, making the sexual preference of individuals part of the curriculum makes no sense.

btw, Barry's at it again:

"SAN FRANCISCO -- Barack Obama asked the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to reconsider its order last week demanding an immediate halt to the enforcement of the ban on openly gay troops in the military.

The Obama administration filed the emergency motion in response to the appeals court's decision last week to lift its stay of a lower court's ruling last year that found the ban, known as "don't ask, don't tell," unconstitutional."

July 15, 2011 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rebekah Jones has resigned.

July 15, 2011 11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

on Bastille Day, Gallup released a poll showing Americans are planning to storm the White House politically:

"PRINCETON, NJ -- Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the "Republican Party's candidate for president" than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%."

it's all downhill from here

July 15, 2011 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get it right, Anony-plagiarist-liar-mous

"SAN FRANCISCO -- The federal government asked the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to reconsider its order last week demanding an immediate halt to the enforcement of the ban on openly gay troops in the military.

The Obama administration filed the emergency motion in response to the appeals court's decision last week to lift its stay of a lower court's ruling last year that found the ban, known as "don't ask, don't tell," unconstitutional.

Department of Justice lawyers said in the motion that ending the ban now would pre-empt the "orderly process" for rolling back the 17-year-old policy as outlined in the law passed and signed by the president in December.

"Congress made quite clear that it believed the terms of the transition were critical to the credibility and success of this historic policy change, and to ensure continued military effectiveness," according to a statement from the Justice Department.

"Any court-ordered action forced upon the military services so close to the completion of this repeal policy pre-empts the deliberate process established by Congress and the President to ensure an orderly and successful transition of this significant policy change," the department said.

Last year's ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans against the Department of Justice.

The gay rights group persuaded a lower court judge to declare the ban unconstitutional after a trial that put the Obama administration in the position of defending a policy it opposes.

"It is sad and disappointing that the government continues to try to prevent openly gay and lesbian Americans from serving in our armed forces," Log Cabin Republicans attorney Dan Woods said.

"It is particularly disappointing because the President has stated that Don't Ask, Don't Tell "weakens" our national security and signed the repeal bill with great fanfare and yet today's filing with the Ninth Circuit is a last-ditch effort to maintain this unconstitutional policy, Woods added.

The Justice Department asked the 9th Circuit to issue a decision by the end of the day Friday."

The military is doing the needed training and making the changes necessary for there to be an orderly transition to repeal DADT. It figures that it is a Republican group, the Log Cabin Republicans who are exhibiting their GOP inability to wait for the repeal to be done on the terms laid out by military leaders that were enactedd by Congress and approved by the President.

July 15, 2011 11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin Movie Debuts to Empty Theater in Orange County

"....It isn't strictly accurate to say that I sat through the whole movie alone. Just as the previews started, two young women walked in giggling together and took seats three rows behind me. Afraid that they'd ruined the only story I had at that point -- What If Sarah Palin Starred in a Movie and No One Showed Up? -- I hoped they'd at least oblige me with an interview, and so they did.

Jamie Watkins, 22, is a Missouri native, which qualifies her as a real American. She only recently moved to Southern California, and her little sister, Jessie, age 18, was visiting for the first time.

"So, um, what made you come out here tonight?"

"We're going to Disneyland tomorrow," Jamie said, "but she just got here, so we decided we should go out."

"We looked online for the latest movie playing," Jessie added. "But all the Harry Potters were sold out, and then we saw 'The Undeafeated.' We don't even actually know what we're seeing."

"Well welcome to California," I said. "You're about to see a documentary about Sarah Palin."

"Oh, really?" they said, and started giggling again. I think they were expecting an action flick. When I returned to my seat, I thought maybe I'd talk to them after the movie, and get the perspective of two people who went in with no expectations. But they only lasted 20 minutes before walking out.

After that, it is strictly accurate to say that the theater was empty, except for me. On screen there were clips of a younger Sarah Palin helping to reform Alaskan governance. "In politics, you're either eating well or sleeping well," she said. I jotted this down: "And which of those are you doing now?"

Shortly before the end of the film, a young couple entered, walked to the back row, started making out, then interrupted their session and left (spoiler alert) as Andrew Breitbart, who made one of several guest appearances, started talking about eunuchs. Then I was alone again, working. Instead of researching civil liberties violations, or the war in Libya, or the contest to elect the next president of the United States, I was both a journalist and the only member of the public willfully paying attention to Sarah Palin, as if standing in for the pathologies of my profession.

Afterward, I found a theater manager, told him I was a reporter, and asked if he could give me numbers about ticket sales. "Did anyone pay and not show up?" He said that they'd sold out all the Harry Potter movies until 2 a.m., and that all 5,000 seats looked full. "No," I said, "I saw the Sarah Palin movie. Do you know the figures for that one?"

"Oh," he said, "I can't release sales figures."

"In hindsight, do you wish you'd had one more screen showing Harry Potter?"

He had no comment. "

July 15, 2011 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

pathological hatred for Palin

she's gotten so much mileage out of it and no doubt scores will be out to see it once they hear liberals, like this, start attacking it

Americans generally dislike liberals


I put quotations around the paste and didn't lie about one thing

the implication of this commenter that I did is, in itself, a lie

July 15, 2011 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pathological hatred for Palin? Are you kidding? I hope she gets the GOP nomination because it will be a cake walk to beat her in the general election, again.

You are the one who suffers from "pathological hatred" and you display it here day after day.

Orange County is the most reliably Republican area in the state and only a reporter showed up for the debut of her film.

Palin's PAC raised $1.3 million in the last 6 months, but President Obama reelection campaign raised $47 million in the past 3 months.

Palin, a farce to be reckoned with!

July 15, 2011 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of farces....

"It looks like the Republican party has an excellent chance of beating President Barack Obama in the 2012 election.

Well, as long as they don’t actually name a candidate.

According to the most recent Gallup polling, “generic Republican” holds an 8 point lead over Obama, running 47 to 39.

There’s just one small problem — any time an actual candidate gets entered into the mix, the number drops. That much was clear from polling from Quinnipiac that showed frontrunner Mitt Romney trailing the president, and second place candidate Michele Bachmann running much further behind.

