The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

Still Think It’s All About “Pollution”?

By

Joanne Nova does the math and provides its empirical evidence to back up what many of us have been saying for some time now.  The science of gobal warming is a myth designed solely as a means for a few to gain power and control through the creation of a new kind of commodity, sold to the dim-witted using the psychology of fear.

She sums it up like this:

  • The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
  • Despite the billions:  “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
  • Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
  • Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

She then poses the question:

  • The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

We’ve pointed out here that “researchers” at the IPCC are contracted to and paid for by governments with vested interests in dreams of wealth and political power from cap & trade.  Governments who are egged on, and the politicians within them financially supported, by people like Al Gore and by companies like General Electric, who’ve already invested heavily in and positioned themselves with, in particular, the United States government in order to monopolize what they see as potential of a new world market.

If this were simply capitalism, I’d be all for it.  But like the empirical science that says global warming is an inconvenient myth, the empirical math once again proves the insanity of trying to fix what was never broken in the first place.

 

The Transparency Of Promises

By

Many of us saw through the rhetoric long before the November election.  Many are only now starting to see that the meaning of words is only important when it suits Barack Obama and his personal agenda. 

Wrangling votes for the “cap and trade” legislation in the House, Obama backed off a campaign promise to auction off all “allowances” – permits to release a set amount of greenhouse gases. Instead of selling them to raise money for other environmental initiatives, the White House allowed congressional Democratic leaders to trade them for votes, assigning allowances to the refinery-heavy district of, for instance, Texas Rep. Gene Green in exchange for his support.

Obama’s political operation has dispensed with its post-inauguration cocktails for Republicans – or more often, ignoring them outright — in favor of the old politics of engage, attack and cajole. Obama’s even engaging in a little Democrat-on-Democrat politics, as his ex-campaign arm is beaming TV ads into the home states of moderate fence-sitters on health care.

Wanting “health care reform” legislation shoved willy-nilly and unread through both the House and the Senate before the August recess, and

As unemployment rises and economic forecasts sour, the White House has delayed until August the release of its mid-year budget review, which is likely to include a revised projection of the 2009 deficit.

“Let’s be honest about what this is: an attempt to hide a record-breaking deficit as Democratic leaders break arms to rush through a government takeover of healthcare,” said John Boehner of Ohio, the top Republican in the House of Representatives.

“By burying this budget update until after Congress leaves town next month, the administration is not willing to own up to the consequences of this dangerous fiscal agenda,” he said.

The White House Office of Management and Budget called the delay normal for the first year of a new presidential term.

Normal?  Maybe.  But under the circumstances, it is simply another example of the dangerous recklessness and lack of transparency that has become the hallmark of this administration.  It’s even beginning to dawn on Obama’s close allies in Congress (though more probably because they fear for their own relection bids than because of any legitimate morals or principles or respect of law).

In a signing statement accompanying the $106 billion [war spending] bill, Obama said [in June] he wouldn’t allow the legislation to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.

Earlier in his six-month-old administration, Obama issued a similar statement regarding provisions in a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. He also included qualifying remarks when signing legislation that established commissions to govern public lands in New York, investigate the financial crisis and celebrate Ronald Reagan’s birthday.

Now Representative David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee; Representative Nita Lowey and Representative Gregory Meeks, both of New York, who chair subcommittees on those panels, have taken exception to this Executive Branch overstepping of boundaries set by Congress within pieces of legislation and even put their “concerns” in writing:

“During the previous administration, all of us were critical of (Bush’s) assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce.  We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.”

Bummer, Reps.  Welcome to the world of your constituents.

Cap & Traders Shanghaiing America

By

Reuters reported on Friday that Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai that Americans should pay for China’s greenhouse polluting.

Yes, you read that right.  Americans and our consumption of Chinese-made goods is the reason China is such a big global warming bad guy.

“It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that.”

Ummm…ok, Gary.  Why don’t you explain to Americans just how that jives with the fact that China’s pollution is a result of their production of steel, cement, aluminium, paper and chemicals, most of which are consumed in China rather than exported?

In contrast, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come mainly from domestic consumption, such as fuels to heat and cool buildings and to power vehicles.  Only about 25 percent of U.S. emissions are caused by factories.

De Nile about global warming ain’t just a river in Egypt any more.  Apparently it’s now also a river in China down which Americans are being shanghaied.

Michigan’s Gary Peters Covets Your Tax Dollars

By

There’s a new ad running on Michigan television this month.  It’s asking the people of Michigan to call state representative Gary Peters (D-MI 9th District) and thank him for his support of clean energy.  Why?

