It ought to be clear by now that the only way to "fix the problem," as referred to in this article, is to politically ensure that Obama is a one termer! If that doesn't happen, soon, there won't be outlets like this one to give public voice to the overwhelming opposition to Obama. In short, Obama will control every aspect of our lives by making opposition to his tyranny a crime, which has always been the first goal of his media managing puppet master, Soros, who envisions himself 'a god', by his own admission, and who wants to remake the world in his own warped image with immigration reform, read amnesty, in the face of an already INTENTIONALLY tanking economy on the part of Obama to make us all serfs on his communist dole, being a main ingredient for Soros' U.S. coup in order to keep Obama in power.
Just because Obama wants to promote proven changeable aberrant behavior that is directly contrary to the common good doesn't mean that the rest of the country is obliged to do the same, i.e., those who are in opposition have every right to voice same for the sake of faith and right reason, rights which they're guaranteed under the Constitution under the freedom of religion despite the best attempts by the militant homosexual lobby to demonize them. Sorry, that's not going to happen because the sane care about a country fit to live in for their children and grandchildren where that common good which is supposed to be the state's highest priority is promoted, not bastardized!
Hats off to this Rep from LA who cares about his country, as opposed to the Obamunists, their enablers, and supporters, whose deep hatred for America has resulted in every major economic indicator tanking simultaneously as Obama continues to WILLFULLY destroy the private sector. I wonder how many critics of the LA rep have family members who have suffered because of the communist in the White House, e.g., working as hard as possible to find meaningful work in a field that, pre-Obama, was a fertile ground for jobs, but post Obama is a desert?
Published May 28, 2011
The Wall Street Journal
Hackers may have infiltrated the networks of top US weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp., The Wall Street Journal reported Friday, citing a person with knowledge of the attacks.
Lockheed spokesman Jeffery Adams said the company, as a matter of policy, didn't discuss specific cyber threats or measures taken in response.
"However, to counter any threats, we regularly take to increase the security of our systems and to protect our employee, customer and program data," he said. "We have policies and procedures in place to mitigate the cyber threats to our business, and we remain confident in the integrity of our robust, multilayered information systems security."
Lockheed manufactures some of the most sophisticated US military hardware, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 Raptor. It is also a major international supplier of military equipment.According to the person familiar with the situation, many employees were required to change their "SecureID" passwords. The move may have been prompted by an attack from hackers who may have penetrated the company's cyber defenses by using duplicate SecurID electronic keys made by EMC Corp.'s security division.
Remote access to some Lockheed systems was temporarily disabled as a result, this person said.
Lockheed sent 90,000 replacement SecureIDs to employees, which is being paid for by RSA, this person said. Employees were also told to reset all of their passwords used throughout the entire company as a precaution.
EMC in March disclosed that it had been hit by a sophisticated cyber attack on its SecurID products, which are widely used by corporate clients.
Network and -security issues have taken on heightened importance in recent weeks after a high-profile hack of several Sony Corp. systems led to a breach of personal information. The breach included the names and addresses associated with more than 100 million accounts.
Right now the biggest security breach that we have is the sham Obama presidency, given Obama's penchant for giving away the farm in arms negotiations that always put America at a strategic disadvantage. For crying out loud, Obama wants to share our military technology with the former Soviets and the Communist Chinese whom he fetes at every opportunity. Some people think that Moscow and Beijing are uncontrollably laughing at their good fortune in having an incompetent in the White House. But that is not the case, as incompetence is not the problem. THE problem is that our enemies have an ally, weaned on a hatred of anything American, who knows exactly what he's doing in de facto unilaterally disarming America, as evinced by Obama's own words in regard to getting rid of all nukes, which means America getting rid of its nukes while the rest of the world is arming to the teeth. There was a word for this in the Navy that I served in during the Vietnam War. It was called treason in the realization that "loose lips sink ships" with another Pearl Harbor opportunity being served up on a plate for any potential adversaries who dislike America as much as Obama, if that's possible!
The fiscal train wreck here was INTENTIONALLY, repeat, INTENTIONALLY caused
by the Obamunists whose idea of spending cuts is to
hold discretionary spending at its already unsustainable level, thereby driving
up the debt more, in order to drive America into the ground making all of us
dependent upon the mercy of Comrade Obama's dole for our sustenance. To believe
a pathological liar, who uses vintage communist class warfare to turn Americans
against each other, is to invite the folly of its dire consequence to what's
left of the future of our nation, which will be bleak indeed if the Obamunists are not sent their walking papers in 2012.
This crap about we can't raise the debt ceiling is a bald-faced lie told by a tax cheat, a common characteristic of the Obamunists, who masquerades as Treasury Secretary. GOP leaders with spines can take Washington back, NOW, by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, PERIOD! Heck, US debt jumped $54 billion in the week preceding the deal with the devil to cut $38 Billion.
As has been pointed out in the Non-PRAVDA USA media, "The Heritage Foundation, Investors Business Daily, the CATO Institute and many other credible and authoritative sources have looked at this question and determined that is simply not the case that the debt ceiling has to be raised which is a ploy of the Obamunists to drive us further in debt. Wake up! Washington could still continue to meet the payments on its loan obligations and continue all of its vital and constitutional obligations to the American people with its trillions of dollars of revenues. Nobody else in America has the privilege of borrowing endlessly to pay for whatever they feel like spending – no companies, no individuals, not even state or local governments. It's not responsible and it's not sustainable. The biggest fiscal problem we have in America is unsustainable debt. How are we going to address that with continued borrowing? It makes no sense. What we see in Washington today is Keynesian economics gone wild. There is no borrowing solution to America's economic problems. America's economic problems are the result of too much borrowing. If we pull this out, it would completely tie the hands of Obama and the Democrats for the next two years. They themselves – the Democrats – would be forced to make massive cuts in spending that would require defunding Obamacare, pulling the plug on Planned Parenthood, even killing entrenched unconstitutional bureaucracies like the Department of Education. They simply wouldn't have any choice."
In short, by not raising the debt ceiling, we start taking our country back big time, but that requires a GOP leadership with spines who don't make excuses for raising the ceiling if Obama would be serious about cutting debt. Do these clowns pawning this garbage off think we were all born yesterday? Obama does nothing without it benefiting Obama who never loses sight of his goal of being our master.
"So what is holding back Boehner and the House Republican leadership? Well, they hear the dire warnings of Timothy Geithner, who couldn't fill out his own tax form, and the other so-called experts. They're afraid of getting out-maneuvered by Obama and the Democrats. They're afraid of what the media will do to them. That's why they're not demonstrating the leadership that they were handed by the American people who, according to every poll, support this kind of dramatic action."
We're at the end game here folks for the sake of our country's future.
It's taken awhile, but the
sham Obama presidency is being seen for what it is, a fraud from the
get-go. This is no better evinced than by observing that the
speeches Obama gives are nothing more than the regurgitated tripe that he
spews out ad nauseam solely for political points, as there isn't one scintilla
of sincerity in the man's being. If there was, our children,
grandchildren, and future generations of Americans wouldn't be watching the
American dream being turned into a Marxist Socialist nightmare in the face
of OVERWHELMING public opposition to Obama's morally bankrupt unconstitutional
policies which Obama ignores out of hand since he views himself as a master,
not a servant, of the people!
Where's the money coming from for Joplin, Missouri, money that Obama has already wasted to the tune of trillions and counting in amassing an unsustainable debt, which is basically filling the coffers of his enablers to keep him in power while literally destroying the country, check out the unemployment lines whose real numbers reflect a percentage in double digits approaching 20 taking into account all those who, out of despair, have stopped looking for work, money that Obama is committing to countries, where he's de facto instigated mob rule in the name of 'democracy run amok,' which now are getting leaders that are more hostile to America than ever, money that isn't there, and won't be until Obama isn't in the White House anymore, i.e., the 2012 election can't come soon enough?
Welcome to warped world of Obama's foreign policy where our former allies are now our enemies, and our former enemies are now our allies, which should tell those still capable of rational thought on this Memorial Day weekend 2011 that our biggest enemy currently resides in the White House, a man who is effectively rendering the sacrifices of all those, who have fought and died in American wars throughout history to prevent tyranny in the world, to have been in vain since tyranny is now in America. And if that doesn't get your attention as to the sorry state of a Republic on life support, nothing will!
As a native Kansan, born and raised in a city about 28 miles north of Joplin, having traveled through the devastated areas many times as a boy growing up in Southeast Kansas, and later as a young man, I can tell you unequivocally that the last thing that is going to resonate with my former neighbors in Joplin who are salt of the earth hard working people who will, with the help of God, rebuild and survive, and those trying to genuinely help them out via their actions, not just words, in the surrounding four state area of Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, and other parts of the country, are politicians using them for stage props, which is par for the course for the Obamunists!
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/29/obama-offers-condolences-encouragement-joplin-tornado-victims/#ixzz1NmYugX2S
And now for the other side of the story,
also known as the truth, which you will seldom find in PRAVDA Central PA,
regarding the major problems with solar power.