Gallup reminds readers that their “generic candidate” polling a year out tends to not predict final outcome. “At this point in 1991, George H.W. Bush looked like a sure bet to win a second term, but he was defeated.”
"President Barack Obama tops all leading GOP White House hopefuls, hitting the all- important 50-percent mark against every candidate but Romney:

47 - 41 percent over Romney, unchanged from June 8;

50 - 38 percent over Bachmann, who was not matched against Obama June 8;

53 - 34 percent over Sarah Palin, compared to 53 - 36 percent June 8;

50 - 37 percent over Perry, who was not matched against Obama June 8."

July 15, 2011 5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Generic Republicans?

Somehow that reminds me of that movie "Invasion of The Body Snatchers"

Just don't let your Republican friends bring a pod into your house and leave it.

July 15, 2011 5:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think Republicans are worried

"Could the issue of polygamy derail the same-sex marriage litigation headed to the Supreme Court? It just might.

Conservatives have been laughed at for several years now for arguing that if the courts declare a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage, the same logic will lead another court to find a similar “right” to polygamy, incestuous marriage, or even group marriage in the Constitution.

Well, here we are, and we arrived at those gates a lot sooner than anyone would have predicted. Jonathan Turley, a noted constitutional law professor, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the polygamous family that appeared in the TLC cable series “Sister Wives.”

Turley says he’s relying on the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case in which Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, held the Texas criminal statute against homosexual sodomy to be unconstitutional as an impermissible government intrusion on personal, private intimacy. Turley argues that polygamous marriage and/or cohabitation ought to be treated the same way, i.e., as personal intimate conduct protected as a “privacy” interest."

July 15, 2011 8:02 PM  
Anonymous he's out in 2012 said...

"WASHINGTON -- President Obama is "bluffing" about the impacts of a debt default and holding troops and the elderly as "human shields" in the deadlock over raising the nation's borrowing limit, Republicans charged Friday.

The group of conservatives were touting a piece of legislation that would tell the White House how to prioritize spending if credit were to get cut off.

The spending recommendation starts with paying interest on the debt, then funds military personnel, national security priorities and finally Social Security and Medicare.

According to the lawmakers, after those priorities were funded, about $30 billion per month would be left over for the president to deal with other responsibilities -- putting the lie to Obama's warning that Social Security checks might not go out after Aug. 2.

"As he stated himself, he's bluffing," said Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) "He told Eric Cantor, 'Don't call my bluff.' The president is admitting he's bluffing, but it's not right. His bluffing consists of threatening senior citizens, threatening disabled veterans."

"I truly believe that this president is completely out of touch with reality when it comes to the grave circumstances that we face in our economy," added Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.). "I am convinced that he is willing to use our senior citizens and our soldiers as human shields, as it were, to continue this spending binge that could ultimately destroy our country.""

July 15, 2011 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"The bill's author, Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.), said the measure was not a first choice, but would help ensure the GOP gets the spending cuts it is seeking in debt ceiling negotiations.

"This is a backstop," Webster said. "We're not saying it's our favorite piece of legislation as far as the future, but we want spending cuts; we've got to have them."

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has warned that without a raise to the debt ceiling, the country will no longer be able to borrow beginning on Aug. 2.

The GOP legislators' idea seems simple enough: In the event the debt ceiling is reached, the government should shield its most vital expenditures and let the president figure out how to deal with the rest.

But a recent independent analysis shows there is no way for the government to stop borrowing without cutting spending to significant programs.

"After Aug. 2, there is a near certainty the federal government will run short of cash and be unable to pay approximately half its bills, other than interest," said Jay Powell, a scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center, who analyzed what the government would have to slash if the administration were to continue to pay interest on bonds.

The numbers are stark. According to the analysis, which relies on Treasury Department reports, the government would face $307 billion in expenses for the remainder of August, but would only have about $172 billion to spend. That leaves a shortfall of just over $134 billion. If the debt interest were paid, a 50 percent cut to the rest of the budget would result.

So what programs would go begging? As the GOP legislation suggests, the Treasury Department has no guidance from Congress on how to prioritize its 80 million-odd payments that are due next month.

According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, some experts think the administration has the power to prioritize. But the report also found Treasury officials believe that without legislation from Congress, they must pay the bills in the order they get them, and wait-list what can't be afforded.

That first-come, first-serve scenario is likely what prompted Obama to warn there's no guarantee Social Security checks will go out on Aug. 3 if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

But even assuming the GOP legislation passes, the math of the budget predicts an extremely ugly bottom line.

For instance, about $29 billion will be needed in August to pay interest on bonds and avoid a bond default. After that, Social Security benefits are expected to cost about $49 billion, with Medicare ringing up about $50 billion. If military salaries ($2.9 billion), veteran benefits ($2.9 billion) and contracts for all the vendors that support the military ($32 billion) are also paid, there would be very little money left.

"You can't cut 50 percent without cutting a lot of important and proper programs," Powell said, pointing to the FBI and Bureau of Prisons as examples of programs that could receive de facto cuts."

July 15, 2011 10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And finally

"Despite the GOP representatives' desire to prioritize, there appear to be few easy cuts.

"Even the ones that might appear to be soft targets are really not that soft," Powell said, pointing to a popular conservative target: the Department of Education.

"People think, 'Oh the Department of Education, let's shut that down.' But what's in that is special ed programs," Powell said. "That's several billion dollars that go to states during August. The schools are going to open in September. This is assistance for special ed students. What happens there? Do they not go to school?"

The Bipartisan Policy Center also looked at a scenario that preserved not just Social Security, as the GOP has been demanding, but most of the popular safety net and education programs.

If those programs were all funded, Powell said, "the problem with that is you haven't paid one dollar -- not a dollar -- for defense. You've got all these people in uniform you can't pay any money."

Another problem with trying to pick and choose which programs to fund -- something administration officials seem to have considered -- is whether the Treasury Department, even with legislation, has the legal authority.

Many legal scholars believe such an action would be tantamount to a back-door line-item veto, and therefore be deemed unconstitutional.

"The precedent here is the case called Clinton vs. City of New York," said UCLA constitutional law professor Jonathan Zasloff, referring to the successful 1997 challenge of a line-item veto law passed by Congress.

