Congressional Black Caucus
Massive solar panel manufcturing plant goes broke
Obama schedules his speech on the economy on the same night at the GOP primary debate.
House Speaker John Boehner has asked President Obama to postpone his planned jobs speech by a day, after the White House announced Wednesday that it was scheduling the address for the same night as a GOP 2012 primary debate in California.
The two-hour debate, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, was supposed to start at 8 p.m. on Sept. 7. In Obama's letter to congressional leaders Wednesday, the president requested to speak before a joint session of Congress at the very same
The president, though, needs permission from congressional leaders in order to deliver the address. While House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi welcomed the president, Boehner said in a letter late Wednesday afternoon that he would like the president to pick a different time. He did not mention the debate. Since the House does not come into session until Sept. 7, with votes scheduled that evening, Boehner expressed concern about the time it would take to conduct the security sweep in time for a presidential speech.
"It is my recommendation that your address be held on the following evening, when we can ensure there will be no parliamentary or logistical impediments that might detract from your remarks," Boehner wrote.
Boehner's spokesman added in a statement that the White House ignored protocol by not first requesting a date from the speaker's office.
"It's unfortunate the White House ignored decades -- if not centuries -- of the protocol of working out a mutually agreeable date and time before making any public announcement," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said.
A senior House Democratic aide called Boehner's office "childish" for asking the president to reschedule.
"The childish behavior coming out of the speaker's office today is truly historic," the aide said. "It is unprecedented to reject the date that a president wants to address a joint session of the Congress."
The White House had insisted the timing was coincidental. Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters there were many scheduling "considerations" and suggested the president has no interest in detracting from the debate viewership.
He said the administration would "welcome" a decision by debate hosts to "adjust the timing of their debate so that it didn't conflict."
But Carney downplayed the debate as one of many on the political calendar. He said the White House would "carry forward" with its planned speech regardless of "whatever the competing opportunities on television are, whether it's the wildlife channel or the cooking channel."
Republicans quickly slammed the president for the move. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called it a "thinly-veiled political ploy."
"President Obama's decision to address Congress at the same time as a long-scheduled Republican Presidential debate cements his reputation as Campaigner-in-Chief," he said in a written statement.
A Reagan Library official, speaking to Fox News, says there is no official reaction yet from the organizers of the debate, but the event has been on the schedule for months. The Reagan Library is expected to issue a statement shortly. Politico, which is co-sponsoring the debate with NBC News, said the debate would not be postponed.
Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe didn't buy the White House explanation. "No, that's not just coincidental," the Oklahoma senator told Fox News Radio, suggesting mischief was afoot. "Why else would he choose 8 o'clock on Wednesday?"
However, by scheduling the speech on the same night, the president runs the risk of becoming even more of a punching bag should the debate sponsors push back the time. Republican candidates would have an immediate opportunity to rebut the president's speech on live TV.
"Potentially, it will backfire," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "Obama's elevated this debate to a face-off with him rather than a face-off with the Republican candidates."
Andrea Saul, spokeswoman for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, said in a statement that viewers will have a choice between "Republican candidates talking about the future of America, or Barack Obama talking about the future of his presidency."
Though the debate is one of many, it would be the first to feature Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who jumped into the race shortly after the last debate, which was co-sponsored by Fox News. Perry has quickly vaulted into the lead position in many national polls.
Obama is expected to outline proposals for both long-term deficit reduction and job creation.
The plan is likely to include a mix of infrastructure spending and tax relief, as well as other proposals. For months, the president has been pushing for new trade agreements, patent reform and an extension of the payroll tax cut, among other initiatives.
With Republicans in control of the House and Democrats in control of the Senate, the president will need bipartisan support for any proposals he lays out. After bitter partisan debates led to last-minute agreements on government funding and a debt-ceiling increase, the president is calling on lawmakers to come together around his new proposals.
"It is my intention to lay out a series of bipartisan proposals that the Congress can take immediately to continue to rebuild the American economy by strengthening small businesses, helping Americans get back to work, and putting more money in the paychecks of the Middle Class and working Americans, while still reducing our deficit and getting our fiscal house in order," Obama wrote in his letter Wednesday to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Boehner.
How is the Arab Spring going for the United States of America -- ah, not good.
"We were in touch with many of the rebel groups in Libya before the fall of (Moamer) Kadhafi, and discreetly dispatched three or four food and medical consignments to Benghazi," according to an Iranian spokesman. "The head of the National Transitional Council (NTC), Mustafa Abdel Jalil, sent a letter of thanks to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for having been on their side and helping," he added.
Jay Leno pronounces the Iranian leaders name, "Mahmoud AhmadI'm-a-nut-job."
Since the Libyan uprising erupted in mid-February, Iran has adopted a dual approach -- criticizing the Gadhafi regime for its assaults on the rebels while condemning U.S. military intervention. Because of Iran's place in the Arab world, it may have more influence over Libyan reorganization than we are being told by the Obama Administration.
In the end, after all is said and done, the turmoil in the Middle East may not benefit our interests in the slightest. Political grandstanding without a carefully crafted diplomacy may prove to be a major embarrassment to the Obama Regime. Time will tell, but, currently, it is not looking good for Mr. O.