Reference the following excerpted from
Google's $1,500 coffee makers
Google Inc. spends quite a lot of time burnishing its self-created image as a "green" company – largely on the basis of the solar array at its corporate headquarters. It is also trying to build support for the administration's cap-and-trade "energy" bill by pretending that solar energy can substitute for hydrocarbon, nuclear and hydroelectric energy.
Google states that its multimillion-dollar solar array has generated sufficient electricity over the past two years to run 5,158 coffee makers for one hour each day. Google does not mention, however, that this solar array supplies insufficient electricity to run Google's search engine computers for even one minute per day and that the coffee makers, if supplied with solar panels to operate them, would cost approximately $1,500 each.
Google claims that its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters buildings are paved with 1.6 megawatts (Mw) of solar panels. This installation was completed in June 2007, about the same time as the Nellis Air Force Base 14 Mw, $100 million solar panel installation that "energy expert" Obama – who is now attempting to seize control of the energy industries of the United States – visited recently and advertised as an example of his administration's plans for America.
As of June 21, 2009, Google reports that it has generated 4,592,364 kilowatt (Kw) hours of electricity with this installation, or about 2.29 gigawatt (Gw) hours per year. Nellis reports 30.1 Gw hours per year. So, Nellis is producing 25 percent of its advertised quantity and Google is producing 16 percent. The apparent 75 percent and 84 percent losses arise because the sun does not shine 24 hours per day and because these installations are routinely overrated. In fact, the Google installation actually generates, on average, only 0.26 megawatts – not 1.6 megawatts (1 Gw = 1,000 Mw = 1,000,000 Kw).
Google brags that the average 24-hour output of its solar array is sufficient to operate 5,158 coffee makers for one hour – based on its daily reports. It does not, however, reveal the cost of this solar equipment. If we assume that the installations at Google and Nellis are similarly cost effective – they are both 2007 technology and our assumption allows for technical differences in the installations (Nellis has solar-tracking arrays), then Google's installation cost an estimated $7.5 million. With current electricity and maintenance costs, this solar installation will not even pay for itself in more than 40 years, so it produces nothing of net value.
Without considering depreciation, maintenance such as cleaning the panels, and employees to oversee the equipment, this $7.5 million works out to $1,454 per coffee maker. So, if the coffee maker is priced at $46 and delivered with a share in the Google solar array sufficient to operate it for an average of one hour each day, the price is $1,500 per coffee maker.
As with the cost of its solar advertising project, Google also keeps secret the power usage of its computers. The power consumption of the Oregon installation has been estimated at 100 Mw, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. It is also estimated that Google has 19 such centers in the United States and 17 built or under development in other countries. The Dalles installation is one of the largest. If we assume that The Dalles center is about twice the average size, Google is using an estimated 1,000 Mw in the U.S. – or approximately the output of one Palo Verde nuclear reactor. Even if Google's actual usage is as little as half this much, our analysis is still applicable.
If Google generated 1,000 Mw of power with solar panels like those it touts at its corporate headquarters, the construction cost would be approximately $30 billion. Moreover, Google's customers would be unhappy if their Internet search services were only available during midday and in good weather, so a hydrocarbon or nuclear-powered electricity generating station would need to be standing by to provide power most of the time.
Americans currently import 30 percent of their energy – a luxury they can no longer afford. This 30 percent is not made in America because the gradual increase of government taxation, regulation and sponsorship of litigation against American energy industries over the past 40 years has created a business environment in the United States that is very unfavorable for the production of energy. So, even though the United States is awash in plentiful nuclear resources and coal, oil, natural gas and other hydrocarbon resources, most new energy production is instead sited abroad.
Now, Congress and the Obama administration are pushing a new "energy bill" including so-called "cap-and-trade" that will sharply increase taxation and regulation of the energy industries. To sell this greatly increased suppression of free enterprise, Washington politicians are advertising boutique energy technologies like solar and wind, without mentioning that these methods produce very small amounts of energy at very high costs. These costs are so high that they not only require enormous taxpayer subsidies, but also cannot be financed in sufficient quantity to avoid energy shortages, high energy prices and, ultimately, rationing and diminished prosperity.
Google is supporting this political charade. It is using solar energy to supply minor office needs and to enhance its public image, while simultaneously using large amounts of energy generated by nuclear, hydrocarbon and hydroelectric methods to run its business. It apparently thinks that Americans can be fooled into using its products and supporting the political agenda of its friends through "green" advertising.
This hypocrisy should not be rewarded, and Google should not participate in it.
Gresham’s Law of Green Energy
High-cost subsidized renewable resources destroy jobs and hurt consumers.
"The third argument, that green energy improves American “energy independence” and reduces supply volatility, has no basis in empirical evidence. Reducing the demand for a commoditydoes not imply that price volatility will be reduced, unless the demand is reduced to zero."
However, even if the argument were true, the need for additional back-up electric generation to “firm” the changing output of wind and solar power is undeniable.
"As for the energy independence canard, not only does renewable energy provide an insignificant percentage of total energy consumption in the United States, but its ability to displacecrude oil consumption is de minimus."
Renewable Electricity Standards Kill Jobs Too
The high cost of 'green jobs'
This documents the well known Spanish debacle in regard to renewable energy claims that were bogus with their economy tanking as a result. FYI, they're rioting in the streets of Spain now because unemployment has gone through the roof.
For more links debunking the claims in this op-ed, see the following:
The Hysterical Claims Of Gore’s Green Goblins Debunked By Physics Professionals As 31,000 Scientists Reject 'Global Warming' Agenda
The truth is always the first casualty with socialists like
Sanders who use mediscare tactics to needlessly frighten
seniors which is unconscionable.
Steve King: Dems' Making Huge Mistake with 'Medi-Scare' . Democrats have decided to frighten seniors into believing their Medicare benefits will be lost under Republican budget plans, senior GOP congressman Steve King has claimed in an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview.
"There is no group of people that is easier to scare with untruthful statements than the seniors in America," said King. "The older people get the more likely they are to be scared by just plain, blatant dishonesties that are perpetrated on this subject matter.
In regard to PRAVDA USA’s lies in reporting on the GOP medicare plan the truth is in order, and Paul Ryan is telling the truth, which is a word not in the radical left's vocabulary in demonizing all who dare to disagree with their morally bankrupt policies like a deathcare program pawned off as healthcare where Medicare is gutted, instead of saved, and seniors can look forward to rationing via a 15 member Obama politburo replacing the doctor-patient relationship. Anytime Ryan can explain in detail his program, seniors immediately overwhelmingly support it because they see its merits, not only for themselves, but also in being there for their children and grandchildren, which the Obamunists couldn't care less about as evinced by their litany of sham lies in trying to destroy Ryan's credibility. The bottom line is that Paul Ryan cares about the future of a prosperous America not sinking under the weight of a debt burden that will take generations to rectify, an America that continues to have the best healthcare in the world instead of playing political games with seniors whom they're stabbing in the back, which is the modus operandi of the Obamunists who couldn't care less about the common good!
To find out who ended Medicare as we know it, see the following link by Betsy McCaughey. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o...
In today's special election for the 26th district US House seat in western New York, Democrats are trying out a tactic they're sure to use nationwide in 2012 -- the obscenely false claim that they will save "Medicare as we know it" from Republican efforts to reform it.
The truth is, the Obama health law, passed by Democrats last year, already eviscerated Medicare -- though seniors won't feel the effects for some time. And the reform plan Democrats are attacking -- Rep. Paul Ryan's entitlement-reform vision -- would undo much of the damage, while charting a new course to ensure Medicare doesn't run out of money.
"Medicare as we know it" can't survive ObamaCare's cuts of $575 billion from the program's funding over the next decade. Just as outrageous is that the Obama law stole $410 billion of those "savings" to expand eligibility for Medicaid.
It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul -- but it's robbing Grandma to create a whole new class of government dependants.
The nation needs to spend less on government, and entitlement reform is key. Instead, the ObamaCare law starts new entitlements -- with its vast expansion of Medicaid and a new insurance program for the middle class -- then imposes sacrifices on seniors to (partly) pay for these new obligations.
The administration's own actuaries say Medicare will spend $14,731 per senior in 2019, instead of $16,162 if the health law hadn't passed. That's less care for seniors. Richard Foster, the chief actuary for Medicare, testified to Congress that the Obama law makes such severe cuts that some hospitals may stop taking Medicare.
Such cuts might be justifiable if the "savings" extended Medicare's financial life, as President Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius often claim. In fact, the Obama law just pays less to those who treat Medicare patients, then uses the cash for something else entirely. Raiding Medicare leaves less money to care for future retirees.
So what can that next generation, retiring a decade from now, count on? The Obama law puts those decision in the hands of an unelected board called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB -- a cost-cutting panel.
The board is a radical departure from Medicare as we've known it. On the pretext that budgeting decisions should be shielded from outraged seniors and political pressures, the Democratic Congress handed nearly all control of Medicare spending to IPAB. In April, the president reiterated that the board would decide what care is "unnecessary" for seniors, and added that he wants its unprecedented powers increased.