As Henry Payne notes in a piece for the National Review, “…windmills can’t power 80-acre auto plants. Never mind conservative think tank studies that predict a doubling in utility rates and a 74 percent increase in gas prices if cap-and-trade should pass. President Obama himself knows that cap-and-trade would be costly to consumers — which is why candidate Obama promised that the proceeds from the tax would be redistributed to consumers.“

 So why the tv ads?  As always, follow the money.

The ad is paid for by Al Gore.  Who stands to make billions off cap & trade.

The Detroit News reported back in May that Peters, et Midwest-al, cut deals with the government to use a series of government programs to funnel your hard-earned tax money and the increased costs you will pay under the boat anchor of cap & trade over to the auto companies and the unions.  Programs buried in that 1,300+ page cap & trade bill that no one in the House could have read even if they’d wanted to before they voted to pass it.

So Peters, et Midwest-al, can later rake in millions in campaign contributions from the auto companies and the labor unions.

Feel free to let Gary Peters know what you think of his efforts for the state with the nation’s highest rate of unemployment and his plans for your future tax dollars by clicking HERE.

Quote Of The Day

By

Well, actually two of them.  From Tuesday’s Congressional record.

 

“Mr. Speaker, we voted on cap-and-trade, or cap-and-tax, here in this House; and a lot of people are wondering what the American people think about it, what does the rest of the country think about it, and what does the world think about it. Well, the votes are in from the elitists. We’ve just heard from Great Britain’s Prince Charles who tells us unless the rest of the world follows us, we only have 96 months until basically the end of this planet. He says, we ought to stop this idea of consumerism, and we’ve got to stop the little people from being able to advance themselves. Oh, only the elites. Then there is Vice President Gore; and he, appearing across the pond, said, The passage of cap-and-trade is the best step towards global governance that we’ve ever seen.

 “So you may wonder what the people in Detroit think. You may wonder what the people out of work in my district think. But we know what the elites think – Thank God for cap-and-trade so we can keep the little people where they belong. They don’t deserve any advancement in the economy. But let the princes of the world continue lecturing the rest of us.”

(Senator Daniel Lungren, R-CA)

 
“Mr. Speaker, last week I offered House Resolution 615 which, paraphrased, says, Members of Congress who vote for a government-run health care option agree to opt out of the current congressional exchange of private insurance choices and accept the same government-run program for themselves. The people are tired of this body making laws and crafting programs without having to face the consequences of the votes cast for them. So I challenge Members to cosponsor my resolution and publicly pledge that they will use the same government-run plan they vote for to care for themselves and their families. If it is good enough for American families, it should be good enough for families of Members of Congress. Furthermore, I challenge the American people to hold their Representatives responsible for their actions in this regard by urging their Representatives to support this resolution. The American people deserve health care that is affordable but does not allow the government to interfere with the sacred doctor-patient relationship.”

(Representative John Fleming, R-LA, MD)

Waxman In Their Ears

By

Henry Waxman is feeling like a big shot these days, what with the narrow passage of the unavailable and unread 1,300+ page cap & trade bill and a new book hitting the liberal spin market. 

He’s feeling so big, in fact, that normal concerns expressed by any responsible person who wonders how you pay for something when you not only have no money, but have massive amounts of debt and no way to repay it, now earn the Waxman’s scornful moniker of “unpatriotic”.  Yes, Americans, in Henry Waxman’s world, if you don’t think you should spend money you don’t have, you’re some sort of a traitor.  In his own words:  “…want(ing) to deny President Obama success … means, in my mind … rooting against the country, as well.”

Sorry, Henry, old boy, but fiscal responsibility is both as sensible and as patriotic as baseball and apple pie.  No matter how you twist facts, no matter how much Obama and now the G8 think they can control Nature (laughably, today they all agreed to “keep” the Earth’s temperature from rising no more than 3 degrees Farenheit), the truth is that you are only trying to force your will upon the majority for the ill-gotten gains of a few.  And patriotic Americans, those who support her and the Constitution upon which she was founded, can see right through it and will continue to call it by its proper name.

Wrong.

The Great & Powerful O…bama?

By

Logic.  It’s a beautiful thing.  It’s also the stuff of which common sense is made.  Life is made up of continually connecting the dots and coming to a conclusion.  It’s not rocket science, though rocket science and, indeed, all science does basically this very same thing.

If….

Then….

Else….

When you fall off a horse and find yourself unable to move one of your arms without severe pain, you go see a doctor who will x-ray your hurting arm.  If it’s broken, then the doctor will set it so it will heal properly, else they will send you home with instructions to take pain medication and take it easy for a while.

