Let's do some math shall we?

Although there is great debate on the actual amount of money that our government has tried to pump into our system with the old bills, the new one's and the emergency spending, the popular figure is over $9 trillion dollars.

What would that buy?

Obama says it will save or create 4 million jobs.

If he is correct, each of those 4 million jobs cost us $2,250,000 each. Where do I go to get one of those jobs?

It would also pay for 78% of all the mortgages in America, including every one of the "sub prime" mortgages that caused this whole mess.

Now I ask you, what could you do to help the economy if you no longer had to pay a mortgage payment every month?

If we had this type of money, socked away somewhere in the government's coffers, why wouldn't they pay off all our mortgages?

Answer: The government is no longer here for your benefit. They exist for their own.

Because this money is 'fiat currency' (not backed by gold), not 'specie currency' (backed by gold), your government (both Bush and Obama) have just begun printing money with reckless abandon. We don't have $9 trillion. They just made it up, born from thin air, hoping you didn't notice while you tell the surveyor that Obama get high marks for the job he's doing.

We are a country of elected morons, that we allow to ruin our future, re-elect them to continue to do nothing but pad their own pockets and the pockets of their friends.

It is time to revolt. What would our forefathers have done? Did they sit back and allow the English government to tax and spend for them?

Those who have ears let them hear

I spent a lot of time this past week, as some of you did too, studying Mathew Chapter 13. It struck me that there are a lot of similarities from that time a couple thousand years ago and our time.

In this chapter Jesus Christ taught the people in parables. Why did he teach them in parables? His reasons were two fold.

First, parables are a unique way of telling everyone a story that has multiple meanings. To some, it meant a nice little story. To others it had deep meaning that they needed to ponder. But to those who knew, it meant specific things in specific ways, that had specific results.

Second, it was a way to convey information out in the open, even though it might not be for everyone who can hear.

Thus the saying, "Let those who have ears hear."

Right now we are in the midst of an economic crisis which the prevailing government has chosen to use to grab power, change the course of our country, disrupt Conservative beliefs and morals, and implement their own. It is nothing less than a pivotal point in our country's development.

They are buying votes with special interest spending.

Right now the president is going on a whirlwind tour to get people to accept his Spedulis Plan. He wants people to pressure congress, no scratch that, Republicans to vote for the bill.

Problem: He doesn't need the votes. If the democrats wanted to pass the bill there is nothing the Republicans can do about it. They just need to vote and be done with it.

But they won't. Not without Republican finger prints on it.

"Let those with ears hear, and those with eyes see."

Why don't the Democrats vote for it pass it and get on with it if it is so important?

Why will they not risk their own political capital by passing it themselves?

Why are they so concerned about Republican support?

"Let those with ears hear, and those with eyes see."

Why don't the democrats scale down the bill, cross over and add some of the Republican ideas to get more support?

Why are democrats hell bent on leaving in spending that has no place in a stimulus bill, that if they took it out, it would have more support?

Why is the president traveling and rallying support for a bill written in congress that the White House only had a small amount of input on?

"Let those with ears hear, and those with eyes see."

Wake Up Call

As I watch the news, which I rarely do anymore, I see people gushing at this new political wonder. Pick any station ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC they all have a serious, unabashed, flaunting crush on the liberals and Obama. They swoon when he talks, they're hearts go all a flutter when he meets with them, and their news casts do everything they can to give him the best possible light, while trying to do all they can (without even a morsel of regret) to destroy anyone who has a conservative voice or opinion.

So here's some common sense:

You're a moron if you think Obama is going to spend his way out of this recession. Go read about FDR and how his spending didn't stop the depression only WWII did that.

You're a moron if you think that the world is going to be safer with liberals in charge. Muslim extremists don't want to sit around a campfire and sing, give you a hug, or exchange phone numbers. They want to kill you, me and everyone else.

You're a moron if you think that Obama's energy policy is going to help you in any way. He does not want to drill anywhere. He does not want nuclear power. He does not want coal. He does not want to process shell. All he wants to do is tax the oil companies and harness wind and solar. You are simply a moron if you think that is going to help our country.

You're a moron if you think that "sharing wealth" helps you. Obama and his liberal lackeys can spread the wealth around all they want, but it won't ever do two things. One, it will not create jobs. Two, it will not help people climb out of the dole.