Obama's economic plan? We all know that he does not have one and is desparately trying to put something together that is significant and promising.
Look, I have not wasted a single minute thinking that Obama is even capable of coming up with "something new" in the September proposal. He knows that complaint number one, with regard to his perpetual announcements, is the fact that they lack originality. He is aware of this criticism and that is why he felt it necessary to say ". . . . and it will contain new ideas . . . ."
You all know that I - one of millions - I am convinced that he is not capable of any significant original idea. "Profundity" is not his forte.
Talk about political instincts !! He should have never made the promise. But, no, he raises expectations, yet again. Because of such, his proposal will serve to stoke the fires of criticism, even more than is already the case. He began his presidency with "now is the time the earth begins to cool and the oceans begin to recede" and he continues to sell expectations without having anything in the shopping cart !!! Good for him.
Krugman and the Leftist politics of social incrementalism are over - at least for a time.
Paul Krugman / New York Times:
And with those words, the over educated but under qualified Paul Krugman, supposes himself self-appointed as an analyst on GOP affairs. He pretends that "science" has all the answers but has never entered a deep investigative study on "science as the sole purveyor of truth."
Krugman is an academic elitist, a fellow who has never worked in the private sector a day in his life. Oh, he has a PhD from MIT, and [what I call] a BS degree from the New York Times -- and I am talking about chunky-style barnyard BS, if you get my . . . . . . . . . . . . drift. He is an educational "yes" man, accepting the anything having to do with social justice and the economics that have been used to support that cause since the 1930's and the profundity of John Maynard Keynes.
Understand that at the heart of social liberalism is the mathematics of Keynesian economic theory.
One of the stark differences between Keynesian theory and common sense economics, is the notion that saving money is not a healthy solution to economic distress. "Now is not the time to be saving money," was one of the more startling comments made by Obama early 2009.
What is great about the Obama Administr
ation is the fact that he accelerated the process of Leftist incrementalism to a point that the Leftist agenda became obvious to all of us who were paying attention. Before Obama, Democrats denied their attraction to Marxism and social reform. Obama brought 10 to fifteen of these people into his Administration and the "jig was up," as they say.
Most do not know that picture taking of the White House Christmas tree is "verboten," since someone leaked a 2009 picture of a Christmas tree ornament dedicated to Mao !!
His antagonism of the White Man's Jesus (a central theme in Black Liberation Theology) made itself known when Obama ordered the name of "Jesus" covered over before he would give a commencement at Georgetown University, a Catholic college. No self respecting Christian would ever do something of this nature, yet, Obama did it without so much as a single question from his Marxist Media Buds.
I could go one but the point of this post would be the same: Obama has driven the Leftist goal posts into the ground. Spending trillions, adding debt to get out of debt has proven itself absurd if not maniacal. AND, the Leftist denial that "we are not socialist" is no longer believable. Obama has surrounded himself with socialists. Case closed.
As a result of Obama's presidency, this coming election is more about ideology than any election in recent memory.
Question: why 72 hours of Irene coverage? Answer: either politics or advertising dollars.
Was it a news maker? Of course. The storm covered more area, at one time, than any I can remember. Was it responsible for the deaths of 18 to 25 people? Again, "yes." But a number of "news alerts" would have taken care of that terrible circumstance. Massive flooding in New England and Virginia, the worst in a 100 years? Definitely, but . . . .
In a word, Katrina --- and the dire predictions from the global warming, "its our fault" clowns.
That was 2005. The forecasts were coming in, hot and heavy, predicting as many a 17 level 3 to 5 storms in the Gulf, alone, for the 2006 hurricane season. You should know that weather predictions come from certain "scientific weather models" which are mathematical equations used to propose [in the case of global warming] the world's demise via man made global warming. It is from these "models" that we are given a sense of certainty as to what the future holds for mankind: the beginning of the end, one massive storm after another, perhaps hundreds of such storms world wide over the course of the next decade.
I am saying that "global warming" and its associated predictive calamities, are all the product of mathematical equations called "weather models." There are many such "models," all based upon conjecture, none of which rise above the category of an "educated guess." The ugly truth about "weather models," is this: they are wrong more than 80% of the time. Think about it, when was the last time you saw a local 7-day weather forecast that was "spot on?" I have lived [most recently] in Denver and the Central Valley of California. The 7-day forecasts in both regions are never fully accurate. In fact, more often than not, I am left wondering why they even bother with such long term forecasting. And, yet, they want us to believe that the weather models used for 7-day forecasts are, strangely, very accurate when predicting global warming a hundred years from now !!! Idiocy.
Take hurricane predictions as an example of "warming" accuracy. Going back to the dire forecasts for 2006 and beyond. "Hundreds of storms, world wide." "The beginning of the most tumultuous weather cycle in modern history." And the truth of these predictions?
Turns out that 2005 was the worst hurricane season in recent years. Only 1933 and 1887 are comparable. There were so many storms, in 2005, that the hurricane center ran out of names, in alphabetical order, and had to finish the season using the Greek alphabet for names. Katrina was a level 5, at sea, and struck New Orleans as a level 3 storm. Rita followed and hit the Texas coast, a category 5 at sea and a cat 3 when it hit Texas. Willma, another cat 3, hit Florida, before the '05 season was over. 2004 was, also, a very bad year for hurricanes.