Last week, Obama indicated that he'd like to reduce the deficit by taking another $200 billion from Medicare over the next decade. That would be IPAB's job, too.
Yet IPAB is drawing fire from many who pushed hard for the ObamaCare law -- including the AARP and Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.).
Ryan's reform, passed by House Republicans early this year, would repeal the ObamaCare law in full, thereby restoring the $575 stolen from Medicare and ending IPAB. But, to keep the program sustainable in the decades ahead, the Ryan plan would (starting in 2022) give each new Medicare enrollee a choice of private health plans and pay a premium to the policy chosen. He argues that seniors would be safer choosing their own health plan rather than putting their care in the hands of the cost-cutting IPAB panel.
Let's hope voters examine the plain facts -- because one thing is clear: Obama and the Democratic Party are not saving Medicare "as we know it."
Sanders would have you believe that the American people are with him, which is a bald-faced lied, as they are recoiling from the morally and fiscally bankrupt policies of the Obama administration which are setting new economic lows on a daily basis.
In short, the American people are seeing first hand what socialism is doing to this country, and in overwhelming numbers are in opposition to it when asked specifically about the fallacious claims that fill Sanders' op-ed.
The fiscal train wreck here was INTENTIONALLY, repeat, INTENTIONALLY caused by the Obamunists whose idea of spending cuts is to hold discretionary spending at its already unsustainable level, thereby driving up the debt more, in order to drive America into the ground making all of us dependent upon the mercy of Comrade Obama's dole for our sustenance. To believe a pathological liar, who uses vintage communist class warfare to turn Americans against each other, is to invite the folly of its dire consequence to what's left of the future of our nation, which will be bleak indeed if the Obamunists are not sent their walking papers in 2012.
This garbage about we can't raise the debt ceiling is a bald-faced lie told by a tax cheat, a common characteristic of the Obamunists, who masquerades as Treasury Secretary. GOP leaders with spines can take Washington back, NOW, by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, PERIOD! Heck, US debt jumped $54 billion in the week preceding the deal with the devil to cut $38 Billion. As has been pointed out in the Non-PRAVDA USA media, "The Heritage Foundation, Investors Business Daily, the CATO Institute and many other credible and authoritative sources have looked at this question and determined that is simply not the case that the debt ceiling has to be raised which is a ploy of the Obamunists to drive us further in debt. Wake up! Washington could still continue to meet the payments on its loan obligations and continue all of its vital and constitutional obligations to the American people with its trillions of dollars of revenues. Nobody else in America has the privilege of borrowing endlessly to pay for whatever they feel like spending – no companies, no individuals, not even state or local governments. It's not responsible and it's not sustainable. The biggest fiscal problem we have in America is unsustainable debt. How are we going to address that with continued borrowing? It makes no sense. What we see in Washington today is Keynesian economics gone wild. There is no borrowing solution to America's economic problems. America's economic problems are the result of too much borrowing. If we pull this out, it would completely tie the hands of Obama and the Democrats for the next two years. They themselves – the Democrats – would be forced to make massive cuts in spending that would require defunding Obamacare, pulling the plug on Planned Parenthood, even killing entrenched unconstitutional bureaucracies like the Department of Education. They simply wouldn't have any choice."
By not raising the debt ceiling, we start taking our country back big time, but that requires a GOP leadership with spines who don't make excuses for raising the ceiling if Obama would be serious about cutting debt. Do these clowns pawning this garbage off think we were all born yesterday? Obama does nothing without it benefiting Obama who never loses sight of his goal of being our master which is perfectly fine in the warped world of socialists like Sanders.
on Thursday Open Thread I have a huge
problem with the GOP leadership. You don't negotiate with someone whose
clear intent is to destroy the country from within,
you stop him in his tracks, PERIOD! Delusional Boehner, McConnell & Co.
would have us believe that Obama is something that he's not, i.e., that he
actually cares about doing what's right for America when, in
fact, Obama the Destroyer has a "hammer and sickle"
mentality that is rooted in a deep seated hatred for an America under
God, as evinced by his ramming the most draconian unconstitutional
morally bankrupt legislation and regulations down the throats of
Americans who, overwhelmingly, oppose same - the common good be
damned! And until we realize who were dealing with, America is at grave
The 2010 election was a delaying action until the entire cavalry arrives in 2012. There is nothing wrong with gridlock when the very future of our country recognizable to the founding fathers is at stake! History is not going to treat Boehner and his ilk kindly if they give away the farm for worthless political points, i.e., if history's authors are not tyrants, which right now is a very real concern if the Obamunists are not summarily reined in!
And I'm sorry to say that I don't believe that this seminal fact is close to sinking in to the thick heads that comprise the current GOP leadership!
Another Boehner Betrayal
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 01:35:24 -0400
It's time for a much needed dose of reality Mr. Boehner; if you honestly believe that Barack
Obama and his liberal cronies in Congress will stop their out-of-control
spending AFTER you agree to raise the debt ceiling, you're living
under a delusion... a delusion that this country can ill afford...
a delusion that will destroy this great nation and permanently reduce the
United States to a second-rate power.
Use the button below to send your urgent and
personalized Blast Faxes to the Republican Leadership of the United States
Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Or alternately, you
can send your urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to each and every
Republican Member of the House and Senate. That's over 280 Blast Faxes.
On Tuesday evening, 236 Republicans
and 82 Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi) in the House of
Representatives shot down a measure to give Barack Obama exactly what he
wanted... an unconditional raising of the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion
Use the button below to send your urgent and
personalized Blast Faxes to the Republican Leadership of the United States
Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Or alternately, you
can send your urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to each and every
Republican Member of the House and Senate. That's over 280 Blast Faxes.
Of course not. By now, it
should be obvious. But were we not told that the world as we know it
would come to an end if Congress did not raise the debt ceiling by May 16?
Use the button below to send your urgent and
personalized Blast Faxes to the Republican Leadership of the United States
Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Or alternately, you
can send your urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to each and every
Republican Member of the House and Senate. That's over 280 Blast Faxes.
Wednesday, after emerging from his initial "negotiations" with Barack Obama, Boehner, attempting to sound tough,
told reporters: "I told
the president, one more time, this is the moment. This is the window of
opportunity where we can deal with this on our terms. We can work together
and solve this problem. We know what the problems are. Let's not kick the can
down the road one more time."
As Joseph Farah, the editor and publisher
of WorldNetDaily.com, put it: "By definition, a vote to raise the debt limit
permits the Democrats to spend more money than Washington collects. Republicans
will, in effect, give Democrats license to keep
overspending and increasing debt by approving a debt limit increase."
Unfortunately, Mr. Boehner and the rest of the Republican leadership
are still under the idiotic delusion that raising the debt ceiling is a "bargaining-chip" to be used to extract phony
promises of spending cuts (that will NEVER materialize) from Obama and Senate
Democrats at some point down the road.
NEVER, repeat, NEVER forget that the immediate headlines below, which rightfully describe America as heading for a "Great, Great Depression," are caused by the morally bankrupt, UN-AMERICAN policies of the fraud, masquerading as President, who is DESTROYING THE PRIVATE SECTOR, and his enablers, to particularly include PRAVDA USA, now almost in complete control of Obama's teleprompter, America hater extraordinaire, George Soros, in their zeal to turn America into a communist state! - Gary L. Morella
on the verge of a great, great depression'
Trader: Wall Street baffled by slowing economy, low yields
Tuesday, May 31th, 2011
A 62% top tax rate?
Dems say they only intend to bite of Clinton years – in reality it's the Carter years
--Wall Street Journal
Jobless claims rise
7th straight week in which more than 400,000 added to unemployment rolls
May 31, 2011 12:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
By Michelle Malkin • May 31, 2011 12:13 PM
In April, I reported on the Obama FoodStampCorps’s mission to enroll countless more food-stamp beneficiaries.
Food stamp usage by the American people reached a new high last month as more than 44 million people relied upon the government benefit to purchase necessary groceries for their families.
A new chart issued by the Supplimental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on May 31st showed that just under 14.5% of the American public received food stamp benefits that averaged $133.24 per person.
…In 2010, the total number of people on the SNAP food stamp program was a little over 40 million, and in the first five months of this year, that number has grown over 10%. Continued unemployment, and lack of jobs in the economy have led more people to require food stamps to suppl[e]ment their monthly bills, especially as price inflation continues to grow at a faster pace.
… This growth in a program that cost the government over $64 Billion in 2010, will add to the fiscal burden already being experienced by Washington who needs to find ways to cut spending.
Winning the Future(TM), Obama-style.