"Congress passes a piece of legislation and the president knocks certain things out of the budget," Zasloff said, explaining the case. "The Supreme Court holds 6-3 that that's a violation of separation of powers, because only Congress can spend money -- the president can't -- and so the president cannot pick and choose among expenditures that he's given by Congress."

Webster denied the Clinton decision related to his proposed legislation.

Though he had earlier specified that his proposed legislation would leave the president with $30 billion left over to spend as he saw fit, Webster said the legislation did "not necessarily" give the president the power to make decisions about spending.

"This has nothing to do with the line-item veto -- that would be a power of the president," Webster said. "We have the purse strings and we can pass what we will."

July 15, 2011 10:57 PM  
Anonymous socialist rock and a hard place said...

CHICAGO — A liberal group upset over potential cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security delivered pledges Friday to President Barack Obama's national campaign headquarters threatening to pull its support.

About a dozen people representing the Progressive Change Campaign Committee delivered what they said were 200,000 pledges from people who will refuse to donate or volunteer for Obama's re-election campaign if he cuts the entitlement programs.

July 16, 2011 7:57 AM  
Anonymous hee haw !! said...

"According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, some experts think the administration has the power to prioritize. But the report also found Treasury officials believe that without legislation from Congress, they must pay the bills in the order they get them, and wait-list what can't be afforded."


Obama could just resign

two days after Obama stomped out of a meeting with Eric Cantor because Cantor suggested that Obama's Grand Deal (raising taxes a trillion) wouldn't fly, Obama is now saying he will go along with the Senate deal

Obama....we couldn't ask for a better National Clown!!

July 16, 2011 8:03 AM  
Anonymous that whole hopey-changey thing said...

the Washington Post teaches some facts:

"Senate and House sources say that virtually nothing is happening or is expected to come out of White House talks. When asked what dealmaking might be going on, a House aide replied, “Nothing real yet.” A Senate source with knowledge of the behind-the-scenes work told me that senators are “still talking about what would be added to the debt disapproval plan before it would be considered by the Senate.”

As for the White House meetings he added, “They are now completely irrelevant.”

Further, the modification of the McConnell deal involves putting in place a set of agreed cuts. Would this entice House Republicans? Maybe. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) doesn’t rule it out, saying of the McConnell plan that the House he “didn’t want to give up on spending cuts.” But if the McConnell plan included spending cuts? Well, then we might get somewhere.

Two options are possible. In the first a commission styled on the base closing commission, made up of congressmen and senators, would identify cuts and the House and Senate could stage an up or down vote. The number of such commissioners and the timing of the votes are under discussion. The second option is to graft on top of that a set of cuts ($1.5 trillion or so) identified in the Biden meetings.

Several other bits of data confirm that a deal, if one is to be made, won’t be one over which Obama presides. The verbal assault by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virg.) isn’t designed to make a deal; it’s designed to find a fall guy and an excuse for the collapse of the White House talks.

In addition to Ryan, Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) is leaving the door open on the McConnell plan. When Boehner says that he has “no idea” if the McConnell plan could pass, but muses aloud that it is “worth keeping around. . . [because] it might look pretty good a few weeks from now,” he walked the fine line between adhering to the House Republican position (cuts in excess of the amount the debt ceiling is raised) and leaving McConnell and Harry Reid the chance to come up with something that might attract enough votes to pass the House.

And do not rule out the possibility of a House alternative to be introduced very soon. The House will need to have its say, either through its own crafted plan or by amending the Senate plan.

But notice the mention of “a few weeks” by Boehner. Apparently, the speaker of the House doesn’t think much of Obama’s insistence on a deal by Friday.

In fact, nothing that Obama says these days seems to make a difference.

The White House, in fact, is entirely irrelevant."

July 16, 2011 8:20 AM  
Anonymous sick, sick, sick said...

for the first time in America, members of our military will march in a sick Gay Pride parade without being kicked out of the service

unless, Barracks Obama gets his way and the court let's him start kicking gay guys out again:

"SAN DIEGO -- Sean Sala felt so elated when Congress approved repealing the military's ban on openly gay troops the 26-year-old sailor went on TV and revealed his sexual orientation publicly in what he calls his "Rosa Parks moment."

Now the former Navy operations specialist, who finished his service last month, is organizing what is believed to be the first military contingent of hundreds of active-duty troops and veterans to lead a gay pride parade. The group will march Saturday in San Diego's parade, the nation's fifth largest.

Sala said it's time for the gay and lesbian community to stop hiding in fear.

"This is not in any way a violation of military policy and it's time for the country to move on – plain and simple," he said.

Cpl. Jaime Rincon, 21, a Camp Pendleton Marine who plans to participate, said he is grateful Sala gave him the opportunity to march as a military member in a gay pride event.

"Finally someone is stepping up to the plate, someone has said: `We're done hiding. Let's do something about this. Let's show everybody we're proud of who we are and we're proud of our branches of service,'" he said.

The Pentagon has said the military will not discharge anyone under the policy, for now, to comply with a July 6 federal appeals court order telling the U.S. government to cease enforcing the 17-year ban. Marine Corps officials said service members who are not in uniform are within their rights to participate in a gay pride parade."

sick, sick, sick

but at least Obama is trying to put a stop to it

maybe he can kick 'em out next week

July 16, 2011 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I offer my sincerest thank you to every member of our military - male, female, black, white, religious, atheist, gay and straight - who serve together to protect what America stands for, liberty and justice for all.

They even protect Anonymous' right to speak disrespectfully about their Commander in Chief and the gays and lesbians who have stepped up to serve, while he remains safe in the suburbs far from the front lines.

July 16, 2011 9:30 AM  
Anonymous Brilliant said...

Does anyone remember "Poppy Bush.

In 1988, the first President Bush won the White House largely on the strength of a single, clear promise: "read my lips: no new taxes." Then, being a well-educated, old-school Republican and a pragmatist (who had called Reagan's supply-side theories "Voodoo Economics"), he adapted to changing circumstances and agreed some tax increases were necessary. His base exploded, his supporters stayed home on election day, and Bill and Hillary evicted George and Barbara after only one term.