In spite of the American seasons of '04 and '05, total energy in all the hurricanes, world wide, has been decreasing. Since 1993, total recorded energy is down considerably. No more than two cat 3 hurricanes have actually landed on American soil, since the 2005 season.
The warming crowd is desperate for weather calamity. Without such calamity, they cannot sell their doom and gloom forecasts, and their efforts to collect huge sums of money via wealth redistribution are destined to failure. Understand that "crisis" is at the center of modern day Leftist politics. It was used to sell TARP, the 787 stimulus, the Dodd/Frank regulation bill and, of course, ObamaCare.
The fear tactic of the 111th Democrat controlled congress, ran out of gas during ObamaCare. While that bill was successfully crammed down our collective throat, it took a full year to do so rather than the anticipated 3 months. Copenhagen (a "warming" conference of world leaders) and subsequent warming "payments" to disenfranchised nations of the world failed miserably. Today, the wheels have fallen off the "scare wagon" of the Left. They have nothing to offer in its place. The scare is gone and, consequently, their agenda is dead, at least, for the time being.
Understand, that it is not the coverage of this storm that is the complaint. Rather, it is the non-stop, 72 hour coverage that is or was the problem. Over the weekend, it was the biggest story in town. But, such is the case today and what is the nature of the coverage, as I write this post?
The biggest story of the day, today, is the aftermath of Irene and, yet, exclusive coverage is not the programing of the day, as it should be. So, why the exclusive coverage? We suggest that the need for a "warming crisis" has played a role and we have taken this opportunity to demonstrate the absurdity of the very basis for the advancement of global warming.
Why the hype on Irene?
Was it a news maker? Of course. The storm covered more area, at one time, than any I can remember. Was it responsible for the deaths of 18 to 25 people? Again, "yes." But a number of "news alerts" would have taken care of that terrible circumstance. Massive flooding in New England and Virginia, the worst in a 100 years? Definitely, but . . . .
In a word, Katrina --- and the dire predictions from the global warming, "its our fault" clowns.
That was 2005. The forecasts were coming in, hot and heavy, predicting as many a 17 level 3 to 5 storms in the Gulf, alone, for the 2006 hurricane season. You should know that weather predictions come from certain "scientific weather models" which are mathematical equations used to propose [in the case of global warming] the world's demise via man made global warming. It is from these "models" that we are given a sense of certainty as to what the future holds for mankind: the beginning of the end, one massive storm after another, perhaps hundreds of such storms world wide over the course of the next decade.
I am saying that "global warming" and its associated predictive calamities, are all the product of mathematical equations called "weather models." There are many such "models," all based upon conjecture, none of which rise above the category of an "educated guess." The ugly truth about "weather models," is this: they are wrong more than 80% of the time. Think about it, when was the last time you saw a local 7-day weather forecast that was "spot on?" I have lived [most recently] in Denver and the Central Valley of California. The 7-day forecasts in both regions are never fully accurate. In fact, more often than not, I am left wondering why they even bother with such long term forecasting. And, yet, they want us to believe that the weather models used for 7-day forecasts are, strangely, very accurate when predicting global warming.
Take hurricane predictions, as an example of "warming" accuracy. Going back to the dire forecasts for 2006 and beyond. "Hundreds of storms, world wide." "The beginning of the most tumultuous weather cycle in modern history." And the truth of these predictions?
Turns out that 2005 was the worst hurricane season in recent years. Only 1933 and 1887 are comparable. There were so many storms, in 2005, that the hurricane center ran out of names, in alphabetical order, and had to finish the season using the Greek alphabet for names. Katrina was a level 5, at sea, and struck New Orleans as a level 3 storm. Rita followed and hit the Texas coast, a category 5 at sea and a cat 3 when it hit Texas. Willma, another cat 3, hit Florida, before the '05 season was over. 2004 was, also, a very bad year for hurricanes.
In spite of the American seasons of '04 and '05, total energy in all the hurricanes, world wide, has been decreasing. Since 1993, total recorded energy is down considerably. No more than two cat 3 hurricanes have actually landed on American soil, since the 2005 season.
The warming crowd is desperate for weather calamity. Without such calamity, they cannot sell their doom and gloom forecasts, and their efforts to collect huge sums of money via wealth redistribution are destined to failure. Understand that "crisis" is at the center of modern day Leftist politics. It was used to sell TARP, the 787 stimulus, the Dodd/Frank regulation bill and, of course, ObamaCare.
The fear tactic of the 111th Democrat controlled congress, ran out of gas during ObamaCare. While that bill was successfully crammed down our collective throat, it took a full year to do so rather than the anticipated 3 months. Copenhagen (a warming conference of world leaders) and subsequent warming "payments" to disenfranchised nations of the world failed miserably. Today, the wheels have fallen off the "scare wagon" of the Left. They have nothing to offer in its place. The scare is gone and, consequently, their agenda is dead, at least, for the time being.
Understand, that it is not the coverage of this storm, that is the complaint. Rather, it is the non-stop, 72 hour coverage that is the problem. Over the weekend, it was the biggest story in town. But, such is the case today and what is the nature of the coverage, as I write this post?