When you’re driving down the highway at night and your car stalls, you pull over to the side of the road and look at the gas gauge.  If it’s on empty then you will call for help, else you’ll walk down the highway to the nearest exit (or sit there unhappily, hoping someone will notice your plight and stop).

There is a difference between “hard science” and what is often called “soft science”.  Hard science is the realm of mathmeticians, biologists, engineers, etc.  They work with hard facts (1 + 1 = 2) and conclusions are based on the ability to consistently repeat a scenario.  This is why your lights turn on when you flip a switch, how your doctor knows when to prescribe an antiobiotic and which one will work, and how man got to the Moon and back.  It is the source of your reading this font on your monitor screen.

Soft science, on the other hand, mimics hard science in its attempts to validate a conclusion but, very simply speaking, its conclusions are far more likely to be mere possibility than real probability because the number of variables is simply far too large to get easily from point A to point B.  Soft science is the realm of psychologists, sociologists, even astrologers.  For example, psychologists study human behavior and tell us things like people who torture animals as children are more likely to grow up to be something really bad, like serial killers.  Astrologers look at a “map” of the time of a person’s birth and tell us of things for which a person has the most affinity.  Because of its inherent element of chance (i.e. too many variables to calculate, often called “choice”), soft science has always been far more fascinating to a majority of people, as evidenced by the never-ending speculation on the predictions of Nostradamus, the Mayans (2012, anyone?), the Bible, etc., as well as documentaries about everyone who doesn’t live a “normal life”, from Jesus to Charles Manson to Michael Jackson. 

People often confuse the two, however, and this is when you find “hard” scientists mocking their “soft”-studying counterparts.  Personally, I believe both sides have a place at the table but it is important to understand what that place is, what it really means for each to be in their proper place, and only then place your bets accordingly.  Think of hard science like putting your money in a savings account.  You’re guaranteed to draw interest on it and come out ahead.  Soft science is like buying a lottery ticket or investing in the stock market.  You may – or you may not – come out a winner.

Confusing the two can also have deadly consequences.  One example is the Holocaust.  Scientists of the “soft” kind determined there was something wrong with Jews, insisted their “hard” counterparts prove their conclusions, and we all know how that worked for everyone involved.  (Well, everyone knows it except a handful of pinheads like Iranian President Ahmadinejad.) 

On the subject of global warming we find a mix of hard and soft science coming together in a way almost as terrifying as the Holocaust.  Hard science is telling us one thing (humans are having little to no effect on the cyclical climate of the Earth) but soft science is telling us something else.  Did I mention that soft science is more often than not influenced by the personal psychology of the scientist?  You can pick up a stone and put it in a bucket, then pick up another stone and put into the bucket, too, then look in the bucket and see two stones.  A hard scientist who calculated there would be three stones in the bucket sees the two stones as tangible proof their calculations were wrong and instead of denying what they see, go back to examine where they messed up (original premise? method? mathmatical equation?).  Then they repeat their experiment and eventually end up with a final, documented conclusion that putting one stone in a bucket, then another stone in the bucket will always give you two stones in the bucket.  In the case of global warming, though the calculations of (government-supported, meaning vested interest-personal agenda) scientists have found to be wrong, instead of going back to find the flaws in their premise, methods, or calculations, the sponsors of the hard scientists (driven by soft scientists) are insisting that they simply throw away any data that doesn’t support their mistakes.   The scientists are, in effect, being told that the speck of dirt left in the bucket because someone didn’t clean it out before they used it to hold the stones must count as their third stone. 

This is a case of hard science shifting away from its original purpose and thereby jumping with both feet into the murky pond of prognostication.  All for the personal gain of a select few.  Of particular amusement is the involvment of President Obama.  Apparently, attempting to usurp the second coming wasn’t enough, it sounds as if he also wants to usurp Nostradamus’ place in our National Enquirer-minded history.  Witness his fortunetelling:

“A long-term benefit is we’re leaving a planet to our children that isn’t four or five degrees hotter.”  (June 25, 2009)

His presidency would be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”  (2008 campaign)

President Obama has also claimed he can snap his fingers and we’ll “block the Sun’s rays to end global warming.”

Simply because his one voice carries to the ears of the most Americans doesn’t change the truth.  The truth that what he says is wrong.  Wrong based on the hard facts of hard science.  So don’t confuse facts with “hopes”.  In the same way the Great & Powerful Oz was eventually revealed to be just a man, the stars might lie, but the numbers never do.