Morning Bell: The Unstimulated Obama Economy Posted By Mike Brownfield On May 31, 2011 @ 9:35 am In Entitlements |
Newsflash from The New York Times:
President Barack Obama’s stimulus did not work. No, the Times doesn’t say that in so
many words, but in an op-ed this morning , the
paper laments the sputtering economy and the fact that Washington just isn’t
doing enough to help the economy grow. The problem, of course, is that
Washington has done too much of the wrong things to get the economy moving
The economic news that’s really sticking in the Old Gray Lady’s craw is revised data  released last week that shows the economy’s growth stuck at 1.8 percent, slow consumer spending, stagnant wages, higher prices for gas and food, the poor housing market, flagging consumer confidence and a recent Labor Department report showing a higher-than-expected rise in claims for jobless benefits. The Times complains:
The grim numbers tell an
unavoidable truth: The economy is not growing nearly fast enough to dent
unemployment. Unfortunately, no one in Washington is pushing policies to
promote stronger growth now.
What the Times forgot
to mention, though, is that Washington over the past two years has done a lot—a
whole lot—with the biggest ticket item being the Obama-Reid-Pelosi $787 billion
stimulus that was designed to “create or save” 3.5 million new jobs by 2011 .
Despite the extraordinarily high cost, that didn’t happen, and unemployment has
increased to 9 percent.
But don’t tell that to the Obama stimulus apologists, though. In an interview on Fox News Sunday , host Chris Wallace remarked that in light of the dismal economic numbers, the Obama Administration’s policies and near $1 trillion stimulus “isn’t working” and asked Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to respond. For her, those dots just don’t connect:
Well, I mean – I don’t know
that I agree with that, because, you know, first of all – let me finish here. I
mean, first of all, the trillion dollars for stimulus package – actually $786
billion – was absolutely necessary to make sure that this economy didn’t go
into a freefall. We also know that we had to make sure that we began to
stimulate the kind of growth that we need in this country to invest in the
For the American people, though, that reality is hitting home. Joseph Lupton, an economist at JP Morgan Chase and Company, says , “There are pretty big costs to not really generating a sizeable recovery.” And as The Wall Street Journal reports , those costs are high unemployment, with 5.8 million people out of work for more than six months.
The House GOP last week issued a proposal to spur job growth , including reducing regulation and taxes and promoting free trade – essentially aimed at making it easier for businesses to grow, thereby growing the economy and reducing unemployment. And, like clockwork, the left went on the attack claiming that it’s nothing more than “old ideas, fancy new clip art,”  while the Times described it  as “more of the same ‘fixes’ that Republicans always recommend no matter the problem.” Ironically, though, the left is calling for more of their same ideas – “government help” must come to the rescue, the Times says.
And how do they plan to pay for it? Higher taxes to finance more spending, with “a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%.”  The government needs to stay home. Brian Riedl explained  why government intervention to boost the economy doesn’t work:
Removing water from one end of
a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end will not raise the overall
water level. Similarly, taking dollars from one part of the economy and
distributing it to another part of the economy will not expand the economy.
There are no-cost ways  to
get the economy moving again, such as reforming regulations to reduce
unnecessary business costs, reforming the tort system, removing barriers to
energy production, reducing taxes on companies’ foreign earnings if they bring
their earnings home, and passing pending free trade agreements. And with
Congress confronting spiraling debt, they need to get their economic house in
Despite all the “help” President Obama delivered in the first two years of his presidency, the economy is stuck in the mud and can’t get out. It is overburdened by taxes and regulations, and businesses don’t want to move forward into the dark abyss absent some certainty that the government won’t shackle them with more taxes and regulations down the road. America has had enough of that brand of “help.” It’s time for something different.
· Homeownership is continuing its downward spiral , with the percentage of homeowners dropping to 66.4 percent, from a high of 69.2 percent in 2004.
· The House is set to vote today  on the White House’s request that the debt limit be raised without any spending reductions — a proposal that is expected to be rejected.
· Cyber attacks, which could cripple a power grid or threaten nuclear reactors, can constitute an act of war , according to a new finding from the Pentagon.
· Afghan President Hamid Karzai warned NATO against becoming an “occupying force” in the country  and said raids on Afghan homes in pursuit of insurgents were “not allowed.”
Article printed from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org
URLs in this post:
 op-ed this morning: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/opinion/31tue1.html?_r=1&hp
 3.5 million new jobs by 2011: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/08/obamas-plan-to-create-or-save-jobs-a-promise-unfulfilled
 proposal to spur job growth: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/163511-house-gop-seeks-to-refocus-agenda-on-jobs-we-have-a-growth-plan
 “old ideas, fancy new clip art,”: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-jobs-plan-old-ideas-fancy-new-clip-art/2011/05/26/AG3XZKCH_story.html
 “a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%.”: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343611464445594.html
 continuing its downward spiral: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/business/31housing.html?hp
 can constitute an act of war: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
 NATO against becoming an “occupying force” in the country: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/us-afghanistan-karzai-casualties-idUSTRE74U0RP20110531
 examines the battlefield of the 21st century: http://www.heritage.org/Events/2011/05/Allen-West
On Wednesday's Mark Levin
Show: Mark talks about Congressman
Anthony Weiner's alleged Twitter photograph and says that he believes that it
is him in the photo. Mark also talks
about the state of the economy right now and how the bailout and stimulus
programs haven't worked and that we are continually handing over more money and
power to temporary politicians, at our own expense. Why are the American people smart enough to
elect these politicians, but then not smart enough to choose our own doctors or
light bulbs? What are all these
regulations doing besides moving us more towards a soft tyranny? Mark also talks about how we have a society
that is being further divided between the big government political hacks and
the rest of us.
Goldberg | Weinergate: The Long and the Short of it
What goes around comes around as I've never observed a more conceited obnoxious individual, with the notable exception of Obama, come to the defense of the indefensible in terms of draconian legislation to control every aspect of our lives than Weiner. News is now out that Weiner has a record of "tweeting with babes including a porn actress." Wow, that will make for a good marriage, right? What about laws that may have been broken here in regard to the transmission of this picture with Weiner's weasel comments making him look guiltier daily? Where's the AG Holder? Where's the House ethics committee for that matter, or have they become so anesthetized to this type of reprehensible behavior on the part of their reps that it's not even on their radar?
We can go on and on about the well known fiscal catastrophe intentionally caused by the Obamunists but that is merely a spawn of the disintegration of the moral order that historically precedes societal collapse, i.e., we're living the advocacy of the morally bankrupt as policy. A country capable of rationalizing the brutal killing of innocents in their mothers' wombs as "legal", promoting proven changeable aberrant behavior as normal under force of unjust law, and incentivizing its doctors to get grandpa and grandma to check out early via a purported health care system that is anything but, no surprise here as abortion is pre-natal euthanasia with euthanasia being post-natal abortion with the latter a logical consequence of the former, is staring directly at its own demise from within.
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:16:49
Subject: "Illegal Children" Abducted by Chinese Authorities and Trafficked Abroad
World Last updated: May 31st, 2011
Can you imagine David Cameron enjoying a round of golf on Remembrance Sunday? It would be inconceivable for the British Prime Minister to do so, and not just because of the usually dire weather at that time of the year. Above all, it would be viewed as an act of extremely bad taste on a day when the nation remembers and mourns her war dead. I can’t imagine the PM even considering it, and I’m sure his advisers would be horrified at the idea. And if the prime minister ever did play golf on such a sacrosanct day he would be given a massive drubbing by the British press, and it would never be repeated.
Contrast this with President Obama’s decision to play golf yesterday, Memorial Day, for the 70th time during his 28-month long presidency. For tens of millions of Americans, Memorial Day is a time for remembrance of the huge sacrifices made by servicemen and women on the battlefield. The president did pay his respects in the morning, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery, but later in the day traveled to Fort Belvoir to play golf. The story has not been reported so far in a single US newspaper, but was made public by veteran White House correspondent Keith Koffler on his blog. Here’s Koffler’s report:
The business of memorializing
our war dead done, President Obama headed out to the Fort Belvoir golf course
today, finding his way onto the links for the ninth weekend in a row.
Obama earlier today laid a
wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and met with families of those killed
in battle. But he emerged from the day’s solemnity to go golfing for the 12th
time this year and the 70th time of his presidency.
The decision to golf on Memorial
Day invites comparison with President George W. Bush, who gave up the game
early in his presidency and said he did it out of respect for the families of
those killed in Iraq.
Does it matter if the
president chooses to play golf on Memorial Day, and for the second time in his
presidency (he did so as well in 2009)?
I think it does, and it displays extraordinarily bad judgment, not only by
Obama himself but also by his advisers. His chief of staff for example should
have firmly cautioned against it. President Obama is not just any American but
Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. The United States is currently
engaged in a major war in Afghanistan with over 100,000 troops on the ground,
and more than 1,500 have already laid down their lives for their country.
The least the president can do on Memorial Day is spend the whole day with veterans and servicemen’s families while acknowledging their sacrifice. As Koffler points out above, President George W. Bush stopped playing golf out of respect for the families of Iraq War dead. This demonstrated not only good judgment but humility and respect for the men and women who keep America safe. It is little wonder that, as Gallup reveals in a new poll, US military personnel and veterans give Barack Obama lower marks for his job performance than members of the general public. The president’s actions smack of poor taste, as well a lack of empathy and support for the US military, hardly the kind of leadership the White House should be projecting at a time of war.