The entire G.O.P. freshman class has, in more or less identical words, taken the same pledge as George H.W. Bush, and the Tea Party, like Grover Norquist but without his political sophistication, has made "no new taxes" its latest line in the sand. It's a binary, black-white, either-or test: either you increase taxes or you hold the line, and if you choose wrong, we will jettison you and back someone with more commitment to the anti-tax cause. And because a larger than usual proportion of the current G.O.P. majority are freshmen, and because freshmen are especially vulnerable in their first reelection, the G.O.P. majority is highly vulnerable to being overturned in 2012.

Obama knows this -- and so do the G.O.P.'s (relative) grown-ups, who now realize they're in a box and are looking desperately for a way out. That's why Boehner complained bitterly that the only thing Obama is inflexible on is "these damn tax increases." That's why, as Brian Beutler has astutely observed even anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist has figured out what's happening and is moderating his absolutism to help the Republicans escape Obama's trap. ("Taxpayer Protection Pledge signers should feel free to support the Coburn amendment [to cut ethanol tax breaks] provided they also vote for the DeMint amendment [to end the ethanol mandate and kill the 'death' tax]." See That's also why the Wall Street Journal, always the oracle of Big Money and even more so now that it is part of Rupert Murdoch's propaganda machine, is defending Mitch McConnell's strange debt-ceiling proposal (which is simply a device for surrendering to Obama without having to raise taxes, made intentionally overcomplex in hopes that the Tea Party rank-and-file won't realize what's going on).

Obama is forcing the G.O.P. to pull a Poppy and break their pledge. The G.O.P. knows that it will pay a terrible price if it does so. But, when the final seconds tick their way to a default, those wiser G.O.P. heads also know that they will follow the financially-sensible bidding of Big Money rather than the suicidal bidding of the spoiled children who think they run the Tea Party, and will do what Obama (and Wall Street) demand -- after which they will start privately telephoning friends in important places to look for job openings beginning in January, 2013."

July 16, 2011 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama is forcing the G.O.P. to pull a Poppy and break their pledge."

don't know what makes you think this

taxes will not be going up

and a new President will be sworn in come January 2013

July 16, 2011 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the Washington Post teaches some facts:"

That's right, the Washington Post teaches what it really means to be "Fair and Balanced" by pulishing a blog called "Right Turn" written by conservative blogger and Tea Bagger, Jennifer Rubin.

July 16, 2011 10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I offer my sincerest thank you to every member of our military - male, female, black, white, religious, atheist, gay and straight - who serve together to protect what America stands for, liberty and justice for all."

actually, homosexuals were never asked to serve in this capacity and the laws of our country made it clear they were not invited to serve in this capacity

until recently it was illegal for them to serve in this capacity

they deserve no thanks for disrepecting our laws

"They even protect Anonymous' right to speak disrespectfully about their Commander in Chief"

and for the Commander in Chief to get elected making false statements

currently, lunatic fringe gay advocates are engaged in a long-term agenda to deprive Americans of their right to freedom of association, speech and religion

"and the gays and lesbians who have stepped up to serve, while he remains safe in the suburbs far from the front lines."

unless they enlisted in the last couple of weeks, they stepped up to engage in illegal activity

July 16, 2011 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gallup is reporting today that Obama's approval rating with the public has dropped to 42%

meanwhile, he adamantly pushes a "grand bargain" with huge tax increases and entitlement cuts that he rejected when the Bowles-Simpson Commission suggested it many moons ago

so now the Senate puts together a bill to save the nation from default and talks with the House to find a workable solution, with Obama making no contribution at the end, as he made no contribution in the beginning

and as your leadership fails, Barry, the whole wide world is watching you

July 16, 2011 6:12 PM  
Anonymous I won't be just ignored, people said...

"House Republican leaders have missed a 36-hour deadline President Obama set during a Thursday meeting for lawmakers to give him a plan to avert a national default.

The deadline came and went Saturday morning without a response from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Instead, Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) plan to move the Cut, Cap and Balance Act on the floor next week, which would require passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before the debt limit is raised.

A House GOP leadership aide said at noontime Saturday that Boehner and Cantor did not send Obama a revised proposal to raise the debt-limit, as the president requested.

A White House official said talks continue despite the missed deadline.

At a meeting late Thursday afternoon, Obama gave congressional leaders 24 to 36 hours to meet with their colleagues to figure out a plan that could pass both chambers.

“It’s decision time,” Obama said.

Ignoring Obama’s directive, Republican leaders are coalescing around the Cut, Cap and Balance bill that is expected to pass the House.

The legislation would cut $111 billion in fiscal year 2012, cap spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product by 2021 and would authorize a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit after Congress passes a balanced budget amendment.

House Republicans discussed it at a special conference meeting Friday morning and plan to put it on the floor next week.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is pushing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to schedule votes on the Cut, Cap and Balance bill and a balanced budget amendment in the upper chamber next week.

A Senate Democratic aide said it’s likely that those Republican priorities will receive floor time next week.

The plan has become more politically viable as negotiations between Obama and congressional leaders have broken down.

No meetings of the leadership group have been announced this weekend and at least two negotiators are out of town. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has flown back to Illinois and McConnell is in Kentucky."

July 16, 2011 9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A straight man who tried donating blood at a Gary, Indiana blood center was turned away recently because employees of the center thought he was gay.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Aaron Pace, 22, is "admittedly and noticeably effeminate," but still a heterosexual man. In any case, when he visited Bio-Blood Components Inc. in Gary, which pays for blood and plasma donations, he was told he could not be a donor because he “appears to be a homosexual.”

Bio-Blood would not respond to the Sun-Times for comment, but are relying on a federal law that was upheld in 2010.

Current FDA rules dictate that any man who has had sex with another man since 1977, even once, cannot donate blood. Concerns about HIV tainting the blood supply prompted this policy, viewed as a safety measure.

Most blood centers ask male donors if they have had sex with men during the screening process--which Bio-Blood reportedly did not do, instead they just presumed he was gay.

The Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety had a chance to lift the ban last year, but voted to uphold it, citing inadequate research surrounding high-risk donations.

As for Pace, he told the Sun-Times he was "humiliated and embarrassed.""

humiliated and embarassed because someone thought he was gay...

sounds like a hateful bigot!

am I right, TTFers?