The biggest story of the day, today, is the aftermath of Irene and, yet, exclusive coverage is not the programing of the day, as it should be.
The question is not, "Can Palin beat Obama." Rather, it is simply this: is Sarah Palin ready for the 2012 campaign ?
From Rasmussen: The only time Obama hits the magical 50% mark is when he’s matched up against former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin who picks up just 33% voter support. Palin has a busy schedule leading up to a major public event in Iowa on September 3, and Republican insider Karl Rove predicts she’s about to enter the race for the GOP presidential nomination.
I know we just started this post, but let's review: the one Republican unannounced for the coming presidential election; the one Republican currently "not" in the game; the one Republican not involved in GOP debates and has no presidential election "machine - that one Republican is running far behind the others as they compare to Obama? ?? Few if any of you were surprised at the conclusions of the Rasmussen report. More importantly, no one should be surprised to know that her "not running" has to have an effect on her polling numbers versus Barack Obama and in a decided negative way.
Let me ask you this: what if her political instincts are better, far better, than anyone currently in the "race," including Obama? Understand that Sarah Palin is a woman who came to us, almost directly from the floor of her kitchen. Sure, she was a member of the local school board; the chairman of an oil commission; the mayor of a small town and the very popular Governor of a small-population state. She was all of these things and functioned in each capacity with noted success. While the Obama media busies itself with the destruction of Palin, on these very qualifications, we remind all that Obama has never so much as managed a donut shop. We all know that he is in over his head, a slow learner without the benefit of real world experience. Of course she can beat him.
Back to her political instincts. I say she has kept herself near the middle of the political stage with nothing but instincts. Think about it while you try to figure out why I am wrong.
Why would anyone think that her 15 minutes of fame would last for three years? It did, you know. Think that "just happened?"
Three years ago, she staggered (verbally) through one interview after another, and then, on June 5 of this year, she was interviewed by Chris Wallace, a 30 minute interview, and in that interview proved that she is ready to move forward. Red State, not afraid to criticize Sarah Palin in the past, had this to say about that interview:
Hopefully all Red Staters will get to see Sarah Palin’s interview today on FOX News Sunday. Interviewed for nearly 30 minutes, without interruption, by Chris Wallace, it was a bravura performance. She is most definitely ready, willing, and able to win the GOP nomination and defeat Obama in 2012.
Chris Wallace was most complementary, as well. The gist of his review was this, "She is ready."
That was our impression, as well.
No one, absolutely no one, gives her credit for still being around, after all these years. Can she win over enough of the so-called "independents? Of course she can. Can she interview well? We now know that she can. How would she do in an Obama/Palin debate? She did pretty good against "can I call you Joe" Biden.
Think about it; the worst thing that could possibly happen to Obama, in an Obama/Palin debate, would be for Sarah to "hold her own" in such a contest. No one on the Left wants to take a chance of that happening. Obama and his clan have spent 3 years lowering expectations for Sarah Palin. What if she campaigns with grace and effectiveness? Much of politics is "perspective," what we think people said; how we think they will function. What if Palin exceeds those expectations?
I am telling you, she most certainly can beat Obama in 2012 -- all the Karl Rove's to the contrary. And Obama may, one day soon, wish he had not spent so much time pretending that she offers no challenge.
Some animals are just more intelligent than others.
What are common to these two pictures are Petty Officer Jon Tumilson, before and after his death as the result of a helicopter crash, and his dog, Hawkeye.
His memorial service drew 1,500 friends and family. His best friend, Hawkeye, pictured left, went forward when the petty officer's body was rolled out in front of the audience and remained at the feet of his master throughout the service.
We plan to give the cable news ratings each weekend. This week's report puts Fox in a statistical tie with CNN, MSNBC, HLN conbined !!
This cable report [below] is, in part, an extension of the Gallup polling reality. Understand that Fox is well produced, has a host of good looking news casters, male and female and owns the most popular news hour in cable history, Bill O'Reilly
|
|
|
|
| |
| Primetime | P2+ (000s) | 25-54 (000s) | 35-64 (000s) | |
| FNC |
| 2,267 | 570 | 1,030 |
| CNN |
| 1,014 | 313 | 468 |
| MSNBC |
| 750 | 228 | 386 |
| CNBC |
| 233 | 94 | 122 |
| FBN |
| 78 | 17 | 32 |
| HLN |
| 505 | 154 | 231 |
Also, know that the above is an average for each of the four hours in prime time. O'Reilly, on his own, commands well over 3 million viewers in his first recorded hour of the evening. During his first hour, he actually beats all the competition combined.
When Glenn Beck was at the network, his numbers ran 2.3 million and better, a million more on average than his replacement show called "The Five." Because of his recording setting success for the 5 o'clock hour, the notion that Media Matters drove Beck off the air is stupid wrong, but many Dems will believe anything they are told.
OK, I'll say it: as far as news coverage is concerned, Irene was a nothing burger.
The preposterous "facts" of the evolutionary explanation versus the proposterous conclusions of faith in God.
Heck, I remember, as a youngster, all the lies presented as evolutionary evidence. It is never taught, but I remember the various "stages" of evolutionary development often appearing in the "wrong" geological strata. When I was in school, we would hear the theory that various geological strata formed, one on top of another, and had locked in the geological record showing the progression of life, from the simplest of geological forms in one stratum to the most complicated in the more recently formed stratum. Of course, that was never true. Much to the disappointment of the evolutionists, the geological record of life forms is "all over the map."