In regard to any commentary about fighting the culture war, we had better get it right with God Almighty, number one; else, we're finished as a country, because without God's blessing, there is no hope of survival! And that blessing will not be forthcoming if we continue to allow the disciples of the devil, who have America by the jugular, to flout the moral order of God's Natural Law, the obedience of which being recognized by the founders in The Declaration of Independence as necessary for the survival of The Republic!
See the following links.
The Tyrants Among Us Who Trash The Declaration Of Independence's Reference To The Importance Of The Natural Law Of God As If It Never Existed
Sodomite Judge Ignores Not Only Nature And Nature's God But Also Reason, Given That God's Natural Law IS Reasonably Understood Exclusive Of Divine Revelation Connotations, In An Irrational Extremely Biased Ruling That Trashes Nature And Nature's God In Direct Contradiction To The Declaration Of Independence Which Was Fulfilled In The Constitution - Military Homosexual Scandal Tied To WikiLeaks Treason
The Founders Didn't Put Social Issues On The Backburner In The Declaration Of Independence - Boehner Has Betrayed Those Who Made Him Speaker - Obama To Blame For High Oil Prices - Soros Calling Shots In Obama's Willful Destruction Of America - Republicans Disastrous Victory - Waging War, Union Style, In WI - POLST: "Self-Determination" Or Imposed Death?
Death Panels Crop Up Again As Obama Mentions IPAB In Medicare - The Declaration Of Independence Is Not Going To Be Revised To Accommodate The Godless - Town Hallers Ask Obama: Where Are The Jobs? - Obama IS The Problem With Higher Gas Prices - To Retire Our National Debt, Retire Obama - Radical Lesbian Nominated For Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
The Right To Liberty In The Declaration Of Independence Is Not An Anarchist's Dream - Soros Group Behind Attack On Boehner's Catholicism - Obama Oil Policy Threatens Alaska Pipeline's Existence - The Truth Behind Oil Subsidies - Middle Class Will Be Crushed Within 5 Years - New Birth Certificate Anomalies Inexplicable - We're All Communists Now, Part 3
ATTENTION GOP 'Leadership': You Don't Compromise With Communists Who Are Destroying Your Country From Within - It's Mandatory For Congress To Address 'Un-American Activities' At The Highest Levels Of Government - Military Not A Place For Social Experiments - Michigan State University Joins NOAA In Satellitegate Cover Up - Soros Trying To Prop Up Sinking Obama - New START's Inflated Promises - 'Separation Of Church And State' Is NOT In The First Amendment - Obama Omits 'Creator' From Declaration Rights Language Again - Anyone Who Says That Obamacare Doesn't Fund Abortion Is A BALD-FACED LIAR
Recall, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, that we were given "A Republic if you can keep it!" with a Constitution that was the fulfillment of The Declaration of Independence!
- Gary L. Morella
Culture War and How to Fight It, V.:
Some Memorial Day Reflections
Memorial Day 2011 should call to our attention the real state of America today — a nation engulfed in the flames of a Culture War. This is a battle war that many of America's Constitutionalists are fighting poorly. But we cannot learn to fight until we learn to think. This Culture War is, so far, a war of words, but words inciting action - words expressing bitterly opposed philosophies, intellectual values, and policy goals. And as columnist Joseph Sobran observed in the first days of the Reagan Presidency, Americans [then and now] are "philosophically incompetent and intellectually unsophisticated."
Whatever insult some Constitutionalists might see in this observation should be overridden by the challenge of Sobran's words. Memorial Day 2011 can be celebrated in no more fitting manner than by our THINKING ABOUT some of America's most precious foundational principles, how they have been charred almost beyond recognition in the flames of the Culture War, and what we Constitutionalists can do about it — how we can learn more in order to fight better. We shall think about (1) the principles themselves, (2) the policy areas in which these principles have been the most brutally attacked, and (3) the parties in American society — societal institutions — directly victimized by these attacks. We MUST think about and understand — far better than we do — these pivotal aspects of the Culture War.
Four primary principles expressed in four words in the
Constitution have been the most badly battered in the Culture War. They are
listed below by Constitutional term and philosophical foundation:
· "Person"/The dignity of the individual;
· "Life"/The sanctity of human life;
· "Liberty"/The "blessings of liberty";
· "Law"/The rule of law.
These principles have been victimized by Reconstructionist (activist/liberal) judges bent on morphing our Judeo-Christian Constitution and culture into a Humanist and Reconstructionist Constitution and culture. The principles are guaranteed primarily by Amendments 1, 5, and 14.
Collectively, these provisions protect the right of every "person" to "life, liberty," and "due process [the rule of] law." Key components of "liberty" include freedom from establishment of religion and the right to free exercise of religion. Also specifically expressed are freedoms of speech, press, peaceable assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The courts have now created from this specific list a generalized "freedom of expression" not intended by the document but allowing current judges to protect all kinds of mischievous actions from flag-burning to nude dancing.
The Declaration of Independence amplifies the meanings of these principles in expressing a number of vital truths. Let's examine each of these primary principles.
· "Person"/The "dignity of the individual" is assumed in the Amendments' unequivocal assertion that governments cannot deprive "persons" — not any other creature or thing — of precious fundamental rights. Clearly, the individual receives these rights from his Creator God and is equal in this way before God to every other individual. Every individual as an individual is of great value — "dignity." His value does NOT proceed from his birth into a particular family or class, his membership in the "proletariat," or some other pagan source.
· "Life"/The "sanctity of human life" principle is closely related to yet separable from personhood. Human life is of the greatest value — "sanctity" — because each human life is created by God as a special — unique — creation. Man is also created with certain precious, inalienable rights which are granted to no one or anything else in the universe, thus elevating man to the highest position in God's created order.
· "Liberty"/The "blessings of liberty" phraseology appears in the Preamble to the Constitution. The term "liberty" (or "freedom") alone is used in both the Declaration and Amendments 1, 5, and 14. "Liberty" is obviously one of the "inalienable rights" with which men are endowed by God. The Preamble's addition of the phrase "blessings of liberty" clearly connotes that true liberty generates outcomes beyond itself — "blessings" "to ourselves and our posterity."
These phrasings of "liberty" clearly connote the fact that liberty is not unbridled license — the right of an individual to do whatever he please whenever and wherever. Rather, liberty is to be exercised (1) within the order prescribed by the God who is the author of liberty and (2) is to be exercised consistently with other rights and the interests of others in mind.
· "Law"/The "rule of law" occurs numerous times in the Constitution (and the Declaration) and reveals complementary truths about the meaning and application of "law." One truth is that the Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the land." A second truth we learn in examining the Constitution is that the rule of law encompasses two types of law — "substantive" and "mechanical"; and the rule of law requires that both types flow from the Constitution.
At the core of "substantive law" is the requirement that all valid laws protect and promote the first three primary principles that we have examined: personhood, human life, and liberty. "Mechanical law" requires that the structures and processes through which government acts are enacted and enforced line up with numerous expressed Constitutional requirements (e.g., "due process" and the principles we examined in our last "Court Watch Briefing" as requiring of Americans the obligation of limiting our Reconstructionist/supremacist judges).
In later Court Watch Briefings, we shall continue thinking about the primary principles of America's Constitution and culture. May we now, on Memorial Day 2011, remember with renewed understanding and gratitude the sacrifices made by past and present Americans to protect and promote the primary principles of our grand and glorious Constitution.
Below is served up as
weekly tripe in PRAVDA Central PA, The Centre Daily Times of State
College PA, by a series of columnists, red to the core, identifying themselves
as community organizers, or some other type of disciple of sustainability
which is their god! - Gary L. Morella
Sustainable Development Puts American Lifestyles in UN's Crosshairs
by Cathie Adams
Eagle Forum International Issues Chairman
Further Reading: United Nations / Global Warming
Americans do not like having our standard of living in the United Nations' crosshairs, especially considering we pay 22% of its $2.5 billion regular budget, plus 27% of its $9.5+ billion peacekeeping budget.
Since 1987, the UN has plied a borderless issue called "sustainable development" to demean American lifestyles and demand economic, social and environmental "justice." They use it to agitate class warfare and control the behavior of people, businesses and organizations. It is the UN's cure-all for the world's real and imagined problems including global warming/climate change, poverty, conflict, etc.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was the UN's first major sustainable development conquest, putting mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions in only 37 industrialized countries, intended to force moving industrial wealth from rich to poor countries. Even though the U.S. Senate did not ratify that treaty, former President Bill Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development that uses federal grants to infiltrate every classroom and countless local governments with sustainable development.
The UN has a new weapon in its sustainable development arsenal: government benchmarks for "consumption and production." Targeting 1.4 billion "rich" people in every nation, it accuses them of greedily consuming 80% of global output.
The proposal's author, Mohan Munasinghe, a native of Sri Lanka, is Director-General of the Sustainable Consumption Institute at the University of Manchester, U.K. As vice chair of the International Panel on Climate Change, he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. His proposal, called "Millennium Consumption Goals: How the Rich Can Make the Planet More Sustainable," would replace "unsustainable values like greed . . . especially among the young" with government benchmarks for consumption and production.