July 17, 2011 8:00 PM  
Anonymous no hurricanes in U.S. since 2008 said...

"There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records compiled at the University of East Anglia. Do we now understand why there’s been no change in fourteen and a half years?

If you read the news stories surrounding a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Boston University’s Robert Kaufmann and three colleagues, you’d say yes, indeed. It’s China’s fault. By dramatically increasing their combustion of coal, they have increased the concentration of fine particles in the atmosphere called sulphate aerosols, which reflect away solar radiation, countering the warming that should be occurring from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Reality may be a bit simpler, or much more complicated. But the reason this is all so important is that if there is no good explanation for the lack of warming, then an increasingly viable alternative is that we have overestimated the gross sensitivity of temperature to carbon dioxide in our computer models.

One problem is that we really don’t know how much cooling is exerted by sulfates, or whether they are just a convenient explanation for the failure of the forecasts of dramatic warming. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which grants itself climate authority, states that our “Level of Scientific Understanding” of the effects range between “low” and “very low,” with a possible cooling between zero (none) and a whopping 3.5 degrees (C) when the climate comes to equilibrium (which it will never do). That’s a plenty large range from which to pick out a number to cancel about as much warming as you’d like.

The other problem is that the beginning of the period of “no warming” includes the warmest year in the instrumental record, caused by the great El Nino of 1997-1998. In a modestly warming world, starting off at or near an anomalously high point pretty much assures little or no warming for years afterward.

Kaufmann’s team (and others) have duly noted that El Nino cycles are one factor partially responsible for the lack of recent warming. There’s little doubt of this. Further, if you back out solar changes and volcanism, as they did, you can convince yourself that there is still an underlying “residual” warming trend, but it is masked by all these variables. This has been done repeatedly in the scientific literature, which, until now, did not include increasing the sulfate effect on recent temperatures.

Where is the test of the hypothesis that sulfates are indeed responsible for the lack of warming? In this paper, it’s simply “modeled-in” as it fits the data well. That’s correlation, not causation.

There is very little exchange of air between the northern and southern hemispheres, and basic climate science shows that most sulfates from China will rain out before they get across the thermal equator. In fact, there is a great deal of literature out there published by luminaries like the Department of Energy’s Ben Santer and NASA’s James Hansen claiming relative cooling of the northern hemisphere from sulfates, compared to the southern.

So, if it is indeed sulfates cooling the warming, given that there is no net change in global temperature, then the northern hemisphere should be cooling since 1998 while the southern warms.

Here are the sad facts:

The opposite is occurring. Why this test was not performed eludes me. Perhaps that is because it provides yet another piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that we have simply overstated the sensitivity of surface temperature to changes in carbon dioxide."

July 17, 2011 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Patrick Michaels, the author of the above opinion piece is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the conservative Cato Institute. Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that the global mean temperature has increased in recent decades and is now flip flopping on this point. He is one of the most widely quoted global warming skeptics and has described himself as a skeptic. He contends that the changes will be minor, not catastrophic, and may even be beneficial.

Tell that to Texas, Mr. Michaels. Texans are not currently finding the effects of global warming to be either minor or beneficial.

"April 7-14, 2011

March 2011 was the driest on record for the state of Texas. Parts of west Texas received no measurable rainfall for the month, and less than an inch of precipitation over the past six months. The whole state settled into drought, with extreme to exceptional drought claiming many areas.

March also brought exceptionally warm temperatures, a trend that continued into April. By mid-April, the lack of moisture and hot weather had desiccated plants in Texas. This image, from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite, compares plant health between April 7 and April 14 to average conditions seen between 2000 and 2010.

Satellite sensors measured the amount of leafy green plant matter at the surface. Brown colors depict places where plants were less leafy or more sparse than normal, while better-than-normal conditions are green. In mid-April, plants throughout the state showed clear signals of drought stress.

The dry plants shown in this image provided ample fuel for numerous wildfires. Since January, nearly 1.5 million acres of land have burned in Texas, said the Texas Forest Service, who also warned that fire conditions are still hazardous."

"July 1, 2011
After months of wildfires that have scorched more than 1.2 million acres of the Lone Star State, President Obama today declared the state a “major disaster” area.

The federal disaster declaration covered 45 counties, primarily in West Texas. The White House announcement said the new [federal tax-payer funded] aid is designed “to supplement state and local recovery efforts in the area struck by wildfires during the period of April 6 to May 3, 2011.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison all released late-Friday statements supporting the president’s declaration. Perry, in his statement, was quick to point out that he thought the federal support, while good for Texas, was late.

“This partial approval only applies to fires fought between April 6 and May 3, 2011, covering just a fraction of the fires fought in Texas so far this season,” the statement read. “On April 15, Gov. Perry sent a letter to President Obama requesting a Major Disaster Declaration for the State of Texas…the governor’s request was denied on May 3. Gov. Perry appealed the president’s decision on May 26.”"

Texas does not collect income taxes from its citizens to pay its for its own losses. Apparently Governor Perry expects federal tax money to come to the rescue.

July 18, 2011 8:04 AM  
Anonymous I started a joke said...

"Patrick Michaels, the author of the above opinion piece is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the conservative Cato Institute."

so what?

"Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that the global mean temperature has increased in recent decades and is now flip flopping on this point."

reassessing as additional information becomes available is not flip flopping, it is objective science

"He is one of the most widely quoted global warming skeptics and has described himself as a skeptic. He contends that the changes will be minor, not catastrophic, and may even be beneficial."

obvious from what was already posted

"Tell that to Texas, Mr. Michaels. Texans are not currently finding the effects of global warming to be either minor or beneficial."

it's funny how global warming alarmists persist in finding proof in one year's weather of their worst fears

when the weather is cool, they say you must look long-term

when the weather is hot, you have proof of anthropogenic global warming

non-testable hypothesis alert!

every possible scenario proves global warming

how do they look themselves in the mirror and not laugh?

July 18, 2011 8:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How soon they forget:

"Republican James Inhofe, the Senate's most outspoken climate-change skeptic, built an igloo a snowball's throw from the Capitol, bearing signs saying "Honk if you [heart] Global Warming.""