 

(Thanks to our friends at Climate Depot for this morning’s inspiration.)

What Would You Do For A Klondike Bar?

By

Nancy Pelosi would apparently do just about anything.  Closed-door strong-arming of Representatives in the Oval Office with not only the President but his whole family on hand Thursday night while Waxman frantically threw together another 300-page amendment, passing out Dove bars and other concessionary amendments to special interests, kicking Al Gore out of Washington so as not to remind folks that H.R. 2454 wouldn’t be on the table without the false premise of global warming, and forcing an ill-prepared House to a hasty vote as the truth begins to bubble up; all so she could say, “We passed transformational legislation which takes us into the future.”

Well, Nancy, I don’t think the future you’re envisioning, the one in which your stock in CLNE makes you even richer and Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management makes him even richer (with the help of none other than Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson; just in case you ever wondered why Goldman Sachs didn’t do a Wall Street meltdown, too) is quite as sure a bet any more.

Friday’s House vote to increase American’s tax burden passed by a very slim margin.  As we’ve already noted, it swung on the political suicide votes of 8 Republicans who threw their constituents under the Obama short bus, and bodes ill for the 44 Democrats who did the right thing and voted against it.  (Votes which, ironically and also previously noted, were for a bill that didn’t even exist; I strongly suggest that, no matter where you live, calls be made tomorrow to the 8 Republican traitors telling them to change their vote since they have 5 days in which to do so.)  The gibbering House monkeys swing on their ropes much farther to the left than do the more conservative mindsets in the Senate so its less-than-stellar passage leaves the door open for what some are already acknowledging as its Senate defeat.

And such defeat certainly seems more and more possible as word gets out that turning pollution into a commodity, with trading managed by new companies formed by those with vested, political interests (Al Gore, GE, etc.) as well as Wall Street’s Geithner-overseen involvement, solely to “maybe” reduce the Earth’s temperature by 2/10 of a degree in some 50 years but significantly increasing the cost of everything touched by recession-struggling American hands today is, to quote sensible Ohio Representative John Boehner, “a piece of shit”.

This can’t be very comforting to the Polar Bear Specialist Group (a set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission), who is meeting right now to figure out how to further their own agenda.  An agenda that – how else? – hinges on monies coming from those who believe in the myth of global warming.

What is most telling is not who will be there, but instead, who will not.  Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a renouned Canadian biologist who has studied the polar bear for 30 years, was told his presence is not welcome.  Why?  Why wouldn’t a polar bear “specialist group” want the credibility of someone who knows polar bears inside and out?  Trust the British to give us the scoop:

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears:  “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.

Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful“. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG“.

That’s right.  Dr. Taylor’s research disproves the global warming theory so he is now become persona non grata.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

 And it seems that those currents aren’t a long-term problem, either:

The average temperature at [Arctic] midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year’s recovery from its September 2007 low, this year’s ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time.

Recovery.  Nice word, isn’t it?  I’m sure it’s a big relief to these poster children of Al Gore and all the environmentist groups who have used them to encourage you to part with your hard-earned dollars to donate in support their “fight global warming” efforts, too:

AmandaByrdPolarBearsSummer2004

 

But this amazing image isn’t what those who want your donations would have you believe.  It was discredited 2 years ago.  Al Gore and the “charities” in support of the global warming myth first used this photograph in their propoganda, saying it had been taken by “Canadian environmentalists”.  A big, fat, bald-faced lie.

The student who took the photograph…gives a slightly different account: ‘They were on the ice when we found them and on the ice when we left. They were healthy, fat and seemed comfortable on their iceberg.’

Amanda Byrd, an Australian graduate student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), says she took the picture around three years ago – in the summer.  The photograph was not ‘taken by environmentalists’ but as part of a field trip with the university [ 2004].

Over the past few months the photo has been published widely as a snapshot of the dangers of global warming.

Byrd is clearly a little miffed that ‘the image you have seen around the world was distributed without my consent, and [with] the wrong byline’.

 I bring up this “old news” (at least I hope it’s old news to you) because it’s yet another clear demonstration of the lengths to which some, including Obama and the current administration (now including transnationalist State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh, who the Senate snuck into place while Americans were watching “breaking news” that Michael Jackson was still dead or trying to convince the House to squash the “Energy bill”), are willing to go to cram cap & trade down America’s throat.  It’s horribly sad that no one is safe from exploitation – not scientists, not students, not innocent polar bears – by those whose only goal in life is to get as much money and control over other people as possible. 

These people have got to go.

