"War Powers Act? Never heard of it."

Democrats are masters of the double-standard. Example: In the aftermath of Vietnam, Congress sought to prevent a president from committing the U.S. to a long war far from home by passing the "War Powers Resolution" (sometimes termed the WP "Act"). If you need a quick refresher on it, click here.

Thus when all intel agencies concluded that Saddam Hussein was almost certainly running a nuclear weapons program, and Bush correctly concluded that the only way to force him to stop was to send in the troops, the law required Bush to go to Congress first and seek an "Authorization for the use of military force."

Fair enough: I don't want war to be lightly entered into, and I suspect you don't either.

But now, when a Democrat is president, and starts bombing sites in Libya...oh my, the double-standard comes out swinging!

"War Powers Act? Never heard of it.."

So now we have a chance to turn a negative situation–U.S. forces bombing Libya with neither our objective nor an exit strategy articulated–into a really strong positive:

I think we should call on either Allen West or some other conservative rep to introduce a resolution in the House to:

1. Note that Obama has violated the “War Powers Act,” an act duly passed by a Democratic-dominated congress to compel the president to obey the Constitution;
   
2. Take formal notice that Obama sought to end-run the provisions of the WPA by terming the bombing in Libya a “kinetic action;”
   
3. Notify Obama that he has 30 days to either get authorization from congress to continue, or else cease combat operations in Libya;
   
4. Formally note that the Constitution reserves the power to declare war to congress; and
   
5. Declare that when a president violates the Constitution *and* the law, impeachment is the only option to the people to compel obedience to the document once said to be the “Law of the Land.”

And whoever introduces the res should also announce that he/she has an alternative measure ready to go if the first one fails: Repeal of the War Powers Act. Democrats can’t reasonably allow Obama to violate it and simultaneously claim it’s still operative law.

I realize neither resolution could ever get a majority of votes in the treacherously Dem-controlled senate, but merely *forcing a vote* on one or both would put the Democrats in a tough bind. One could understand a yes vote on either of the two, but a “no” on *both* would instantly be recognized (even by political naifs) as rank hypocrisy.

And I get the impression that hypocrisy is a charge beginning to gain traction with independent voters (and conservatives, of course).

Pair that clip with Nancy Pelosi saying “We need to fight global warming” while using a military jet to fly her family between San Fran and DC; hypocrisy is one of the hallmarks of Democrat lawmaking.

Senate Democrats defeat oil exploration bill

With gasoline bumping near $4 a gallon, and filling up even a compact car costing $60 or so, you may be feeling some financial pain.

Don't worry, Obama and the Democrats have said they want to bring gas prices down.

Well then! Problem solved! Next?

Not only hasn't the problem even begun to be solved, but as the soothing statements by Obozo and his henchmen were being dutifully echoed by the Democrat-loving media in thousands of stories, not once did a single reporter ask a single hard, pointed question that would have shown that Obozo and the Dems were just lying through their teeth about...everything.

Example: Most of the oil produced from offshore wells is in the Gulf of Mexico. But geologists believe the waters off the coast of Virginia, Alaska and Florida could contain billions of barrels. Lease sales had been scheduled for the first two but were scrapped by Obamites after the BP blowout.

So Senate Republicans introduced a bill that would have set a timetable for the government to open the first two to exploratory drilling.

Can you guess what happened? Yep, after "the White House" signalled opposition, every single Democrat in the Senate voted against the bill. Since the Dems control the Senate, that was enough to defeat the measure.

The bill would also have ended a dramatic slowdown in the government's sale of oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

For those unfamiliar with the business of exploring for (and hopefully producing) oil, a company can't drill unless it's secured a lease on the area to be explored. Assembling enough area, partners and seismic data is a long, costly process. And for every year that leasing is delayed, production is delayed by the same length of time.

Finally, the bill would have ended a dramatic slowdown in the issuance of drilling permits in the Gulf, by requiring the Interior Department to approve or deny offshore drilling permit applications within 60 days of filing.

All these logical, reasonable measures to increase U.S. oil production have been defeated by the Democrats.

"The White House" had criticized the bill, claiming that the plan would “hastily” open areas in the Gulf, Alaska and Atlantic to leasing without adequate environmental analysis.

"Without adequate environmental analysis"? Does anyone believe the government would accept anything but "best available technology" for ANY offshore drilling? Instead of alleged "analysis" why not just say "Don't pollute. Use every measure to make sure you dont have a blowout, because if you do your company is finished."