You're a moron if you think Global Warming is science rather than political. For years people who did not believe all the rhetoric about G.W. were made fun of. Now it is my turn to laugh. You are a moron if you believe that it is more about science than it is about politics.

You're a moron if you think that the government will create jobs.

You're a moron if you think that congress is there to help you.

You're a moron if you think that actors or actresses in Hollywood should be listened to just because they have a stage to say something.

You're a moron if you listen to the news without thinking, What a bunch of morons.

How did you get to be a moron? Go back and watch more news until you figure it out.

Go Big for the Environment: Refridgerator Lust

O.K. this is the dumbest thing I have ever read in my entire life.

People are unplugging their refrigerators for good, to lessen their carbon footprint.

(ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, breathe, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, wipe tears, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, breathe, ha ha ha ha ha ha whoops, sorry, I wet myself a little.)

No seriously, it's a badge of honor that they can get ride of their refrigerator. See for yourself,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/garden/05fridge.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

My favorite part of the article is :

"PEOPLE who do best without a refrigerator often have certain built-in lifestyle advantages — they live alone and don’t have to cook large meals for a family, say, or they live on a farm or within walking distance of a grocery store."

So these people, these enlightened ones, who are the shinning light of liberalism and enviromentalnuttyism, live where? Big cities, liberal bastions on either coast?

I once heard a comedian say that if the power went out in NYC that within a week, half the population will cannibalize the other half.

Without fridges, it will happen a lot sooner.

This is stupid because these are the same people who go out to eat at restaurants, WHO USE POWER. They want to shop at grocery stores, THAT USE POWER. They ride public transportation, THAT USE POWER. And they live in cities, THAT USE POWER! What good is giving away your fridge to lesson the "carbon footprint" if everything else you do in your life also takes power?

Idiots. Power monks. Carbon Nazi's. The article actually says we have refrigerator lust. Morons. I got a better way for you to lesson your carbon footprint that won't be so annoying. Move to the woods, take off all your cloths, and live like the animals you think you evolved from. I bet monkey's carbon footprint is ZERO!

Oh, and by the way, the reason that they live alone is not because they don't have a refrigerator, it is because they don't believe in showering either. "Water is precious, why waste it on our bodies."

Why do they need so much money?

As I read through this "stimulus" bill I keep thinking to myself, why do they need all this money? Then today I read this quote:

The great French economist Frédéric Bastiat called politics “the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

I want to put something in focus for you. I was a "Community Organizer" in a differnt life. Except I ran a grant to work with gang kids in the early 1990's.

• My budget was more money then Obama's.
• I employed more people than Obama did.
• I got paid 1/10th of what he got paid.

When I was at budgeting meetings, I was told that whatever I did, I needed to expand my budget. I needed to figure out how to use anything, any crisis, any event, I could to get more money from the state, the feds, and from private donnors. That was the name of the game. "Expand while you can."

This governement is using your fears for power grab. But, I still can't figure out what the end game is.

Can someone please tell me what liberals gain if they win the country, but kill the economy?

Queen Pelosi Speaks

Want to see what type of idiots are running your congress?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E

And people thought GW was an idiot.

Queen Pelosi is a moron.

I bet you didn't know that you lost your job twice yesterday, twice today, and twice every day her spending package isn't approved. This means you have lost your job a total of thirty-two (32) times since Obama took office.

Moron. I can't believe this is who people chose to lead them.

Democracy 101: For those who missed it the first time.

You don't live in a democracy. You don't vote on anything but who represents you. Then they go to Washington and they vote in your behalf. They are supposed to be honest, trustworthy, and good. They are supposed to weigh the issues, study it out in their minds, and make the best decisions possible. They are supposed to represent the people.

They do not, and are not those people. This congress is the most corrupt congress in the history of your country. they neither care about you, nor do they care about how you feel.

Want proof?

Rep. Jim Cooper, a conservative Democrat from Tennessee, told a liberal radio network on Monday that the Obama White House encouraged him to defy House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the $819 billion economic stimulus bill.

"Well, I probably shouldn't tell you this, but I actually got some quiet encouragement from the Obama folks for what I'm doing," said Cooper, one of only 11 Democrats to vote against the economic stimulus plan that passed the House last week.