It was never explained to me as to why very complicated life forms 'suddenly' appear in the 'time records' of a single geological stratum. I never received a satisfactory explanation for why natural selection did not work against the evolutionary process. No one ever explained to me when or why naturally occurring mutations stopped being progressive and became harmful to a given species, as is the case, today. Evolution does not explain the existence of the conscience, or the ability to evaluate moral issues as moral issues or provide a reason for the notion of god or have a developed societal structure beyond the level of monkeys, apes and dolphins. None of these things are essential to the survival of the human species, if, in fact, you believe in a godless evolutionary process at some level. Going back to the theory of cosmic beginnings, godless 'science' has no explanation for the existence of matter or particulate motion apart from the statement, "it was just always there."
Finally, science has no explanation for a mathematical postulate. What is a postulate? Well, it is an axiomatic truth that works, but has no mathematical explanation. It works but is unprovable, mathematically speaking. Talk about faith!! I first became aware of postulates in a college algebra class. To my surprise, I realized that science is based on faith. Without a whole array of postulated "truths,' there is no science. Without a raft of conclusions that must be used simply because they work, science has no structure, no future, no reality.
Funny, we Christian's believe much the same when it comes to God. "Plug" him in and life works. Where did he come from is answered with the words of any thoughtful scientist,
"He was just always there." And with "God," we understand the existence of morality, the conscience and the complications of a civil society. You godless types are not the only ones who believe in foundational issues you cannot prove.
The point of this post is not to convince anyone of anything, but to demonstrate that opponents of evolution have qualified reasons and noteworthy objections to the whole notion of evolution. I know of three debates between evolutionists and folks who were not science 'believers.' In each case, the none evolutionist was credited with "holding his own" in the debate, much to the surprise of all in attendance.
Update: here is a brief article by David Fisher, critical of evolution on four counts:
Follow Brian on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”
First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. By logical extension, then, matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe.
What this means, then, is that science simply has no explanation for the most basic question that could possibly be asked: why is there something rather than nothing?
Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have an answer to this question; evolutionists do not.
When you see a turtle on a fence post, what's the one thing you know? Somebody put him there. When you see a world hanging in space, what's the one thing you know? Someone hung it there.
It's futile to resort to the big bang theory, as some evolutionists are wont to do. They say they have an explanation for the origin of the universe: it began when a ball of incredibly dense matter exploded and flung the universe into existence. Okay, fine. Now: where did that incredibly dense ball of matter come from?
Even Aristotle saw that behind the existence of the universe had to be what he called a Prime Mover or an Unmoved Mover. If everything is the result of secondary causes, nothing would ever actually happen. Some great power had to be a primary cause of life, motion, energy, and existence.
If you walk into an office and you see one of those toys with the steel balls swinging left to right, right to left, virtually endlessly, the one thing you will know for an absolute certainty is that some force outside that toy had to start the whole thing by lifting the first ball and releasing it to clack against the others. The process you observe could not possibly have started all by itself.
Creation Science and Intelligent Design theory offers a Prime Mover, evolution does not.
Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction. This is why things break down if left to themselves, and why scientists tell us that the universe is headed toward a heat death.
This law teaches us, then, that the universe is headed toward increasing randomness and decay.
But what does the theory of evolution teach us? The exact opposite, that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order. You put up a scientific theory against my scientific law, I'm going to settle for the law every time, thank you very much.
Plus, this teaches us that the universe had to have a beginning. If you see a watch winding down, one thing you know with absolute certainty is that somebody wound it up.
Intelligent Design theory offers not only a Watchmaker but a Watch-winder; evolution does not.
Fossils. Realize that the fossil record is the only tangible, physical evidence for the theory of evolution that exists. The fossil record is it. There is absolutely nothing else Darwinians have they can show you.
As Yale University's Carl Dunbar says, "Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."
But if Darwin's theory is correct, that increasingly complex life forms developed in tiny little incremental and transitional steps, then the fossil record should by littered with an enormous number of transitional fossils.
Darwin himself said, "The number of intermediate and transitional links must have been inconceivably great."
But, sadly for Darwinians, after 150 years of digging in dirt all around the world, there are still no transitional fossils at all, not one! The most famous paleontologist in the world, Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould, said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." (Note" "extreme rarity" is Harvard-speak for "nada, zilch, zippo.")
Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History agrees with Gould that "there are no transitional fossils," not even a single one "for which one could make a watertight argument."
In other words, people who study fossils for a living know there are no transitional forms but they don't want you and me to know it, 'cause it might prompt you to stop imbibing the swill of evolution.
Gould developed an absurd theory called "punctuated equilibrium," a theory that evolution happened so fast, in such rapid bursts, that it left no trace in the fossil record. Imagine that: the only evidence he has for his theory is the total absence of any evidence whatsoever! And this guy taught at Harvard!
What the fossil record teaches us, in contrast to the theory of evolution, is that increasingly complex life forms appear fully formed in the fossil record, just as if they were put there by a Creator. This is especially true of what is called the "Pre-Cambrian Explosion," the vast, overwhelming, and quite sudden appearance of complex life forms at the dawn of time. Evolutionists are at a total loss to explain the Pre-Cambrian Explosion.