You are so misinformed, it isn't funny, it's sad.

"In Texas Hill country "We're really hurting out here. We've got a lot of people lowering pumps and others are just sucking air," said Micah Voulgaris, general manager of the Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District, which regulates groundwater in Kendall County north of San Antonio. Of the districts 39 monitoring wells, eight are at all-time lows.

In June, Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District moved to Stage 5 drought restrictions, which amounts to fairly drastic water rationing. Outdoor watering only once a week. No washing your car at home. And a mandatory 40 percent cut for all permitted users.

One private water supplier, the Kendall County Utility Company, has run so low on water that it's paying to have water trucked in to its customers. All outdoor watering banned.

The drought is only partially to blame, however. There has been a long-term decline in water levels in Kendall County as development continues unabated.

Reports the San Antonio Express-News:

"According to records kept by Cow Creek, the Trinity has been on decline since the early 1990s.

That's about that time the population and housing booms started, Voulgaris and well drillers across the county point out."

"There used to be 5,000 people and now there's 33,000," said Voulgaris, "and I doubt there were many sprinkler system in the '50s."

Then there's the longer-term picture for the Hill Country.

"You're going to have dry wells and people running out of water," said Voulgaris. Lower river flows and more frequently dried-up creeks too. "Short of moving people out of the Hill Country it's something we're going to have to deal with."

Meanwhile in

"West Texas water reservoirs have actually been in decline for many years, in some cases decades. The region's main supplier, the Colorado River Municipal Water District, has already lost two lakes, JB Thomas and EV Spence, which have both run completely dry.

San Angelo had to basically give up on its own lake, OC Fisher, which has been dry since 2008.

The only major water source lake left is OH Ivie and it is rapidly declining.

A major downpour – or three – in the right spot would help refill the lake. But there's no guarantee that that will happen in time. And it's debatable whether the long-term trend can ultimately be reversed. It seems that West Texas was never the best place for drinking-water lakes. It's too hot, too dry and too windy – a combination that leads to incredible rates of evaporation. And climate change is only making things worse.

"It's gotten hotter in Texas," points out Robert Mace, director of groundwater resources at the Texas Water Development Board. "We're back up to what it was in the Dust Bowl and the drought during the 1950s."

The West Texas cities are now preparing for a worst-case scenario in which Ivie dries up by late 2012 or early 2013. The Colorado River Municipal Water District is rushing forward with a $140 million pipeline from a well field in Ward County that's expected to be ready just in the nick of time. KOSA-TV:

"[I]t could be completed by January 2013 and provide enough water to meet wintertime demand of about 50 million gallons per day and the source could sustain that for 23 years.

The catch is that the well field is the last line of defense so we'd effectively be using our back up water as a main source.

"Our long term goal was to let it sit there and use it for an emergency. Well, we're in a pretty good emergency right now", says Grant."

July 18, 2011 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are so misinformed, it isn't funny, it's sad."

I guess I must be. Can you post any reputable scientist that says that Texas' drought is the result of global warming?

What you posted makes it sound like the water shortage is the result of overdevelopment sucking up th ereserviors in an area that was always dry.

Tell that to Texas.

Most voters agree with Patrick Michaels.

Amazing! First-hand knowledge and still misinformed.

July 18, 2011 10:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The world's largest tropical forest, the Amazon, experienced something rare last year — a drought. It wasn't the earth-cracking kind of drought that happens in the American Southwest or the Australian outback, but it did stunt or kill lots of trees.

It was the second such drought in the Amazon in five years, and forest scientists are trying to understand why these droughts are happening, and what their effects will be for the planet.

The 2005 drought in the Amazon was so unusual that scientists called it a "100-year event" — something supposed to happen only once a century.

"This is what's quite alarming — that we've seen these two very unusual events," says Simon Lewis, a forest ecologist at the University of Leeds in Great Britain, who watched both droughts hit the Amazon. Lewis notes that several of the computer models that calculate the effects of climate change do predict that parts of the planet are going to get drier.

"And those two unusual events are consistent with those predictions that suggest that the Amazon may be severely impacted over the next few decades by these droughts," he says.

The droughts can create a different forest — thinner, smaller and with a different mix of tree species. That, in turn, could affect the Earth's climate. As trees grow, they suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it, so a big forest like the Amazon is a carbon "sink."

But drought slows that process down — more carbon remains in the atmosphere, and that could warm the planet.

If the forest gets dry enough, air can get into the vessels that carry water through a tree — kind of like an air bubble in a fuel line — and a tree dies. If enough die, that too could affect the atmosphere.

"As these dead trees rot and release their carbon in their trunks and roots into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, then we see it probably turning into a source of carbon emissions," Lewis says.

The droughts are big, covering an area about the size of Argentina."

July 18, 2011 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The 2005 drought in the Amazon was so unusual that scientists called it a "100-year event" — something supposed to happen only once a century."

so, it does happen periodically

"Lewis notes that several of the computer models that calculate the effects of climate change do predict that parts of the planet are going to get drier."

there's not much computer models don't predict- and when they're wrong, we get Soviet style rewrites of history

where are all the hurricanes predicted by global warming alarmists less than a decade ago?

how about the dislocations predicted for certain populations by the IPCC a few years back? it was supposed to have already happened

and the melting glaciers in the Himalayas?

and the record snowfalls in the U.S. and Europe over the last two years? in the rear view mirror, they say they predicted it but, if so, wouldn't that add to glaciers?

let's face it, everything that could possibly happen proves global warming

July 18, 2011 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

July 7, 2011
Worldwide Energy Shortages Triggered by Drought

June 21, 2011
Floods Force 11000 to Evacuate North Dakota City

June 7, 2011
Fatal floods hit southern China after prolonged drought

May 24, 2011
China faces worst drought in 50 years

May 16, 2011
Missippi River Flooding Causes Mass Evacuations

April 27, 2011
Missouri Flood Forces Mass Evacuations

December 28, 2010
Australia floods force mass evacuations

December 27, 2010
Blizzard Causes Severe Flooding, Evacuations and Fires in Massachusetts Coastal Town

October 25, 2010
India, Drought and Migration

August 21, 2010
Mass Evacuations From Floods Along China-North Korea Border

August 4, 2010
Mass evacuations as flood threatens to destroy dam in Pakistan

February 25, 2010
Zambia: flooding ignite mass evacuations

January 7, 2010
Albania orders mass evacuation as melting snow worsens flooding

February 3, 2009
Argentine farmers face ruin as drought kills cattle, crops

January 30, 2009
Food Shortages and Famine in Africa: Tanzania has no food for exports as famine looms large

July 18, 2011 3:35 PM  
Anonymous JC-OB said...

hey kids, today's the 32nd anniversary of Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech

to commemorate the occassion, let's compare with Obama's recent talking points:

"Jimmy Carter: It is a crisis of confidence.