Insanity Wins Again

By

It was close and there were even real doubts it would actually happen, but at the end of what felt like an eternal 15 minutes for the final vote, the House passed HR 2454 yesterday; its infamous energy cap & tax …errrr… trade legislation.  Despite being called out for the use of not only erroneous but governmentally-driven deliberately-skewed science, and despite there being not even one valid reason to throw the U.S. economy into a depression by taxing Americans for…everything, Nancy Pelosi achieved her goal of being able to pack her bag for Copenhagen, where she desperately wanted to be able to boast that the House is willing to step up to the delusion of global warming.

This was another case where very few (if any) had read the entire 1,200-odd page bill (including Henry Waxman, its primary sponsor), and a 300 page amendment was tossed onto the stinking, steaming pile at 2:30 a.m. Friday morning.  I suspect only John Boehner (R-OH) had given the amendment more than a glance; he actually led the House through a review of it before the final vote and it was heartwarming to hear him point out its insanity, point by point.

But insanity seems to be the norm these days and even spelling out the appalling consequences in plain English couldn’t trump it.

The vote was close:  219 – 212 with 3 not voting.  In the end, passage of this tyrannical legislation swung on 8 Republicans who voted to tax their constituents and the country into oblivion.  Here is the list of traitors; whether or not they are your own unrepresenting representative they need to understand America’s anger with the damage they’ve done so now is the time to (again) flex those 1st Amendment muscles and pick up the phone.  Let them know they have disgraced themselves by selling out all Americans to lies and special interests and they will receive no further support unless they make this right.   They have until July 2nd to change their vote so CALL THEM:

  1. Mary Bono Mack (CA) – (760) 320-1076 or (951) 658-2312
  2. Mike Castle (DE) – (302) 428-1902 or (302) 736-1666 or (302) 856-3334
  3. Steven Kirk (IL) – (847) 940-0202
  4. Leonard Lance (NJ) – (908) 518-7733 or (908) 788-6900
  5. Frank LoBiondo (NJ) – (609) 625-5008
  6. Chris Smith (NJ) – (609) 585-7878 or (732) 350-2300
  7. John McHugh (NY) – (315) 782-3150 or (518) 563-1406 or (518) 661-6486 or (315) 697-2063
  8. Dave Reichert (WA) – (206) 275-3438

While it was fascinating to watch the day’s events play out, I find this whole matter extremely maddening. Despite rumors this will never make it through the Senate, it’s more important than ever that those particular pantywaisted waffles understand – in no uncertain terms – that their job is to squash this like the poisonous bug it is.

UPDATE:  It was revealed today that this bill voted on by the House doesn’t even exist.  That’s right.  IT DOESN’T EVEN EXIST.  Apparently Friday’s late-night 300-page amendment has not yet been integrated into the final version of the bill.  The two big piles of paper are sitting side-by-side on a clerk’s desk waiting to be pieced together.

So not only did no one actually read the whole bill before voting on it, they couldn’t have read it even if they’d wanted to read it.

This, my friends, is YOUR hard-earned tax dollars at work.

Cap & Trade Vote Or Michael Jackson?

By

Is no one immune from the ratings game?

Michael Jackson died today and while it’s certainly a momentous event in the history of pop music, is it really so newsworthy that every media outlet is now devoting hours and hours of air time to blather on about it?  Even FOX News is preempting Bill O’Reilly’s show tonight to air a hastily-patched-together special.

I find this ironic and I find it sad.  And, somehow, it’s almost like a perfect storm.  Ed McMahon died Tuesday.  This morning Farah Fawcett lost her long fight with cancer.  And by the East Coast prime time news hour Michael Jackson is unexpectedly pronounced dead in Los Angeles.

And no one can talk about anything else.

Conservatives, in particular, want to cling to their Bibles and too-often beat others over the head with their beloved book yet it is the Bible that says to “let the dead bury their dead”.  I won’t deny that the death of a pop icon is sad but am I the only one remembering that Michael Jackson was also of questionable morals?  Frankly, this is a time when there are truly important matters at hand that must be properly addressed.  The citizens of Iran are dying in their streets for fairness and freedoms, North Korea is moving nuclear weapons material across the seas and, most frightening of all, the Waxman-Markley energy bill – cap & tax – the biggest destruction of American life we have yet to see in our lifetimes – is going up in the House tomorrow for a floor vote.

I imagine that Obama and his Congressional cohorts are doing happy hula dances at tonight’s White House luau to celebrate their good fortune at this distraction.  A shindig paid for by us, by the way, but to which we, the American taxpayer, are not, of course, invited.