Munasinghe complains that "governments quickly found over $5 trillion for stimulus packages . . . to prop up banks and promote unsustainable consumption. . . . Meanwhile, only about $100 billion per year are devoted to alleviate poverty and far less to combat climate change." Concerning national defense, he adds, "Some types of [government] expenditures . . . also need to be targeted — e.g., the U.S. $1.5 trillion per year spent on armaments worldwide."
The MCGs' objective is to "complement" the Millennium Development Goals, signed by former President Clinton at the 2000 Millennium Summit. Both MCGs and MDGs define sustainable development's three Marxist pillars to equalize the world economically, socially and environmentally, claiming it safeguards the "future survival of humanity."
The Millennium Development Goals are to:
· Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
· Achieve universal primary education
· Promote gender equality and empower women (Advocate for CEDAW, the international Equal Rights Amendment, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)
· Reduce child mortality and promote child health (Advocate for the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child to usurp parental rights and empower the UN.)
· Improve maternal health (Advocate for UN Family Planning, including taxpayer funded abortions.)
· Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases (Advocate for condom use.)
· Ensure environmental sustainability (Advocate for sustainable development.)
· Develop a global partnership for development (Advocate for wealth redistribution.)
Munasinghe's Millennium Consumption Goals eerily parallel President and Mrs. Obama's agenda for:
· Conservation of scarce resources like energy and water (Advocate for cap & tax legislation.)
· Efficient transport (Advocate for expensive public transportation and discourage private cars.)
· Healthier diets and obesity reduction (Advocate for the First Lady's pet $2.5 billion project.)
· Healthier lifestyles and greater fitness
· Progressive taxation and taxes on luxury goods (Advocate for tax-the-rich schemes.)
· Sustainable livelihoods (Destroy freedom with government master planning.)
· Reduced workweek and improved working conditions, etc. (Advocate for labor unions.)
At the May PrepCom for the Rio+20 meeting in New York City, a proposed 10-year "Framework of Programs" for sustainable consumption and production was rejected, so Munasinghe's sight is now set on the 2012 Earth Summit, Rio+20, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Americans must elect a new president in 2012 who rejects sustainable development's Marxist intentions and will eliminate all federal grants that advance it.
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Sustainable development or sustainable freedom?
Exclusive: Henry Lamb compares U.N.-inspired goals with U.S. founders' goals
Sustainable development or sustainable freedom?
Posted: May 28, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
Sustainable is based on a set of principles found in Our Common Future, the report of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development.
From space, we see a small and fragile ball dominated not by human activity and edifice but by a pattern of clouds, oceans, greenery, and soils. Humanity's inability to fit its activities into that pattern is changing planetary systems, fundamentally. This new reality, from which there is no escape, must be recognized – and managed. (Chapter 4.1)
Sustainable freedom is based on this belief:
… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ….
Sustainable development is achieved when the recommendations contained in Agenda 21 are fully implemented.
Sustainable development and sustainable freedom are mutually exclusive. Sustainable development produces a society managed by government to environmental protection, social equity and equal economic opportunity. Sustainable freedom produces a government managed by society to protect individual freedom, private property and the unalienable rights identified in the Declaration of Independence.
Sustainable development was endorsed by the in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush signed Agenda 21 at the U.N. on Environment and Development. Sustainable Development came to the United States in 1993 when President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12852 which created the President's Council on Sustainable Development.
Throughout the Clinton years, the PCSD gave millions of dollars to nonprofit organizations and to state and local governments to encourage the implementation of Agenda 21 at the state and local government levels. Nearly every community in the nation has now been the subject of a "visioning" process to create a "strategic plan" to achieve sustainable development.
With grants from the federal government (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the lead federal agency, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration in the U.S. Department of , the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Economic and Community Development Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), the American Planning Association produced "Growing Smart: Legislative Guidebook." This publication provided three model statutes and two model executive orders states could adopt to convert the non-binding recommendations of Agenda 21 into state law.
Consequently, most states and local communities now have, or are in the process of creating, a county-wide plan to implement sustainable development. A common element in most of these communities is the complete ignorance of Agenda 21 and sustainable development among elected officials. In fact, when asked, elected officials frequently deny that their county's activities are related to Agenda 21 at all. This ignorance about Agenda 21 is deliberate. Gary Lawrence, former director of the Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of and chief planner for the city of Seattle told an audience in London:
In the case of the U.S., our local authorities are engaged in planning processes consistent with LA21 [Local Agenda 21], but there is little interest in using the LA21 brand. … So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.
In the States, sustainable development is delivered to local communities in the form of a comprehensive land-use plan, with little or no mention of Agenda 21. Greenville County, S.C., recently updated its comprehensive land-use plan under the banner: "Imagine Greenville County; Tomorrow's Vision Today." Several elected officials insisted that the exercise had nothing to do with Agenda 21. A rather casual analysis of the plan, however, provides direct documentation that both the process and the outcome prescribed by Agenda 21 were achieved in the plan.
Likewise, the officials in Bradley County, Tenn., denied any relationship to Agenda 21 in the development of their "BCC-2035 Strategic Plan." A review of the plan in relation to Chapter 7 of Agenda 21 reveals that the plan is essentially an extension of Agenda 21, modified by local names and places.
There is no doubt that sustainable development in the United States is a concept that arose from the United Nations with the clear purpose of managing societies around to world to achieve environmental protection, equal economic opportunity and social . The United States was founded on the principles of limited government, individual freedom, reward for individual achievement and free markets that produce maximum prosperity. Government is imposing sustainable development and its inevitable government management. Only an informed, involved and determined people can stop and reverse this erosion of freedom.
Thu 6/02/11 10:42 PM
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Gender nonsense in the classroom
Phyllis Schlafly targets 2-day program teaching kindergartners about 'Princess Boy'
Gender nonsense in the classroom
Posted: May 31,
1:50 pm Eastern
Elementary school curriculum isn't just about the three R's anymore. Reading, 'Riting and 'Rithmetic now have to make time for lessons in gender diversity and for nosy questionnaires that lead kids into teen sex and illegal drug usage.
Students in all grades at Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland, Calif., were given two days of gender diversity lessons designed to teach them that gender is not confined to the "binary concept" of two options. The lessons promoted "gender neutrality," the concept that no distinctions between male and female should be legally allowed.
These lessons were taught by an anti-bullying group called Gender Spectrum and paid for by a $1,500 grant from the California Teachers Union. The course featured all-girl geckos and transgender clownfish.
The major message was that "" means people can choose to be different from the sex assigned at birth and can freely "change their sex." According to Gender Spectrum, "Gender identity is a spectrum where people can be girls, feel like girls, they feel like boys, they feel like both, or they can feel like neither."
Kindergartners were introduced to this new subject by asking them to identify toys that are a "girl toy" or a "boy toy" or both, and whether they like the pink. They were read a story called "My Princess Boy."
Fourth-graders were told that if someone were born with male "private parts" but identified more with being a girl, he should be "accepted" and "respected." They were taught "gender fluidity," which means a boy might be a boy one day and a girl the next.
The Oakland School District personnel were apparently proud of this course because they allowed Fox News to audit and report on these lessons. District spokesman Troy Flint said that gender identity lessons are required by school board policy and supported by federal, state and local law as a means to support "" and a safe classroom environment.
The lessons seem more likely to confuse the kids about who they are, and indeed, Gender Spectrum boasted that its goal is to confuse the children and make them question traditional ideas about who is a boy and who is a girl. It is not surprising that many were upset when they heard about the two-day course.
Some of the bills now pending in the California State Assembly indicate that these gender neutrality notions may become the new normal curriculum in California public schools. Gender Spectrum is determined to make children think that boy and girl don't mean anything anymore, and that it's no longer normal to believe people are born male or female or have different roles.
The California State Assembly is considering changes to 34 statutes by redefining gender to include a person's own "" and on May 17 passed AB 887, which prohibits any discrimination against the "transgendered." Among its predictable effects is that employers can be forbidden to require men to dress like men.
We wonder why anyone is surprised at this Left Coast nonsense, because university women's studies courses have for years taught that the obvious differences we observe between males and females are not a natural occurrence but are a social construct due to conditioning by parents and traditional social norms. It's a misunderstanding of the to think it was ever about equality for women; it always advocated the interchangeability of men and women and an end to what they lambaste as gender "stereotyping."
Memorial in Fitchburg, Mass., featured another type of classroom atrocity: requiring pupils to answer nosy questions that are not only intrusive but designed to lead the kids into unacceptable behaviors. The survey, called the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, was created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which also provided the funding for it to be administered.
One question asked: "The last time you had sexual intercourse, what one method did you or use to prevent pregnancy? ... A. I have never had sexual intercourse; B. No method was used to prevent pregnancy; C. Birth control pills; D. Condoms; E. Depo-Provera (or any injectable birth control), Nuva Ring (or any birth control ring), Implanon (or any implant) or any IUD; F. Withdrawal; G. Some other method; H. Not sure."