The words released by the Obamites are simply buzzwords, designed to resonate with the public while masking true meaning.

Don't get me wrong: It sickens me--as it does virtually everyone--to see the damage done by a huge accident like the BP blowout. NO ONE--including oilmen--wants that to happen. But just as we fly on jet airliners even though we know one flight in 100,000 or so crashes, oil exploration will sometimes run into a "perfect storm" that overwhelms all the safety features.

In any case, when gasoline goes to $5, then $6 per gallon, remember that the Democrats opposed logical, reasonable measures to *begin* increasing oil exploration here at home.

Even as they smirkingly, hypocritically pay lip-service to "increasing domestic production."

Can a lottery winner still collect food stamps?

Want to know what's wrong with government, in one easy lesson? Try this:

A Michigan man--one "Leroy Fick"--won a $2 million jackpot in a state lottery. He had to pay over half that amount in taxes, leaving him with a net of $850,000.

Before winning the jackput ol' Leroy was on food stamps. After he won he asked the state office that administers food stamps for Michigan if he still qualified for food stamps. After all, the gubmint doesn't consider lottery winnings taken as a lump sum as income.

You can guess the rest: He's still qualified for food stamps, and is still getting them.

Our current government--whether at fed, state, city or county levels--is insanity.

AGW is a crock

"Global warming" is one of those phrases that has a built-in ambiguity: There's no debate about the idea that the planet has warmed over the last century. In fact it's been warming for the last 330 years, since the last "Little Ice Age" around 1680.

The question is, what's the cause? It certainly *isn't* CO2, since the amount of that gas released by human activity was virtually nonexistent until around the late 1800's--but the planet had been getting warmer for a century by then.

The notion of CO2 as the cause of global warming--and specifically of human-caused GW--comes from five main observations:

1. Since around 1960 (subject to my iffy memory--I'll try to confirm) an observatory on top of a mountain on the island of Hawaii has been measuring the amount of CO2 in the air. A plot of CO2 versus time has been increasing almost in a straight line since they started taking the measurements;
2. We know from lab experiments that CO2 is fairly transparent to incoming energy from the sun, but substantially opaque to longer-wave heat reflected back from earth's surface. That is, it contributes to the "greenhouse effect";
   
3. Earth has been warming during this period;
   
4. Human-caused CO2 emissions--specifically from automobile and industrial combustion of oil, coal and natural gas--have risen sharply since around 1950.
5. Finally, extraction of several very deep ice cores in Antarctica, covering roughly 800,000 years, seemed to show a high correlation between atmospheric CO2 and a couple of indicators ("proxies") of temperature. Ergo, CO2 must drive global temperature cycles.
   

This collection of observations strikes most people as highly convincing proof that humans are the cause of global warming, by means of high CO2 emissions.

Let me quickly admit that the first time I saw the CO2 plot from the Hawaiian observatory I thought "we're in deep trouble--you can't change anything in nature that much and not expect something to go seriously haywire."

But it turns out there's a lot more to the story--all of it weighing against CO2--let alone CO2 produced by human activity--having a measurable effect on GW.

Take the Antarctic ice cores, for instance: There certainly was a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature proxies--they both rose and fell at virtually the same time. But on closer inspection scientists found that that the two quantities were not exactly in-phase--and in fact, instead of temperature following changes in CO2 level, it was the other way 'round: CO2 started rising after temperature began rising.

Whoa. Wouldn't that mean.... Yes, it completely trashed the notion that CO2 caused temperature changes--at least at that location. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen elsewhere, but certainly wasn't true at that spot.

A second debunking factor is that the planet's been warming for 330 years, but humans have only been burning substantial quantities of fossil fuels since around 1930 or so (depending on your definition of "substantial"). That meant that some other factor was causing the slow warming. While CO2 might have a small effect, it certainly wasn't the main driver.

Similarly, a closer look at the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas showed that it's a highly non-linear effect: by far the greatest heat-blocking effect occurs with the first 200 parts per million, with more CO2 producing smaller and smaller heat effects.

Oh, as to the higher CO2 levels lagging (instead of causing) temperature to rise? We've known for at least 150 years that the solubility of gas in liquids is inversely proportional to temperature. That means as temperature goes up, less gas dissolves.