"They know it's a messy bill and they wanted a clean bill," he said. "Now, I got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don't care what's in the bill, they just want it to pass and they want it to be unanimous."

Cooper, whose startling admission came on Liberadio, was one of about 55 House Democrats to sign a letter criticizing Pelosi for suspending debate and committee rules on the fiscal package.

"They don't mind the partisan fighting cause that's what they are used to. In fact, they're really good at it -- and they're a little bit worried about what a post-partisan future might look like," Cooper said during the radio interview. "If members actually had to read the bills and figure out whether they are any good or not. We're just told how to vote. We're treated like mushrooms most of the time."

Still think this government is representing you well? Think that they are doing a good job?

If you do, you're a moron.

I guess I don't have enough money for them to represent me.

Short, But Not So Sweet

I was contemplating the state of our Union when it occurred to me. . .

Bush stuck by his guns, believed in his morals, did not falter in the face of opposition and was hated.

Clinton swayed like a leaf in the wind, used polls to make policy decisions, crumbled when opposed and was loved by liberals everywhere.

Obama says one thing and does another, talks more about nothing of substance than any president in history, thinks it nothing in saying whatever is necessary to substantiate his position, and is considered a Messiah.

We are one screwed up country.

I am scared at how stupid we have become.

Nice Tax Plan

Now that the Dems have taken over I think we should stop doing what they say and just do what they do.

Charlie Rangel, Timothy Geithner, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and most recently Tom Daschle have all NOT paid taxes. That's right all the Dems leadership thinks that it is O.K. for everyone else to pay taxes, as long as they don't have to.

Can they honestly say they didn't know? What idiot believes them? Oh, that's right, Obamacrak addicts that are still filled with hope and excitement from his amazing performance so far. Great job reeling in congress there buddy. You're way ahead of my schedule for ruining this country.

Remember when the Republicans had all thier little issues. People lost their jobs, the media went nuts and the public attacked.

Gosh it's quite. (chirp, chirp) Where is the media now? Where is the public outcry?

I guess that's what I get for having morals, and a job, and paying my taxes.

I'll just grab my ankles.

Here's another marble.

All Governments Lie: Liberals just do it better

Democrats would have you believe that Bush's Lie about the Iraq WMD was the world biggest, but they are wrong. Their own lie about global warming is the biggest, and has been going on since the 1950's.

This is how governments get brain dead citizens to go along with their agendas. They lie. Then they lie to cover up the lie. Just like a three year old. The problem is there are no adults to call them on the carpet. Most people don't care, don't have time to care, and don't know enough to care. They have been taught to ignore government. Taught by the government to not notice.

So here's when people will care. 10 years from now when the U.S. is nothing more than a "has been," and China and Russia are making all the financial decisions and reaping the rewards. You see, China couldn't give a rat's &$% about global warming. Just like we didn't in the early 20th century. They are going to use all their natural resources and not look back, just like we did. So will Russia. They will grow while we shrink with excess taxes and regulation.

How do I know this? READ HISTORY PEOPLE! We know that China is in the same position we were in in the 1940's after World War II. They are about to explode economically. They have more resources, more people, more savings (Capital), and LESS REGULATION! While your new government is worrying about carbon footprint, China is going to pass us and become the world's super power.

Let me put it another way. We don't make anything anymore. 3 out of 4 jobs in the U.S. exist ONLY because others have the money for excess stuff. Cell phones, Big screen T.V.'s, Luxury cars, bigger houses, processed food. But when we fail as an economy, all of those things go away, so do the jobs. Why would it go away? Oh, I don;t know, maybe because we are borrowing $4 billion dollars a day to just keep afloat? Our government is spending out of control. Look at the indications, they are spending without abandon, without oversight, and without a plan. WHY? because they don't know how to stop what is going on!

We don't recover from this. Either we crash economically, or we regulate ourselves into oblivion. The government is telling you with flashy speeches that everything is going to be O.K.

Remember the title of this piece: All governments lie. Believe them if you want.

Call me a fear monger if you want. The signs of the times don't lie. Neither does history.

Here's proof the the Global warming Lie.

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam
By John Coleman

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints.

Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led the public to be skeptical that any runaway global warning. There is now awareness that there may be reason to question whether CO2 is a pollutant and a significant greenhouse gas.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government? And how will we ever stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It's a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when they are asked about we skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over. And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman

1-28-2009