Thursday, November 27, 2014

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

A Salute To America's Greatest - Watch and Weep!!


Author: Unknown - Not a conspiracy!!- just interesting legitimate questions that continue to be asked and not answered about our Presdident
It will be interesting to see what they put in his "Presidential Library" about his early years, when he is out of office. In a country where we take notice of many, many facets of our public figures' lives, doesn't seem odd that there's so little we know about our current president, Barack Obama.

For example, we know that Andrew Jackson's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery; Abe Lincoln never went to school; Jack Kennedy wore a back brace; Harry Truman played the piano.

As Americans, we enjoy knowing details about our newsmakers, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president. It is strange that no one who ever dated him has shown up. The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign, certainly would, in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself. We all know about JFK's magnetism, that McCain was no monk and quite a few details about Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess. Joe Biden's aneurisms and hair plugs are no secret; look at Cheney and Clinton, we know about their heart problems. Certainly Wild Bill Clinton's exploits before and during his White House years, were well known. That's why it's so odd, that not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was so-oo shy..." or "What a great dancer..."

It's virtually impossible to know anything about this fellow. Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen. Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.

When did he meet Michele, and how? Are there photos? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library. What has he released?

Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from President Obama's past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend and so on? Not one person has ever come forward from his past.

As insignificant as each of us might be, someone with whom we went to school will remember our name or face, someone will remember we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.

George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia -- the class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him.

If he is such a great orator, why doesn't anyone in Obama's college class remember him? Why won't he allow Columbia to release his records? Nobody remembers Obama at Columbia University. Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there... but none remembered him.

Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a Political Science major at Columbia, who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root said of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia, ever." Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, Class of '83 Political Science, and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of, as we say in New York , 'the macha' who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."

Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.

Some other interesting questions:

Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002? It is said there is no record of him ever taking the Bar exam.

Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order? We understand that was forced, in order to avoid criminal fraud charges.

It is circulating that, according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama, but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases connected to him. The Social Security number he uses now, originated in Connecticut, where he is never reported to have lived. It was originally registered to another man (Thomas Louis Wood) from Connecticut, who died in Hawaii while on vacation there. As we all know, Social Security Numbers are only issued 'once, they are not re-used'

Finally - why are all of his records sealed?

Saturday, November 8, 2014

America's Greatest!!

Paul Anka wrote this for Frank Sinatra, and only a violin can make this sound as beautiful as it truly is.


Monday, November 3, 2014

Global Warming a.k.a "Climate Change" - Only A Question Of Which Scientsts Do You Want To Believe

Gaining a simple objective layman's understanding of this issue is impossible - since money and politics are in play:
  • Energy company and conservative think tank dollars only support the scientist skeptics; 
  • Liberal think tanks and Democrat and socialist controlled government dollars only support the scientist believers;-
  • Zero government dollars are ever given to skeptical scientists - they have to raise their own funds to support their research.
  • Most Democrats (all liberals) are believers.
  • Most Republicans (all conservatives) are skeptics.    
There are a plethora of articles - easily searched on the web, supporting the point that "97% of scientIsts" are believers.  Here is the other side of that story;

Here is the list of the scientist skeptics - never published and completely ignored by the mainstream liberal media:

Freeman Dyson

Freeman Dyson
Physicist Freeman Dyson has been a giant in his field for decades. But the British-born, Princeton-based professor has gained notoriety for his "heretical" views on climate change. While he does acknowledge the mechanism by which man-made greenhouse gasses can influence the climate, he claims current models are way too simplistic to capture what's really going on in the real world. In March, he was featured in the NYT Magazine for his controversial views.

Bjorn Lomborg

Bjorn Lomborg
Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish-based scientist, famous for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. Like Dyson, he's not an outright denier, but rather he thinks the current approach to global warming is misguided and that the costs of drastic, short-term action are too high. Instead, he thinks we should focus on becoming more adaptable, while putting more effort into such real-world tragedies as AIDS and malaria.

Myron Ebell

Myron Ebell
Myron Ebell may be enemy #1 to the current climate change community. Ebell works for the free-market thinktank Competitive Enterprise Institute and, according to his own bio, has been called a climate "criminal" and a leading pusher of misleading ideas.

Kiminori Itoh

Kiminori Itoh
Japanese scientist Kiminori Itoh is the author of Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affair. Like many others, Itoh does not reject the notion of global warming entirely, but instead claims that the causes are far more complex than the anti-carbon crowd would have you believe. You can read an introduction to his views here at Climate Science.

Ivar Giaever

Ivar Giaever
Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, isn't a thought leader, per se, in the climate skeptics scene -- but the mere fact that he has come out as being a skeptic and has a Nobel Prize makes him important. His big beef is that climate change orthodoxy has become a "new religion" for scientists, and that the data isn't nearly as compelling as it should be to get this kind of conformity.

Will Happer

Will Happer
Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.
In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:
The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.

Ian Plimer

Ian Plimer
Australian professor Ian Plimer is the author of Heaven + Earth, a book that purports to debunk all of the major global warming "myths."
Here's the blurb for his book, laying out his general beliefs:
The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis tha humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don’t wait up.

Michael Crichton

Michael Crichton
The famous author Michael Crichton has, of course, passed away, but through his fiction and non-fiction writings he remains an important popularizer of scientific ideas, so we're including him. His 2005 speech to the National Press Club arguing for global warming skepticism can be found here.
Here's what he says about scientific consensus:

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.  Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.  In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Alan Carlin

Alan Carlin
Alan Carlin is an EPA economist who wrote a paper calling global warming a "hoax." It's not really important what he said or what he believed or even whether his argument makes any sense at all. What's important is that he's become a right-wing celebrity over the belief that he was censored by the EPA for being a heretic (hence getting to appear on Glenn Beck)

Patrick Michaels

Patrick Michaels
Patrick Michaels is a CATO scholar and a GMU professor who's widely quoted as a global warming skeptic. His basic belief is that we're in a long-term warming trend and that Carbon Dioxoide has got little to do with it, as each additional greenhouse gas molecule has less and less of an effect.