Roughly three-quarters of the earth's surface is water, meaning there's an intimate contact between air and ocean. Raise the average ocean temperature by a degree or two in, say, a tenth of the ocean and that would squeeze quite a bit of CO2 out of seawater. Hard to say if that would account for a big chunk of the increase in atmospheric CO2 but it's certain a well-known effect.

So...if your kids (or grandkids) come home all teary about how teacher or Al Gore or Van Jones told ''em their parents were destroying Mother Earth and it was all the fault of capitalism or oil companies or the fact that we drive too much or...anything, show 'em this and tell 'em "AGW is a crock."

Remember, you heard it here first. Clear back in 2011.

An alternative to Obamacare: Run a small-scale test *first*

Every rational, honest adult knows Obamacare--like all govt programs--will easily end up costing 3 times the official estimate. Given the federal govt's near-bankrupt condition NOW, this would simply hasten bankruptcy. In short, we can't afford it.

On the other hand, most Republican congresscritters would be far more willing to try repealing Obamacare if the repeal bill contained *some* kind of plan that showed the GOP was seriously trying to improve U.S. health care. So...let's do a small-scale experiment whose results could be extrapolated to get a better handle on cost of a national system. It would give us an idea of the incidence of fraud, and the potential benefits (if any) of increasing the extent of taxpayer-funded medical care for everyone.

Virtually all the alleged medical experts claim one of the big savings of "free" medical care for everyone is that by getting routine medical checkups people could be persuaded to start changing to healthier habits earlier, so as to delay (or even prevent) the onset of medical problems with lifestyle causes, like smoking, overeating, not enough exercise, incipient diabetes, etc. IOW the greatest benefit per tax dollar spent would be from early checkups.

So pick 4 or 5 *low-population* states scattered around the country (only from those that volunteer to be considered) and offer everyone making less than X per year a voucher that will let them get a medical checkup for just $35 out-of-pocket cost (what our co-pay is now with health insurance). If you're under 30 you'd be eligible for one every 3 years; 30 to 40 every two years; and over 40 every year.

The govt would pay the difference between the co-pay and some fixed charge. Doctors wouldn't be required to participate, which would provide an avenue for beginning docs to get a revenue stream and build patients without compelling across-the-board participation.

Run this test for, say, five years, seeing how much the program was used and the per-capita cost per year. Equally important, see what the *variation* was between high-cost and low-cost states, and try to determine cause and benefit differential. Then decide whether to take it nationwide, and how to tweak it if desired.

Point is, we'd know about 100 times more about the estimate cost of a national program than we do about the pig-in-a-poke called Obamacare.

I realize this isn't a full-on, taxpayers-pay-for-everyone's-care deal. It's not supposed to be. There's always time to add that later if the test program goes amazingly well and has huge benefits at a bargain cost. (Not that anyone expects that.)

Finally, the bill should include a *big* penalty for attempted fraud--and since you can't get blood from a turnip, that penalty would be loss of taxpayer-provided medical care for X years.

"War Powers Act? It was really more of a suggestion."

I find it both amusing and a bit sad when arguably smart, educated people think they can solve a serious problem by passing a resolution or law, when all human experience shows that the person(s) or problem the law seeks to compel will totally ignore said resolution or law.

There are more examples than I have space to list: Laws against drugs, against criminals carrying guns, against corruption by members of congress, and finally--the War Powers Resolution.

I'd like to look at the last one because it's the most recent and stark illustration of

• the double-standard by Democrats/liberals in using the law to bind Republican presidents while cheerfully ignoring violations by a president of their party; and
  
• the unwillingness of congress to force Democrat presidents to obey U.S. laws;

The War Powers Resolution was an effort by congress to prevent future disasters like the Vietnam war. It recognized that although the Constitution makes the president commander in chief of the military, responsible for the prosecution of wars, the same Constitution plainly and clearly reserves to congress alone the power to actually declare war.

Ostensibly, some members of congress wanted to eliminate a "slippery slope" of the type that ensnared the country in Vietnam--an incremental increase in commitment that eventually resulted in weeks of combat with losses of 150 troops per week. (It's also been claimed that the real intent of congress was to stick it to then-president Nixon.)