Here are a more leading questions: "During your life, how many times have you used methamphetamines (also called speed, crystal, crank, or ice)?" "During the past 30 days, how many times did you sniff glue, breathe the contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhale any paints or sprays to get high?"
The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment makes such interrogation of illegal without prior parental consent, which the school did not have. Some parents have appealed to the Rutherford Institute, and we wish them success in stopping the school from asking elementary school children such nosy questions.
Tue, 31 May 2011 09:48:09 -0400
Subject: Transgender lessons now in elementary school!
1. Formal transgender
lessons now in CA elementary school! Is this our future if transgender rights
bill passes? (See VIDEOS!)
Our first lady:
Exclusive: Mychal Massie believes Obamas
'are not liberals – they are Marxist-Leninists'
Our first lady: Bitter harridan
May 31, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
The axiom, "Show me a man's friends and I'll show you the
man," is nowhere more evident than with Barack Obama. In my column "Michelle Obama's inner demons," I
wrote "[Obama] claims two mentors and two people of greatest influence in
his life – the race-baiting, hate-filled, Jeremiah Wright and his
race-conscious, bitter wife." Nothing more need be said of Wright, but not
enough can be said about his wife.
Anger and resentment have been her constant companions in search of a to be cultivated into a more centered hatred. We should be very concerned that she has the unfettered ear of the person who occupies the most powerful office in the world.
Michelle Obama has a deep contempt for white people in America – something she has not been shy in making expressly clear for those who have cared to listen.
Are we to believe that Obama does not share her contempt for the white establishment as well? It was she who got him involved in Wright's church. Obama was little more than a summer clerk, an intern, at the Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin. She was practicing law at the firm when he was hired as summer help and was assigned to mentor him. Something that is not widely publicized is that Sidley Austin also employed Dohrn, who was personally hired by Howard Trienens, head of the firm and close friend of Bill Ayers' father. It puts one in mind of the "The Firm" – only at this firm, unlike the Tom Hanks theatrical character, the star players aren't motivated by conscience. They're motivated by anarchy and contempt.
Dohrn had been on the run for years as one of the FBI's 10 most wanted as a result of her part in the Days of Rage riots. She and Ayers lived underground as wanted criminals for 11 years – Dohrn eventually being cleared of charges by a judge in New York. It could prove to be very informative to research the relationship between that judge, Sidley Austin, Dohrn's family and Ayers' family.
Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are committed Marxist-Leninists. And it stands to reason no law firm hires outside of its comfort zone – so it is that the elements came together to meld the Obama's into what they are today, i.e., Marxist-Leninists people blindly think are liberals.
At , Michelle failed to grasp that there's a difference between the elitist white liberal academicians and Marxist-Leninists. look down on everyone who is not a mirror copy of themselves. In her Princeton thesis she lamented: "I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus – as if I really don't belong." She complained that whites made her feel "black first and a student second."
Today, being recognized as before anything else is the mindset of inferior blacks – she and her ilk aspire to a higher order, that of hybrid Leninist. In their political sphere, they hate elitist white liberals, but find them useful. Case in point: Obama's czars are Alinskyites and Leninists; they are not elitist liberals.
Michelle's was made unavailable until Nov. 5, 2008 (interestingly the day after the election). "Why a restricted thesis? asked blogger-pastor Louis Lapides on his [website], Thinking Outside the Blog. Is the concern based on what's in the thesis?" ("Michelle Obama Thesis was on Racial Divide"; Jeffrey Ressner; politico.com; Feb. 23, 2008) In a blog post on Politcal Night Train, entitled "Michelle Obama's Princeton Thesis – Her Black Values Revealed," the author exposes her views of whites in unfettered and unflattering detail (politicalrighttrain.com; Feb. 26, 2008).
A tape that was reportedly filmed in 2004 during the Rainbow/Push Coalition at Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church has mysteriously disappeared from public view. The tape allegedly showed Michelle Obama hysterically ranting about "Whiteys" and savagely attacking Bill Clinton as responsible for African genocide. The wife of Louis Farrakhan was one of the honored guests. (Americanpowerblog.blogspot.com; "What's Up With the Michelle Obama Whitey Tape"; June 4, 2008)
It's widely known that Obama's wife shaped his character. She was bitter with her Princeton black classmates because they were too comfortable interacting with whites. She anguished over taking on what she viewed as conservative values, i.e., "[going to] a prestigious graduate school and getting a high-paying job." Maybe that's why she acts less like a first lady and more like a kennel employee.
Michelle Obama is a bitter harridan – by her own admission contemptuous of whites because she felt like a pariah at Princeton. She found fertile ground to cultivate her hatred at Sidley Austin. And there she discovered Obama, who had the genetic predisposition to embrace Leninism.
These people are not liberals – they are Marxist-Leninists in mindset, belief, association and . Liberals don't govern as they are – they govern as Marx advocated and Lenin did.
REBELLION IN AMERICA
Incensed voters 'repudiate'
'Data indicate backlash could sweep
Capitol Hill, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.'
Sher Zieve: "Obama
nullifies and ends US Constitution"
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 00:59:00 -0500
May 30, 2011
To read the article, click here:
I don't immediately
recognize any Catholic contributions to Resisting
The Green Dragon , which is very disturbing,
because the One, True, Catholic Church is the most Biblical, in
particular, given that the central dogma defining the Church is the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass whereby bread and wine is consecrated into the Body,
Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ using Jesus' words taken directly
from the New Testament!
What I HAVE seen is a large apostate element in the Catholic Church doing exactly the opposite of what is being encouraged below, i.e., promoting the environmentalist movement which is communist to the core.
See the following links for proof!
Vatican Being Co-opted By Gore Green Goblins Whose Well Documented Pathological Lies Have Been Embraced By The USCCB To Brainwash Catholic Children Via A 'Climate Covenant' That Allows For No Opposition
USCCB Apostates Co-opt The Church To Enable The RED Green Goblin Pathological Lying Obamunists To Destroy The Country From Within
Judas USCCB Supports Comrade Obama's Destruction Of America From Within By Unconscionably Supporting Pelosi's Insane Energy Bill Built On Lies
Exposing The Repeated Lies Of The Obamunist Green-Goblin Crowd Who Are RED To The Core
Lie Again Mr. Boehner And Prep Your Resume - Obama Stimulates Nothing But More Debt, Per Palin - How Obama Czar Uses His Executive Authority - HHS Initiatives Fail To Offer States Meaningful Flexibility - IPAB: The Death Panels - The False Choice Between Existing Medicare And Ryan's Proposal - Sodomites Unhappy With AZ Adoption Law Having Children As Priority - Progressive Media And The War On The Unborn - The Despicable Attack On Gov. Palin's Son With Down Syndrome - We Now Have The Media Of A One Party Totalitarian State - Ten Fracking Things Everyone Should Know To Debunk The Lies Of The Environmental Nazis - The Enactment Of An Economically Crippling Energy Agenda - What Greens Really Believe - Academic Rot
- Gary L. Morella
Sun, 29 May 2011 14:42:14 +0200
Subject: Environmentalist movement 1 of greatest threats to society, church today
COLUMN DU JOUR
about oil spill was false
Humberto Fontova: 1 year later, predictions about Gulf 'disaster' prove wrongheaded
"There's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster, “said Marine Scientist and former LSU professor Ivor Van Heerden who also works as a BP spill-response contractor. “I have no interest in making BP look good — I think they lied about the size of the spill — but we're not seeing catastrophic impacts. There's a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it."
In fact these observations came-- not a year after the Deepwater Horizon blew-up -- but a mere three months afterwards, making them all the more blasphemous at the time. By now they’ve been amply vindicated, making the Obama team’s “moratorium” and more recent stonewalling on Gulf of Mexico drilling permits all the more preposterous.
Your loyal servant here grew up in South Louisiana and spends most week-ends along the Louisiana coast hooking, spearing, gaffing, blasting and otherwise assassinating the raw ingredients of his family meals. He also shares the resulting joys and debacles with readers and TV-show hosts. So he had more than a casual concern with the BP oil spill.
The reasons for this “disasters’” fizzling out are many and were apparent to non-hack scientists from the get-go. To wit:
“People don’t comprehend how so much oil could break down in such a short time period,” explains Dr. LuAnn White, a toxicologist with the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, who also serves as Director of the Center for Applied Environmental Health. “But we have natural oil seeps in the Gulf, and over 200 genera of microbes that break down oil already exist there.”
“It cannot be repeated often enough,” says Louisiana Marine Biologist Jerald Horst , Crude oil is a natural substance, its biodegradable. It’s a feast for microbes. And these consumed most of it from the BP spill.”
The horrid black goo that leaked into the Gulf of Mexico from the BP spill last year is certainly toxic—but so are broccoli, beer and salt. It all depends on the dosage. In fact that horrid black goo has spilled naturally into the Gulf of Mexico for millennia— at the rate of two Exxon Valdez spills annually.