Barack Obama: Our economy may be weakened, and our confidence shaken...


Carter: Our people are losing that faith.

Obama: It's tempting to turn cynical and to be doubtful about the future.


Carter: The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers.

Obama: We cannot rely on quick fixes or easy answers.


Carter: Not politics as usual.

Obama: We are tired of business as usual.


Carter: You often see a balanced approach that demands sacrifice.

Obama: A balanced way where everybody's sacrificing a little bit.


Carter: A little sacrifice from everyone.

Obama: We need shared sacrifice.


Carter: Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay.

Obama: If the wealthiest among us are willing to give up a little bit more, then we can solve this problem.


Carter: I'm asking you to take no unnecessary trips.

Obama: Don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas.


Carter: To use carpools or public transportation whenever you can.

Obama: We can't drive our SUVs.


Carter: And to set your thermostats to save fuel.

Obama: We can't keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.


Carter: I do not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems.

Obama: I wish I could tell you there was a quick fix to our economic problems.


Carter: There are no short-term solutions.

Obama: There aren't going to be a lot of great short-term solutions to this problem.


Carter: There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.

Obama: We are going to have to ask everybody to sacrifice."

Barry, Habitat for Humanity is looking for volunteers!

July 18, 2011 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Poll: 71% shun GOP handling of debt crisis

Americans are unimpressed with their political leaders' handling of the debt ceiling crisis, with a new CBS News poll showing a majority disapprove of all the involved parties' conduct, but Republicans in Congress fare the worst, with just 21 percent backing their resistance to raising taxes.

President Obama earned the most generous approval ratings for his handling of the weeks-old negotiations, but still more people said they disapproved (48 percent) than approved (43 percent) of what he has done and said.

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports there was no visible progress over the weekend, despite warnings from debt rating agencies that the nation's credit rating could drop, even if there is a deal, if government spending isn't cut.

Congressional leaders' inability to convince their own party members that concessions are necessary is likely driving the dismal approval for lawmakers involved in the testy negotiations.

Approval drops to 31 percent for the Democrats in Congress, and only 21 percent of the people surveyed said they approved of Republicans' handling of the negotiations, while 71 percent disapprove.

Even half of the Republican respondents (51 percent) voiced disapproval of how members of their own party in Congress are handling the talks. Far fewer Democrats expressed disapproval of their own party's handling (32 percent) or President Obama's (22 percent) of the urgent quest to raise the nation's debt limit ahead of a looming default on Aug. 2 if action isn't taken.

The Obama administration has pointed to the warnings from rating agencies as evidence that not raising the debt ceiling could have severe consequences for the economy, and even suggested the government might not be able to make Social Security payments if there's no agreement.

However, some remain skeptical; 36 percent said the administration is trying to scare people by painting the potential outcome if the debt ceiling is not raised as more dire than it really is. But slightly more, 40 percent, say the administration's warnings are valid.

While the poll shows little confidence in the men and women doing the negotiating, there still seems to be hope that the politicians will be able to stop politicking for long enough to avert financial disaster.

Sixty-six percent of those polled said they believe an agreement will be reached before the Aug. 2 deadline, while only 31 percent say it's unlikely."

July 18, 2011 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The first time Michele Bachmann went to Washington, D.C., she went to dance at Jimmy Carter's inaugural ball. Michele and Marcus Bachmann met in college and they worked on Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign.

July 18, 2011 6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, just to shock you guys, I worked in Carter's campaign as well

at the time, he seemed like just what we needed

but life is for learning

and I think Bachmann is super-cool

July 18, 2011 6:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As the Beltway politicians try to figure out how they will raise the debt ceiling and for how long, most voters oppose including tax hikes in the deal.

Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not.

Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 35% favor a tax hike and 51% are opposed.

Americans who earn more than $75,000 a year are evenly divided as to whether a tax hike should be included in the debt ceiling deal. Those who earn less are opposed to including tax hikes.

Voters remain very concerned about the debt ceiling issue. Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe that it would be bad for the economy if a failure to raise the debt ceiling led to government defaults. Only 6% believe it would be good for theeconomy. Fourteen percent (14%) believe it would have no impact and 11% are notsure. These figures are little changed from a few weeks ago.

At the same time, however, 52% believe it would be even more dangerous to raise the debt ceiling without making significant cuts in government spending.

The national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 12-13, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points witha 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.See methodology.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of voters are following the debt ceiling story at least Somewhat Closely. That figure includes 48% who are following it Very Closely.

Only thirty-eight percent (38%) believe the president has done a good job handling the debt ceiling debate.

July 18, 2011 10:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy Birthday Nelson Mandela

July 18, 2011 10:37 PM  
Anonymous impeachment melba said...

send that commie back to prison where he belongs

here's the latest from Barry "Anything-for-a-buck" Obama:

"WASHINGTON -- The head of the Republican National Committee is asking for a Justice Department investigation of President Barack Obama over a fundraising video and e-mail that the GOP chief claims is "apparent criminal behavior."

Reince Priebus on Monday wrote Attorney General Eric Holder to complain that Obama's re-election campaign filmed a web video in the White House's Map Room and then mailed it to supporters. Federal law prohibits political activity in government offices."

July 19, 2011 5:56 AM  
Anonymous economic secret said...

businessman speaks about Obama:

"I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.

You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs."