The biblical record indicates quite clearly that all things, including increasingly complex life forms, came fully formed from the hand of God.
Thus the fossil record is a powerful argument for the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer while at the same time being fatal for the theory of evolution.
Creation Science and Intelligent Design theory have an explanation for the fossil record; evolution does not.
Genes. The only mechanism — don't miss this — the only mechanism evolutionists have to explain the development of increasingly complex life forms is genetic mutation. Mutations alter DNA, and these alterations can be passed on to descendants.
The problem: naturally occurring genetic mutations are invariably harmful if not fatal to the organism. Rather than improve an organism's capacity to survive, they invariably weaken it. That's why the phrase we most often use to refer to genetic mutations is "birth defects."
If scientists are some day able to engineer beneficial genetic mutations in the lab, that will simply prove our point: we told you it takes intelligence and design.
these two quotes. First, evolutionary microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, only a variety of wishful speculations."
And this from University of Bristol scientist Alan Linton: "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another." (Note: "none" means "none, nada, zilch, zippo.")
And if it's never been observed in the simplest of all organisms, it shouldn't come as a surprise that it's never been observed with more complex forms. Says Linton, "There is no evidence for evolution throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." (Note: "no evidence" means "no evidence, nada, zilch, zippo.")
So honest Darwinians will tell you that evolution — by which we mean the transition of one species into another — has never, not ever, been observed by anyone at any time. In other words, they believe in something that nobody has ever seen. Hmmm. And they accuse us of a blind leap of faith!
It turns out that creationists are the ones who “believe in science,” to borrow the phrase from the pushy Mom who prompted her kid to ask Gov. Perry about the issue in New Hampshire. In fact, it’s clear that creationists believe in science and evolutionists do not. If they did, they wouldn’t be evolutionists, now, would they?
Bottom line: the easiest verse in the Bible to believe is the very first one of all: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
The signs are increasing for another Great Depression and, maybe, worse.
Recessions are defined in terms of negative GDP. Recessionary periods are defined by sub-2% growth in GDP, a high rate of joblessness and decreasing property values.
Officially, when our Gross Domestic Product (the sum total of all goods and services - 47% of our GPD is service - sold in the United States) actually runs into a negative percentage compared to the 3 month quarter before, and does so for two consecutive quarters, we are in a "recession." With the current recession, that did not happen until the last two quarters of the Bush term. But, beginning with the first two quarters of that year, 2008, it felt like we were in recession. The first quarter of that year saw only a .7% increase over the previous quarter, and the 2nd quarter of that years registered a mere .6% increase over the 1st quarter. That is exactly where we are, today. The first two quarters of 2008 and 2011 have the same GDP averages, and that is why many economists are worried that we are about to enter a second recession.
We officially entered into "recession" with the last two quarters of 2008. And, we have not averaged more than 1.3% positive [GDP] growth since that time. Most of 2008 fits into the category of "slow growth" and all of 2009, 2010, and 2011 to date. In fact, the first two quarters for 2011 are "in." The first quarter grew at .4% and the second quarter looks like it will be revised downward to between 1% and .8%. This two quarter average is almost exactly the same as the two quarter average for the beginning of 2008.
What is especially worrisome, as we compare the current 4 year recessionary period with the Great Depression, are the similarities between the housing market of the 1920 - 1950 and the current housing mess we are in. In many parts of the country, homeowners have lost 3/4 of their equity and 11% owe more than their houses were worth at the time they purchased their homes. In other words, they have minus equity. It is believed that this will not rectify itself for another 20 to 30 years, ala the same period of time as in the Great Depression.
How have we dealt with recession since the 1930's and the introduction of Keynesian economics?
We have lowered taxes, increased domestic spending and ignored the deficit. At least, that is how we have handled the problem before Obama and the current crop of Economic Infidels currently running the Democrat Party. They want to increase taxes as they push for the continuation of the last two categories.
Understand that keeping taxes low, during a recession (or anytime, for that matter) has a preemptive effect on the economy. In other words, you do not know you are doing any good, but you are. An example of a "preemptive effect?" Well, if we had killed Osama bin Laden during the Clinton years, and we could have done so, 9/11 would not have happened. There is no way of measuring a "preemptive effort" precisely because we have prevented a certain reality from taking place.
As regards taxes, the only time you realize that keeping taxes low is a positive growth provider is when you raise them, significantly. Take Illinois, for example. At the beginning of this year, Governor Quinn, raised individual taxes by 67% and corporate taxes a whopping 44%. As a direct result and beginning with the first day of these increased taxes, that state has lost 89,000 jobs and counting - in six months.
The long and short of this discussion is this: we have been in a recessionary period since the beginning of 2008 after 52 consecutive months of economic growth, a record in American economic history (under George Bush !!). And, the comparisons to the Great Depression are becoming scary. Repressed property values that promise to continue for at least a decade; a jobless rate that has not changed for more than two years and effects more than 20% of the work force, and a huge deficit that is growing at break-neck speed, if taken together, make the case for worsening times, even a Depression, at some level.