A study by the Dept. of Oceanography at Texas A&M found 600 “oils spills,” into the Gulf of Mexico, all ancient if not prehistoric, all antiseptically “natural”, and all courtesy of Earth Goddess Gaia. In fact these “spills” probably saved the survivors of Hernando De Soto’s plucky band of explorers in 1542, who record caulking their boats with the abundant tar balls found along an east Texas beach. The study also reports that in 1909 a genuine gusher was spotted in the same area, shooting crude oil high into the air from the Gulf floor.
Not all these gushers lie below the Gulf of Mexico however. In fact one of Mother Earth’s biggest “spills” is off Southern California’s coast at Coal Oil Point, not far from the homes of ”environmentalist activists” Leo De Caprio, Charlie Sheen, Barbara Streisand, Brad Pitt, Ed Begley Jr and many, many others of their ilk. This spill gushes an estimated 3000 gallons of crude oil daily into the waters off Malibu beach. But none of the above “activists” appear overly agitated over this “disaster.”
Nothing normally soothes the savage beast of an environmentalist like the notion of a substance being “biodegradable.” Indeed, the term “environmentally-friendly,” has become almost its synonym. Well, crude oil is about as biodegradable as substances come, especially when spewed into warm, microbe-filled waters like the Gulf of Mexico. Hence the stratospheric dunce caps crowning so many “environmentalist” heads a mere year after “The Worst Environmental Disaster in U.S. History!”
“The damaging effects of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will be felt all the way to Europe and the Arctic!” according to a “top scientist” addressing a congressional panel, as reported by CNN last year.
In fact, the damaging effects were hardly visible in Louisiana itself a few months later. Dr. Van Heerden who spent most of his days inspecting the Louisiana coast found that less than one square mile of coastal marsh had been severely oiled, mostly around Timbalier Bay. That’s out of 5300 square miles of Louisiana coastal marsh and swamp, by the way.
And by last July the “severely oiled” areas were already bouncing back. “Van Heerden's assessment team showed me around Casse-tete Island in Timbalier Bay,” wrote Time Magazine’s Michael Grunwald last July, “where new shoots of Spartina (marsh) grasses were sprouting in oiled marshes and new leaves were already growing on the first black mangroves I've ever seen that were actually black."
“Ah!” you ask. “But what about that poisonous chemical used as a dispersant for the oil?”
You probably ingested traces of this poisonous chemical compound with last night’s dinner, and other traces probably coat your pots, pans, cups, spoons and forks right now. Some people call the dispersant Corexit 9500—and some call it “soap.” Essentially it’s Dawn dishwashing detergent.
“Dispersants are not very toxic.” Explains Dr. Robert Dickey, director of FDA’s Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory. “They are detergents and solvents. And they become rapidly diluted. One square mile of sea water one foot deep is 200 million gallons. We added 1.8 million gallons in the whole Gulf.”
Point is: you add much higher concentration to your kitchen sink to make your dishes “safe” for your family.
After the spill, the FDA’s Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Seafood Inspection Laboratory, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hospitals along with similar agencies from neighboring Gulf coast states have methodically and repeatedly tested Gulf seafood for cancer-causing “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.”
“Not a single sample [for oil or dispersant] has come anywhere close to levels of concern,” reported Olivia Watkins, executive media advisor for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
“All of the samples have been 100-fold or even 1,000-fold below all of these levels, “reports Bob Dickey, director of the FDA’s Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory. “Nothing ever came close to these levels.”
“Fine,” some might say. But kindly define what constitutes this “level of concern.”
“The small amount of hydrocarbons in a seafood meal is much less than the exposure from pumping gas,” clarifies La. Dept. of Health and Hospitals Dr. Jimmy Guidry
“Anyone who smokes one cigarette gets more PAHs than they could get from eating gallons of any Gulf oysters that have been tested,” clarifies Dr. LuAnn White
After the Exxon Valdez “disaster” a NOAA study found that “residents of village communities (near Prince William Sound) became upset when it was pointed out that samples of smoked fish from their villages contained carcinogenic hydrocarbon levels hundreds of times higher than any shellfish samples collected from oiled beaches.”
The proof of the abundance of Louisiana’s the marine life is in the eating, but first comes the catching and spearing. So let’s head to an offshore oil platform a few months after and a few miles away from “The Worst Environmental Disaster in U.S. History!” and take a peek.
'Big Oil?' It's not who you think
Corporate management has only 1.5% of U.S. crude and natural gas industry
Who Owns ‘Big Oil'? Not Who You Think
Thursday, May 26, 2011
(CNSNews.com) -- Armed with a Power Point presentation to illustrate the state of American energy, John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute (API), said the majority of “big oil” and natural gas ownership is in good hands – the hands of the American people.
According to a report published in 2007 by Sonecon, an economic advisory firm that analyses U.S. markets and public policy, corporate management owns only 1.5 percent of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry.
The rest is owned by tens of millions of Americans through retirement accounts (14 percent) and pension funds (26 percent). Mutual funds or other firms account for 29.5 percent ownership and individual investors own 23 percent of oil stock holdings.
Institutional investors hold the remaining 5 percent.
Felmy spoke on Thursday to the National Economists Club in Washington, D.C., about the range of conditions that affect the cost of gasoline at the pump. Some of those include decisions by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, geo-political conditions, speculation, inventories, exchange rates and inflation and even the weather.
As for the profits made by U.S. oil and natural gas companies that have been cited by congressional Democrats as reason to end tax incentives for the industry, Felmy put those earnings in perspective when it comes to high gasoline prices.
“If you took 100 percent of the earnings of the oil industry, you’d save 30 cents on the gallon,” Felmy said.
Moreover, compared to other American industries, the oil and natural gas industry’s profit margin are mid-range compared to other industries – 5.7 percent for each dollar, according to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data.
Those industries making much higher net income/sales percentages on the dollar include beverage and tobacco products (21.7 percent), pharmaceuticals (19.4 percent), computer and peripheral equipment (17.3 percent) and chemicals (14.7 percent).
Felmy’s Power Point presentation included an image of a one dollar bill showing what American consumers are paying for with that dollar at the pump: 68 percent for crude oil and 18 percent on refining and retailing.
Fourteen percent of each dollar Americans spend at the pump goes to the federal government in the form of excise taxes.
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
Judge to university: Release
climate researcher's papers
'The more they stonewall, the more they're
making Richard Nixon look like a choirboy'
The Washington Times
Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II says a judge’s order compelling the University of Virginia to turn over thousands of pages of climate-change research will likely alter his own battle for the long-sought documents.
The Republican attorney general and state Delegate Robert G. Marshall have battled the university for more than a year over the release of documents related to the work of former professor Michael Mann. Mr. Mann had been involved in a leaked email exchange with colleagues that climate-change skeptics claimed showed scientific misconduct.
Mr. Marshall, Prince William Republican, requested the documents through the Freedom of Information Act, while Mr. Cuccinelli subpoenaed them. Mr. Cuccinelli said an order issued Tuesday in Prince William County Circuit Court that grants Mr. Marshall’s request could affect his own appeal to the state Supreme Court to reverse a previous ruling in favor of the university.
“It certainly can affect what we’re doing,” Mr. Cuccinelli said. “If they essentially disgorge everything, there’s no cause for them to be going to court to try and cover it up.”
He said he plans to review the documents and “see how the process unfolds.”
“If, as and when we get copies of the stuff, we’ll see what’s responsive,” he said. “It’s kind of hard to tell what isn’t produced. You don’t see what isn’t there.”
The university has so far turned over 20 percent of the 9,000 pages of documents it says are responsive to a request from the American Tradition Institute (ATI), a conservative-leaning, environmentally focused group that joined forces with Mr. Marshall in January. ATI filed a petition last week, saying the university had failed to respond to an information request filed early this year.
A judge has given the university until Aug. 22 to supply the rest of the documents. Mr. Marshall said he was pleased with the decision, but is skeptical the university will hand over everything he has requested.
“I want to look at what they’ve given us and examine what they’ve withheld and see why it’s been withheld,” Mr. Marshall told The Washington Times. “The more they stonewall, the more they’re making Richard Nixon look like a choirboy.”
University spokeswoman Carol Wood said the university has been in “frequent and regular contact” with ATI lawyers, working to clarify their request and work out a “reasonably manageable process” to satisfy the public information law.
Mr. Marshall enlisted ATI’s help after a year of pursuing the climate-change documents on his own. After submitting his first information request in December 2009, the university told him it no longer possessed the materials he requested. In response to a second request the following spring, he was told it would cost $8,500 to prepare the documents.
While state law allows public agencies to charge a reasonable sum to compensate for time and effort in meeting public information requests, Mr. Marshall and ATI said the university was charging an unreasonable sum. The court has yet to determine how much the university may charge to meet the request.
“This case is about whether the government can put up a pay wall to frustrate the public’s right to transparency,” said David Schnare, director of the ATI Environmental Law Center. “If it can, the public can’t hold government employees to the high standards of conduct they should meet.”
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.