Read more:

Thursday, October 30, 2014

The Truth On Tax Rates - Is It Time For Change?

Here is what happened on January 1, 2014

Top Medicare tax went from 1.45% to 2.35%
Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%

Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 28%
Dividends tax went from 15% to 39.6%
Estate tax went from 0% to 55%

These taxes were all passed only with Democrat Party votes, no Republicans voted
for these taxes.

These taxes were all passed under the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

Democracy Under Attack In America - Exploding The Myth: Republicans Are The Problem

Wall Street Journal - October 29 , 2014

With Election Day approaching, so is the democratic day of reckoning for the Democratic Senate class of 2008. Those are the Senators who gave President Obama and Nancy Pelosi the accidental 60-vote supermajority they needed to pass the burst of liberal legislation in 2009-2010 that had been pent-up for a generation—especially ObamaCare.
Now these Senators are all again on the ballot, most of them pretending in one way or another that they have had little to do with that agenda, or want to reform it, or are really the solution to gridlock.
The truth is that they are the main Washington problem. As President Obama said last week, they “are all folks who vote with me; they have supported my agenda.”
They have also been handmaidens to Harry Reid , the Majority Leader who has devoted the last four years to protecting Mr. Obama while turning the Senate into the world’s least deliberative body. Next Tuesday’s vote is above all a referendum on whether the Senate will spend two more years in this Obama-Reid dead zone.
Start with the unlikely way some of them won election in 2008. Alaska Democrat Mark Begich barely beat Ted Stevens after Justice Department lawyers withheld exculpatory evidence in a corruption case against him. A jury found Stevens guilty eight days before the election. Mr. Begich won by 47.8% to 46.5% on false pretenses and deserves defeat now on those grounds alone.
But there’s also his record, or lack of one, including the startling fact that he has never been allowed a roll-call vote on an amendment he has offered. Not once in six years. This is because Mr. Reid has deliberately blocked the normal flow of Senate debate so Democrats won’t have a voting record that folks at home might notice.
Or take Minnesota’s Al Franken, who trailed Republican Norm Coleman on Election Day but strong-armed a legal challenge to win the recount by 312 votes. He then became the 60th vote for ObamaCare, and now he is running for re-election by claiming he wants to repeal the law’s medical devices tax that is unpopular in Minnesota. Too bad Mr. Reid has blocked a binding vote on repeal so Mr. Franken and other Democrats can claim to favor repeal without having to do it.
Then there’s Jeanne Shaheen, the New Hampshire Democrat who won in 2008 by opposing the war in Iraq and embracing all things Obama. She too was the decisive vote for ObamaCare. Now she too claims to want to fix it, not that she has succeeded in getting a vote to do so.
Amid the health-care rollout in February, Ms. Shaheen said “I think we need to fix the things that are not working, and that’s what I am committed to.” But by Oct. 22 she had backtracked to proposing merely “an independent CEO and advisory committee that would oversee the health-care website, because we saw some issues with the rollout of the website.” Translation: If she wins, she’ll do whatever Mr. Obama asks.
We could continue down the list: Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Udall of Colorado. They are all Mr. Obama’s children and Mr. Reid’s lieutenants.
In the media’s telling, gridlock in Washington is due to tea party pressure on House Republicans to resist Mr. Obama’s agenda. There is some of that, reflecting different views of government. But at least the House debates and votes in plain sight. Mr. Reid won’t allow the normal give and take of democratic voting and accountability that is the reason to have a legislature.
The Reid shutdown runs even to the core legislative function of funding the government. The House has passed seven of 12 annual appropriations bills, most with big bipartisan majorities. Chairman Barbara Mikulski has passed eight of the 12 out of her Senate Appropriations Committee, and Republicans wanted to debate. Mr. Reid blocked a floor vote on every one.
The GOP has wanted to put Democrats on record on Mr. Obama’s regulatory overreach, such as targeting coal for extinction, or on the Administration’s refusal to fast-track approval for natural gas exports that might help Europe become less dependent on Vladimir Putin . No votes allowed.
Wyoming Republican John Barrasso kept a running tally of Mr. Reid’s amendment blockade through July. In the previous 12 months Senators introduced 1,952 amendments—1,105 from Republicans and 847 from Democrats. Mr. Reid blocked all but 19.
Legislation? Mr. Reid has blocked at least 10 bills sent to him by the House that passed with notable bipartisan support. Some 35 House Democrats voted with Republicans to delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate; 46 Democrats voted to expedite the approval of liquefied natural gas exports; 130 Democrats voted for patent-reform legislation; 158 Democrats voted to expand access to charter schools; and 183 Democrats voted (in a bill that passed 406-1) to exempt certain veterans from the ObamaCare employer mandate. Mr. Reid’s response: No debate, no vote.
As the election nears, many voters are asking if a Republican Senate would make a difference. The Beltway media line is that it wouldn’t, which ignores that Mr. Reid’s tactics are an historic aberration. How could the Senate possibly be any worse? Mr. Obama would retain his veto against legislation passed by a Republican House and Senate, but at least the legislators would have to vote and be accountable. At least Congress would again resemble a democracy.

All Gave Some - Some Gave All

A Golden Oldy - Worth Seeing Again and Again!!

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Conundrums Of Socialism In America

      1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.
      2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.
      3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

      4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

      5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other
          countries only dream about.

      6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about -
          yet they want America to be more like those other countries.