July 19, 2011 6:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lots of funny moments last week when Barry O gave Congress a deadline of Friday to make a decision which of Obama's curtains they would go with

Barry's no Monty Hall and Congress decided not to play "Let's Make a Deal" on his terms

and most of them took the weekend off

but the hands-down, most priceless moment was when Barry gave a press conference saying Congress should start listening to the constitutents who elected them


I guess that means since Americans by 2-1 believe Obamacare will decrease the quality of helathcare, will worsen deficits, and should be repealed, that Barry thinks Congress should get on that


July 19, 2011 6:16 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"Barry O gave Congress a deadline of Friday to make a decision which of Obama's curtains they would go with"

Nice talking point about "a deadline of Friday," Anon. As usual, you are lying. Obama's curtains? LOL How did you like Mitch's "We vote, Obama vetoes, and then he raised the debt limit himself" pirouette? Everyone sees it's the GOP who keeps playing musical plans, trying to get the votes to pass anything rather than their usual MO to "just say No!" The problem is the moment Obama likes even a GOP plan, such as the "Big Deal," then the GOP hates it.

Here's the text of what President Obama said at his July 15 press conference. There was no deadline, no ultimatum.

"Now, let me acknowledge what everybody understands: It is hard to do a big package. My Republican friends have said that they’re not willing to do revenues and they have repeated that on several occasions.

My hope, though, is that they’re listening not just to lobbyists or special interests here in Washington, but they’re also listening to the American people. Because it turns out poll after poll, many done by your organizations, show that it’s not just Democrats who think we need to take a balanced approach; it’s Republicans as well.

The clear majority of Republican voters think that any deficit reduction package should have a balanced approach and should include some revenues. That’s not just Democrats; that’s the majority of Republicans. You’ve got a whole slew of Republican officials from previous administrations. You’ve got a bipartisan commission that has said that we need revenues.

So this is not just a Democratic understanding; this is an understanding that I think the American people hold that we should not be asking sacrifices from middle-class folks who are working hard every day, from the most vulnerable in our society -- we should not be asking them to make sacrifices if we’re not asking the most fortunate in our society to make some sacrifices as well.

So I am still pushing for us to achieve a big deal. But what I also said to the group is if we can’t do the biggest deal possible, then let’s still be ambitious; let’s still try to at least get a down payment on deficit reduction. And that we can actually accomplish without huge changes in revenue or significant changes in entitlements, but we could still send a signal that we are serious about this problem.

The fallback position, the third option and I think the least attractive option, is one in which we raise the debt ceiling but we don’t make any progress on deficit and debt. Because if we take that approach, this issue is going to continue to plague us for months and years to come. And I think it’s important for the American people that everybody in this town set politics aside, that everybody in this town set our individual interests aside, and we try to do some tough stuff. And I’ve already taken some heat from my party for being willing to compromise. My expectation and hope is, is that everybody, in the coming days, is going to be willing to compromise.

The last point I’ll make and then I’ll take questions -- we are obviously running out of time. And so what I’ve said to the members of Congress is that you need, over the next 24 to 36 hours, to give me some sense of what your plan is to get the debt ceiling raised through whatever mechanisms they can think about, and show me a plan in terms of what you’re doing for deficit and debt reduction.

If they show me a serious plan, I’m ready to move, even if requires some tough decisions on my part. And I’m hopeful that over the next couple of days we’ll see logjam break -- this logjam broken, because the American people I think understandably want to see Washington do its job. All right?

So with that, let me see who’s on the list. We’re going to start with Jake Tapper..."

July 19, 2011 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"Patrick Michaels, the author of the above opinion piece is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the conservative Cato Institute."

so what?

Here's so what. Patrick Michaels is paid by the Koch brothers, who fund the Cato Institute among other conservative "think tanks" that have been specifically set up and funded to cast doubt on climate change so Koch Industries can keep pouring tons of heat trapping gasses into our air.

Michaels knows perfectly well that the comment he made is a flat-out lie created by a cheap manipulation of the data that was addressed and corrected by NOAA in 2009 when Joe Barton and Fred Upton asked NOAA about this very claim.

Here is the question "Question 1, Part (1): The testimony and related chart deriving information from the Hadley and NCDC monthly terrestrial global datasets and the RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere datasets, which showed a global cooling over the past seven years at a rate of 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century. The chart compared this apparent cooling with an IPCC central estimate prediction of a warming over this period at a rate of about 7 degrees Fahrenheit per century.

From Lord Monckton’s Testimony: “There has been global cooling for seven years”"

And here is "NOAA REPLY:

"The fact that globally averaged surface air temperature has shown no trend or even slight cooling over the last 7 years is not an accurate reflection of long-term general trends. In fact, ***calculation of a trend over the last seven years is a gross mischaracterization of the longer term trend.*** The last seven years have been part of a strong warming trend that began in the 1970s, which is attributable to human influences (IPCC, 2007). During the last seven years six of the seven warmest years on record have been all been observed based on NOAA’s global land and ocean data. Deducing long-term trends over such a short period of time is comparable to estimating the height of a sea swell by looking at the short period waves on top of the swell.

In addition to warming caused by greenhouse gases, the climate system also has natural variability, which is why one year’s temperature is different from the next. This natural variability also can result in the climate having short periods of cooling or no trend, even with strong overall warming due to increasing greenhouse gases. The table below, based on the analysis by Easterling and Wehner1, shows the probability that any ten year period will include negative trends of various magnitudes. Since 1975 there have been similar and longer periods of time where the globally averaged surface air temperature showed a slight cooling (1977-1985 and 1981-1989), yet the climate has warmed more in the past 33 years than any other time in our instrumental record. The results of Easterling and Wehner’s analysis are consistent with the model simulations used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and show that during the 21st century climate can and likely will experience decadal periods where the globally averaged surface air temperature show no trend or even cooling in the presence of a longer-term warming signal. Multiple decadal records are necessary in order to detect and attribute the effect of greenhouse gas increases in the climate system. These kinds of analyses have been performed extensively and reported on by the IPCC 2007 Assessments."

So your self-proclaimed skeptic is either a moron or a paid Koch brothers hack who knows the data was a "gross mischaracterization" used to show a period of supposed cooling but that is actually only a slight variation in a long term trend of warming.

But by all means, keep repeating the Koch brothers talking points so you can pretend there is no problem and leave it to our children to do something about it.

July 19, 2011 8:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home