Before ending this post, I should address the fact of a so-called "robust Stock Market." First, "robust" is not my word for it. "Volatile" is much more to the point. No one really knows what is going on in the Market. We have already had one of the worst Market crashes in history, during this period of time. Understand that many believe the Market's "health" is not related to the larger economy so much as it is related to the huge sums of money given to it in the TARP (as much as 24 trillion dollars), QE 1 and QE 2.
The derivatives market, totally unregulated and out of control, just might play a major roll in our nation's financial stability sometime in the future, as well. I am an admitted laymen in these matters, but I know that the total in derivatives trading is around 700 trillion dollars. Know this: all the world's economies combined total $62 trillion. 700 trillion?? Wow. What that tells me is this: there is a whole lot of nonsense going on. I believe that anytime there are huge sums of money "laying around," without any accounting as in the Federal exchange or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or the derivatives market, someone is stealing and profiting . . . . big time and in ways that might be extremely harmful to others.
Think about it: if you could put your hands on 5 billion dollars, for example, and you stole 5 million and put it in your pocket, who in the world would catch you, especially if there is no accounting of the money ? You have 5 million in your pocket and you know that no one is going to come looking for a 10th of one percent of anything !!!
What am I saying? On top of the obvious comparisons presented in this post, in the dark, deep waters of the world of monetary gamesmanship, there are those who collect dollar bills, simply because they can, and the end result may be a total collapse of all that we hold as historic and essential including law, order and supply in the market place.
We have one of the most comprehensive lies ever told in American politics. This will not be a surprise to the Normal People.
In June 2009, as he fought to pass the Democrats' national health care bill, President Obama made a clear, unequivocal pledge:
"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people," Obama said. "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
Here is a perfect example of the damage done to an economy because of raising taxes.
When Democrat Governor, Pat Quinn, raised individual taxes by 67% and corporate taxes by 44% in January of this year, folks told the Dems this would bring harm to the state's already damaged economy, but the Keynesian clowns of the Democrat Party disagreed.
Well, just 6 months later, the normal people get to say, "We told you so." The chart to the left shows a steady growth in the jobs market until the very day that taxes were increased. Since that time, the state of Illinois, Obama's "home" state, has lost 89,000 jobs.
Is there a better illustration for why raising taxes during a recession (or whenever) is a terrible idea? But you cannot tell some children what to do and this Keynesian Silliness is a perfect example.
Here is a stark difference between the GOP and the Radical Democrat Party.
Here is a story from a local news outlet that is typical of the thugs who protest. Understand that the radical Democrats of today, no more believe in civil coexistence than did Stalin. Look what they are doing: vandalizing, breaking one law after another, beating people who disagree, shooting out windows and even killing some folks. These folks are a menace to society and should not be tolerated, but when the courts are run by radicals, what can we expect?
MILWAUKEE - Someone has vandalized a school in Milwaukee ahead of a visit from Governor Walker and threats of protests over the Governor's visit. Someone super glued the front door to Messmer Preparatory School on Milwaukee's north side before the Governor's visit.
"Some of these folks super glued our front doors at the prep school," said Br. Bob Smith, OFM, the president of Messmer Catholic Schools, about the school on the corner of North Fratney and East Burleigh Streets.
He told Newsradio 620 WTMJ that a woman was walking in front of the school Thursday, asking people to protest. According to Br. Smith, one protester said " 'Get ready for a riot,' because they were going to disrupt the visit."
Br. Smith said that, in his opinion, the Republican governor's visit to read to students there on Friday was not about political overtones connected to protests that have been happening all year in the state regarding the rollback of collective bargaining rights for many public workers. "People ought to start acting like adults," said Br. Smith. "You've got little kids who have no clue what you're even talking about, and you make something political when it isn't, that's just flat-out wrong."
Using the same standards on Obama that were used on Bush, we are officially in a recession, again.
Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The first quarter of this year registered a GDP of .04 % growth and the second quarter has just be revised downward to 1%. If this Administration was a Bush Administration, the media would be screaming "recession, recession !!!"
I will take the position on this blog that under Obama, we have experienced two recession. I mean, fair is fair.
Source of info: CNBC
In defense of "ideological purity."
What this clown does not understand is this: there is a difference between partisanship and "ideological purity." Partisanship alone, stops congress from reaching solutions. Ideological purity as in American values and foundational concepts versus communism, or a new world order, cannot be abandoned because some coffee maker does not see the importance of that political battle. With the Lefties, there is never a time when standing firm for foundational values is in order, when faced with dire consequences and social/economic disaster.
Look at the TEA Party. They are declared "radicals" because they believe in traditional values and want a balanced budget.
Take a look at the Queer Nation crowd. First, it was just about abnormal sex (also known as "gay sex"). Then, the dress up crowd got involved (we call these people "transgendered"). They promised that they were not about indoctrinating our kids, and now, they are everywhere in our schools. Then the man/boy love thing came to the forefront, and, in recent weeks, it has been revealed that a push for acceptance of pedophilia is being given greater emphasis. All this while the Left is enraged over prayer before football games or a religious presence at the 9/11 memorial, to be held in a couple of weeks.