Accordingly, congress passed a 'resolution' defining the circumstances under which the president could commit American troops without getting a formal declaration of war from congress. This resolution recognized that the president needed to be able to commit troops immediately--without consulting congress--if the nation was attacked, and didn't impede that ability. It also explicitly recognized that the president might feel the need to send troops into brief combat to neutralize an "imminent threat" to the U.S. This too was left open.

What the resolution made the law of the land was that if the president sent troops into combat operations overseas, without a declaration of war from congress, he was obliged to either seek such a declaration from congress, or else begin to withdraw all U.S. troops 60 days after initial operations. All troops were to be out of the combat zone within 30 days.

There is no record of King Barack seeking a declaration of war to send U.S. aircrews into combat in Libya. Which happened 60 days ago. Furthermore the Obama regime has shown no sign of pulling our air assets out of Libya.

So we're left with an amusing little piece of trivia: Congress passed what certainly seems to be a law--one that on its face seems to obligate the president to do certain things. But for Democrats, liberals and "progressives," laws are only for suckers, or for public relations, and the Hussein regime decides which ones it will obey.

And it shows no indication that it has any intention of obeying the War Powers Resolution.

And so our national arc away from "a nation of laws" into a nation of whatever the powerful can get away with continues.

Obama: "High unemployment is due to government layoffs."

It's an unquestioned article of faith among Democrats and liberals that Obama is the smartest guy in the room--much as Bill Clinton was said to have been. Just one problem: For the smartest guy in the room, he says lots of things that are not just wrong, but obviously, ludicrously so.

"Been to fifty-seven states."

"Corpse-man."

"Speaking Austrian."

One of the things Obama and the Democrats in congress were woefully wrong about was believing that spending $800 Billion in borrowed money would be effective in "stimulating" the economy. Truth is, the huge expenditure of Chinese money--which your children will be repaying all their lives--did almost no good. Almost two years later unemployment is still 9 percent--and that's just the "official" figure.

But the Dems can't admit this gigantic Keynesian stimulus failed. So Obama (or someone near him) had an idea: Why not blame the awful unemployment rate on the notion that government has been reducing the number of employees on the public payroll!

Hey, 52% of the voters will believe anything.

So, speaking at a town hall on the economy this morning (May 12), Obama blamed the high unemployment rate on ‘huge layoffs of government workers’ at federal, state and local levels,” according to CBS reporter Mark Knoller. Here's the full quote from Duh Won:

The reason the unemployment rate is still as high as it is, in part, is because there have been huge layoffs of government workers at the federal level, at the state level, at the local level. Teachers, police officers, firefighters, social workers–-have really taken it in the chin over the last several months.

Problem is, that's not even close to being true, as Jim Geraghty explains at National Review. The total number of government employees at all levels was:

January 2009: 22,471,000.
January 2010 (Obama takes office): 22,376,000.
April 2011: 22,594,000 (preliminary).

So, contra to Obozo's claim, not only have there *not* been huge layoffs of government employees, total government employment is essentially unchanged--actually slightly up--since he took office.

But of course no one in the lying media will call him on the lie--because they're all on his side.

Dems: Photo ID for voting? BAD! For flying? Just peachy.

Texas has just passed a bill requiring people to show a photo ID before voting. And predictably, Democrats are screaming that this will make it impossibly difficult for minorities and the poor to vote--thus reducing the number of votes for Democratic candidates.

It got me to thinking: Unless I'm much mistaken, every single person who wants to fly in the U.S. has to show photo ID, right? And I don't hear any screaming from Democrats and libs about that.

So why haven't Dems argued against photo-ID for air passengers on the same grounds as for voting? After all, a terrorist can bring down one plane, while enough illegal voters can bring down a government--or in extreme situations, a whole country.

Oh, and Obama has threatened to sic Holder and company on Texas, for passing this law. It'll be interesting.

Food aid to North Korea results in heroin exports?

It's hard to avoid advocating assassination when you read stories like the following:

For the last twenty years or so, North Korea has been having food shortages of varying severity. And of course the folks most hurt by these shortages are ordinary workers, since party officials and army troops always get food in ample supply.

Predictably, liberals and Democrats have responded by offering millions of tons of "food aid." That would be, free food to the Norks, with the bill paid by American taxpayers.

So how did the Norks respond to free food? The dictator, Kim Jong-Il, ordered all collective farms to take 12 acres out of food production and switch to growing something much more valuable to the communist government: Poppies. Which are then used to make...heroin.

Similarly, starving prisoners aren't allowed to farm on the land surrounding the prisons, but are forced to grow...can you guess? Yep, poppies.

Oh, and the heroin produced is smuggled into consuming countries in the uninspectable diplomatic pouches of Nork diplomats.

So by virtue--if that term can be used here--of America's generosity in giving them "free" food, North Korea's brutal dictator is able to grow tons of the feedstock for heroin. Thus, in a ghastly demonstration of good intentions giving bad results, the end result of food aid is to

• contribute to wrecking societies in consuming nations, and
  
• earn an estimated One Billion dollars a year in hard currency for the dictatorial regime.

Wow, who'd have guessed?

Now, I truly feel compassion for starving folks, especially when their government is preventing them from raising the food they need to live. But to allow the Nork regime to hold these people hostage to extract food aid from the West is...crazy.

Kill Kim Jong-Il. Do it ASAP. When you think about it, the guy's policies probably kill as many people each year as bin Laden did in his whole career.

That is all.

Bill to grant lawmakers right to conceal-carry...but *you* have to jump thru the hoops!

[See update at end of article.]

Seems that government "employees" at all levels think they're better than you.

Whether it's extravagant retirement pay, gold-plated health care paid for by you or a host of other perks, they continue to support a double-standard: "We're special, you're peons."

Example for today: A state legislator in Texas--one Glenn Hegar--has introduced a bill granting special concealed-carry privileges to legislators and other government employees.

Hegar's spokesman said legislators need to protect themselves because they vote on difficult issues which may enrage some people.

Ah, I see: People enraged at legislators are far more dangerous than, say, an ex-husband who's vowed to kill his wife. More dangerous than an armed robber. Don't think so, Sparky. And how does that apply to "other government employees"?

This is just one more example of "Rules for thee but not for me" that seem to be the norm for the self-annointed privileged class.

As far as I'm concerned, screw 'em. Hypocritical SOB's.

Oh, and to add insult to injury, this particular legislator's a Republican. His constituents should unemploy him immediately.

UPDATE: A different Republican Texas lawmaker has said this bill is a ploy, and to "expect amendments." One possible approach might be to try to attract public support from Democrats, and then try to amend the bill. But in what useful way? Texas citizens can already apply for a concealed-carry license, so not sure how this would work.

Historically, the Democrats have been masters of parliamentary arcana compared to Republicans, who seem inexorably welded to obeying the rules, however much sacrifice in position that entails. While the bill may be a ploy, I'll be absolutely astonished if the Dems allow themselves to be taken in.

Treasury has deliberately exceeded debt ceiling

The willingness of the Obama administration to ignore the law of the land appears to be not only increasing but becoming more blatant. First it was seizing private property without compensation (ordering a pennies-on-the-dollar settlement with Chrysler bondholders), then refusing to enforce unambiguous, uncontested law regarding voter intimidation by the two "Black Panthers," the apparent "Justice" department decision not to prosecute vote fraud cases if the defendants were black. And today...

The Treasury Department auctioned $56 billion in new debt Tuesday and Wednesday, enough to take the U.S. over its federal debt ceiling when the three- and 10-year notes settle on Monday.

If you're a normal working American the above sentence probably looks harmless. But the calculated action behind it should chill you: For good or ill, there's a law limiting the amount of money the government can borrow. And unless you're a liberal, laws aren't supposed to be the equivalent of suggestions, and violating them can be serious.

If you haven't heard, Republicans in congress have been trying (albeit not very effectively) to enforce at least *some* spending cuts in exchange for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling. Predictably, congressional Democrats have opposed virtually every cut proposed by the GOP. But as the deadline approached, the prospect of a shutdown was expected to command a compromise.

But Obama's Treasury Department has simply--deliberately--borrowed more than the legal limit.

"Debt ceiling? What debt ceiling?"

Now, all my liberal friends will immediately mount the defensive chant of "Trivial! No harm no foul!" But although the percentage is tiny, the act is lethally serious, because it's a deliberate act that removes all incentive for the Dems to compromise. After all, if no one is willing to call the president on this violation, why not another, then another?

This is a "dry run," just as those by Muslim airline passengers deliberately testing airline security to see how much they can get away with, as a means of designing future attacks.

And as an aside: I predict that if any American citizen tried to sue for violation of this law, the courts would rule that no one--not even a member of congress--has the legal standing to sue. It's their standard response when they don't want a law enforced.

Obama: Border fence "basically complete." Realty: just 5% built

Obama gave a speech in El Paso, Texas today in which he said this:

They wanted more agents on the border. Well, we now have more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any time in our history. The Border Patrol has 20,000 agents — more than twice as many as there were in 2004, a build up that began under President Bush and that we have continued. They wanted a fence. Well, that fence is now basically complete.

As they say, "Let's look at the facts." And the fact is that five years ago Congress passed a law directing the construction of 700 miles of fence along our 2000 mile border with Mexico.

Today, according to staff at the Department of Homeland Security, just 5 percent of the fence is complete--a grand total of just 36.3 miles.

And Obozo doesn't even get credit for that tiny amount. Early in 2009 the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s investigative agency, reported that 32 miles of double-layer fencing had been built as of that date. That means that since Obama took office only 4.3 miles of double layer fencing have been built.

SO...is this what most people would call "basically complete"?

Well, that's what Obozo calls it.

He's playing the Republicans for fools. And predictably, thanks to our totally Democrat-loving media he seems to be getting away with it.

Federal law trumps state laws...unless you're a Democrat city or state

Remember when Arizona voters passed a law that empowered state law enforcement officers to ask people they apprehended to provide evidence of citizenship? That was precisely enforcing a valid federal law.

Predictably, the Obama administration immediately sued Arizona to block this. The grounds? That federal law trumped state law, so the states couldn't enforce federal law. Or some such.

So...federal law overrides states and localities. At least, sometimes it does--depending on whether it fits the goals of the Obama folks.

Case in point: There's a federal program called the "Secure Communities program," under which local law enforcement are required to turn illegal criminals over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation. But--again predictably--liberal politicians in San Francisco and Illinois have decided they don't want to do this.

So of course Obama's Attorney-General, Eric Holder, jumped right on 'em and filed suit to force them to comply.

What? He didn't?

Well, did Obama threaten to withhold federal funds if San Fran and Illinois refused to obey the provisions of the federal law?

What? He didn't?

But...but...but...isn't one of the key provisions of the Constitution that the laws of the land be enforced *uniformly* for all persons and jurisdictions, instead of insisting that one's political opponents obey the laws while turning a blind eye to violations by your friends?

If we stop enforcing the laws equally on all, wouldn't that make us just another banana republic or communist state?

Or, say, Chicago?

Obama's National Security Advisor dodges to defend a lie

Thomas Donilon is the politically connected attorney and lobbyist appointed by Obama as his National Security Advisor.

Last week on Meet the Press Donilon was asked if "harsh questioning" of captured al-Qaeda members--a policy under President Bush that was shrilly and endlessly condemned by all Democrats/liberals/"progressives"--had helped locate bin Laden.

It was a perfect bind: Admitting that the methods condemned by Democrats had indeed provided vital information would violate liberal dogma that such methods couldn't provide useful intel. But a flat denial would likely risk an embarrassing contradiction by other branches of government.

As you could have guessed, rather than admit the obvious Donilon chose a weasel-worded answer: he dodged by saying simply that “no single piece of intelligence led to this.”

I have no problem with non-responsive answers when offered in the service of protecting national security. But not when used to advance a lie used by Dems to demonize their political opponents.

AP: "Economy booming. Disregard rise in unemployment"

This is just priceless: Here's an Associated Press article from today's paper, on the economy:

American companies are on a hiring spree.

Businesses delivered a jolt of strength to the economy by creating 268,000 jobs in April, the biggest monthly total since 2006. The gains were solid across an array of industries, even beleagured construction.

It was the third month in a row of at least 200,000 new jobs. The private sector has added jobs for 14 straight months.

And then at the end of the third 'graf is this little by-the-way:

Even a slight rise in the unemployment rate to 9 percent appears to be a quirk.

Did ya get that? All is rosy here in Obamaland.

All. Is. Rosy.

As you'd certainly expect after Obama and the Democrats spent $800 Billion--borrowed from the Chinese--on "stimulus."

And that mere two-tenths rise in unemployment? A mere "quirk." A trivial footnote, and you are to pay it no heed whatsoever.

Can you recall ever seeing a single article when George Bush or any other Republican was president where a two-tenths rise in unemployment was not only buried at the end of the 3rd paragraph, but touted as a good thing?

But with a Democrat at the helm--let alone one as fabulous as Obama--suddenly a jump in already-high unemployment is just "a quirk," almost meaningless.

How meaningless? The AP propagandist explains:

The rise in the unemloyment rate...was the first increase since November. But it appeared to be due to a temporary disparity in two surveys the government uses to track jobs.

A side-bar with the article explains how the unemployment figure is derived, and says the problem was a sharp drop in the number of *farm workers,* adding "Economists suspect that may have been because bad weather delayed planting."

And the sad thing is, 52 percent of American voters who read that article won't see a thing unusual about it.

(Unfortunately I can't provide a link, since I found this in my local paper instead of on-line.)

Obama's energy policy

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/159705-obama-more-drilling-is-not-the-solution

With gasoline prices nearing $4 per gallon, what would you think would be the most logical thing to do to either bring them down or at least slow the rate of increase?

a) increase drilling in the U.S. to try to find more oil; or
b) reduce drilling, reducing the amount of oil we import, and hope for the best?

Obama pays lip-service to drilling but doesn't take any action that would encourage actual, y'know, drilling. He doesn't actually say "drilling won't help" but he strongly implies it.

In a speech on energy policy last week Obama said that it’s important to “encourage safe and responsible oil production here at home” and called for reducing the country’s oil imports by one-third by 2025, ramping up vehicle fuel economy standards and relying on low-emission electricity sources.

Got a news flash for ya', Barry: "Low-emission electricity sources" aren't gonna' do jack to reduce the amount of imported oil we use--let alone cut imports by a third.

This is simply wishful thinking, as relevant as a child describing how the family can afford a trip to Disneyland if they'll just collect aluminum cans.

The linked article--from The Hill, a Democrat-supporting website--concludes with the obligatory statement from anonymous "energy analysts":

Energy analysts say expanded domestic oil production would have almost no near-term effect on gas prices.

Isn't that precious? This has been the standard Democrat line for at least a decade: 'Drilling will have no near-term effect...' What that obviously--and cleverly--ignores is that more exploratory drilling today will bring production on-line five or six years from now. And if Dems, "progressives," leftists et al hadn't opposed more exploration and drilling five or six years AGO, we'd have an extra million barrels a day by now.

But of course that's not what your side wants. You want higher gasoline prices, because that will hasten the introduction of electric cars or bicycles or horses or...anything other than what we have now.

And then you'll close the coal-fired powerplants and send the price of electricity through the roof. Or demand that all horse fodder be turned into ethanol, sending the cost of owning a horse through the roof. Or whatever you can think of to throw a wrench into our economy.

Nice strategy.

Reward offered for info on vote fraud.??

Conservatives have been complaining about Dem vote fraud for a decade or so now, and keep introducing measures to prevent it by requiring positive ID and so on. These measures are almost always defeated by Democrats and so-called "progressives."

So it's good to know that someone in the U.S. is getting serious about ferreting out (and presumably stopping) vote fraud: A little-known group has offered $25,000 to anyone who submits information showing vote fraud--but only in the recent Wisconsin state supreme court election, in which a leftist candidate lost to a relatively conservative one.

You'd think that if leftists were suddenly up in arms about vote fraud, wouldn't you think they just might be more receptive to measures to make that more difficult?

No?

So I guess to Dems, vote fraud is just fine when it helps elect their guy. It's only when an election defeats the "progressive" (Leftist) candidate that Dems have a problem with it.

Obama administration to sue 4 states to void constitutional amendments

For a couple of years now, labor union bosses have been pushing a proposed law called "card check." Sounds innocuous, doesn't it? But it would ban the use of the secret ballot in unionization elections--meaning all workers would have to publicly declare their vote on whether to unionize.

About half of Americans would probably shrug and say "What's wrong with that? Don't we want everything to be out in the open?"

Not how you voted--especially in the thuggish environment of socialist-leaning unions, where opposing the union can get your windshield busted and your tires slashed, if not worse.

Seeing the federal government edging ever closer to supporting this abomination, last November voters in four states--Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah--passed amendments to their constitutions requiring that unionization elections in their states use the secret ballot.

The amendments were hugely popular: In South Carolina the measure was approved by 86 percent of the voters; 79 percent in South Dakota, 61 percent in Arizona and 60 percent in Utah.

But the Obama administration--ready to do anything for continued union support--wasn't about to allow these amendments to stand, and last January Obama's "National Labor Relations Board" announced it planned to sue those four states to overturn the duly-passed amendments.

"On what grounds?", you may ask. Where does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government the right to bar states from requiring the secret ballot in an election?

The board said that the amendments "conflict with federal law by closing off a well-established path to union representation recognized by the Supreme Court and protected by the National Labor Relations Act.”

But wait, I hear some of you saying: wasn't the ghastly federal "card check" bill defeated or withdrawn or something, due to conservative opposition?

Why yes, yes it was.

Well then, how in the world can the NLRB say the state amendments "conflict with federal law"?

Great question. And a good answer would be "It would appear that the folks on the NLRB--like all good, aggressive Dems in gubmint--simply make up snappy sound-bites that support whatever the hell they want to do."

And the media dutifully pick up the chant: The NYT quotes a lefty professor of labor law at NYU saying “Secret-ballot elections... are not the only way permitted by federal law. The states have no authority dictating which method employees use in deciding whether to be represented by a union.”

"The states have no authority?" Tenth Amendment? This guy never heard of it.

Anyway, now the NLRB has announced that it will only be suing TWO of the four states--Arizona and South Dakota. According to the NY Times the stated reason was--you'll love this--"to save money."

This of course is nonsense. The real reason is to reduce the number of opposing legal scholars, since half as many defendant states would have fewer resources to mount a winning defense, thus increasing the administration's chances of winning. And if the NLRB won it would cite the verdict as legal precedent to get the remaining two states to fold.

The federal government is fast becoming a tyrant. After all, the feds successfully sued a poor farmer to prevent him from growing wheat to feed his own chickens without gubmint permission. Forced the poor guy to burn it. His poor chickens starved.

And you think I'm making this up.

NJ solar "mandate" will break even in 125 years

State legislatures aren't known for being hotbeds of brilliance. In fact my father used to say that our state legislators tried to repeal the law of gravity about once a month--and I suspect that's about the national average.

So, like most of America New Jersey got fired up by the "let's all go green and get energy from the sun" craze. Whereupon they passed a bill requiring the state's main electric utility to get 22% of its electricity from renewable sources by some date.

Local utility duly got approval to install half a billion bucks worth of solar panels on utility poles.

Hey, way ta go, lawmakers! You show off for your green constituents and prattle about how you helped save Gaia and everybody feeeels reeeally gooood about themselves.

But wait a second: Utility says the panels will produce "half of the...electricity needed to power 6,500 homes.” One wag quickly noted that this was enough to power, uhh, 3250 homes. At a cost of $515 million.

Dividing cost by homes supplied yields about $158,000 for each solar-powered home. Someone also noted that the average electricity bill in NJ is about $105 per month.

At that rate the panels will pay for themselves in...oh, 125 years or so.

Their expected life is 30-40 years. And that doesn't include the ones that will be stolen.

Very few legislators can do math, and they're all betting you can't either. Or won't. Because very simple math shows this feel-good, rah-rah "mandate" doesn't make economic sense.

Well of course not, dahling. What did you expect from government?

(h/t The Blaze, via Weasel Zippers)

Why would the incidence of rape rise 60% in ten years?

For as long as records have been kept, the incidence of rape in the U.K. (Great Britain) had been lower than here in the U.S. Then starting in 1997 the rate began rising sharply in the U.K. It rose 60 percent in the next decade and is now twice the rate in the U.S.

What in the world could have caused this?

While it's impossible to know for sure, it's worth noting that in 1997 the U.K. banned citizens from owning a handgun.

We're guessing that the argument--as here--was that it would reduce crime and increase safety.

Sure doesn't seem to have made women safer.

Are "Insurgents" in Afghanistan likely to be Muslim?

In the village of Barabat-Jaba, Kunar province, Afghanistan, five days ago, "insurgents" suspected that a local Afghani soldier was passing information to Coalition forces, so they raided his home looking for him.

Not finding the man at home, the "insurgents" tied up and proceeded to beat two male relatives of the soldier as his wife, mother, sister and 4-year-old daughter watched helplessly.

Now, based on what you've read in the media about the "religion of peace," what do you think the "insurgents" did next?

They executed the four females in cold blood--including the 4-year-old.


Now, how long do you think it will take an American Leftist to blame this act on U.S. troops?

Religion of peace, my ass.