When we do not strive for "ideological purity," far left, atheist, midgets such as New York's Mayor Bloomberg, are accepted into the so-called conservative Republican Party and given a place of prominence. One party of misfits is enough. Let the Dems have this moral moron (Bloomberg) and the likes of Arnold Schwartzenegger. Know this with certainty: the Lefties of this day would never fight for constitutional freedoms as did our founding fathers; after all, that fight was all about ideological purity. "Can't we all get along" is about compromise and in compromise, civil liberties and social/political freedoms are lost. . . . forever.
Third Party? Any talk of that is coming from Obama supporters -- including Donald Trump
I believe we are in a fight to recapture the GOP, but not at the expense of seeing Obama in a second term.
This blog will never support a third party candidate and will aggressively oppose anyone from the Right, who thinks otherwise. I am hoping that we conservatives are united in this matter.
Obama's "new" September surprise: not a surprise and not so "new."
He has, yet, to tell us why he is waiting, but folks like me know "why the wait." He has no clue.
Yeah, it is just that simple.
Today, in an obscure news report, it was revealed that he has put out "feelers" to certain business leaders, asking them for their ideas on the creation of jobs. He has to ask, of course, because he is lost and his self-imposed deadline is fast approaching.
Guaranteed, Obama's September plan will include more "stimulus" ($300,000 by some reports), infrastructure repair, "revenue enhancements" (code for taxing the "rich" which, per Obama, is anyone who makes $100,000 after taxes), the extension of unemployment benefits, and patent reform (which will do absolutely nothing in a measurable way for the economy). Nothing "new" in any of this and he may be in a panic. He knows that some of the people who listen to his speeches actually have the ability to think. Most of them are members of the TEA Party Movement; none of them are friends of big and increasing government and all have practical experience with identifying political BS. Unless Obama swears off additional regulations, cuts back on his repressive health care "reform" law, audits the Fed and regulates Fannie and Freddie, we all know that his "plan" is doomed to failure.
At the end of 2009, a survey of Wall Street business owners and CEO's found that 77% of these people believe that Obama, with his class warfare in full attack mode, is our most prolific anti-business president. That tag has "stuck" with this president and the opposition coming from this sector of our population, is monumental. You all have only heard the beginnings of this opposition.
Understand that Obama has declared war on traditional America, the business community, faith based functionaries, and all conservatives (all 60 million of us). His approval among Blacks has fallen from 95% to 81% and this number, alone, indicates just how much political trouble this man is in.
The Left not only supports private time in the bathroom; now it opposes God, himself.
New York Mayor Bloomberg Bans Religion at 9/11 Ceremony
Christian groups were outraged Wednesday to learn that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is excluding religion from the upcoming 10th anniversary ceremony at the World Trade Center. "This is America, and to have a memorial service where there's no prayer, this appears to be insanity to me," former Deputy Mayor Rudy Washington told a reporter. "I feel like America has lost its way."Live by the sword, die by the sword
. . . . . . . candidate Obama. on July 3, 2008, at a campaign event in Fargo, N.D.
Get the point of this post ??!!
Early signs of dementia
Early sign of dementia #1: Personality change
A warm, friendly loved one may seem to morph into a bit of a grouch -- at first occasionally, and then increasingly. A gregarious person still jokes and talks a lot but begins to say inappropriate things or make odd accusations. A mild-mannered loved one begins cursing. All of these are examples of the kinds of personality changes that can predate memory loss in someone with dementia. Often, it's only later that friends and family look back and realize that behaviors they found off-putting or upsetting weren't intentional but related to the Alzheimer's.
Early sign of dementia #2: Problems with executive functioning
Trouble carrying out basic, familiar tasks can creep up slowly but surely. The person may, for example, have difficulty doing something that involves multiple steps, like following written directions or instructions. A longtime cook may avoid complicated recipes. A hobbyist may simplify the form of his or her craft.
Other hallmark trouble areas: making plans and not following through, whether for a vacation or an activity. Not tracking bills. Not being able to solve simple problems, such as mending a broken piece of machinery he or she could once fix easily.
Early sign of dementia #3: Vision problems
Problems with depth perception or visual-spatial coordination can precede memory problems. The person may have trouble driving or even walking well without tripping on stairs. It can be hard to judge distances or see contrasts between like colors, which can lead to accidents. In a more severe example of a perception problem, the person may not recognize himself or herself in a mirror or when passing his or her reflection in a building or window on the street.
Early sign of dementia #4: Language problems
Word retrieval and getting out the right words can become apparent before friends and family notice the more common communication problem of repeating stories or questions. For example the person having trouble may stop in the middle of a sentence, unable to think of the next word. (This can happen to anyone, but when it's a sign of dementia, it happens with alarming frequency, and sometimes the person isn't even aware of doing it.) Or the wrong word may come out -- "mouth cleaner" for "toothbrush" or "picture stick" for "TV remote control."
Early sign of dementia #5: Social withdrawal
Early in Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, the person is often well aware that something is amiss, even if he or she isn't exactly sure of the source of the problem. It can be frightening to feel that you're not quite in control of your faculties all of the time. This can cause the person to use more and more energy to stay in self-command. That leaves less energy to interact with others. Sometimes the person isn't even aware that he or she seems to be losing interest in friends and family, because he or she is concentrating so hard on just getting through the day.
Social withdrawal can also be caused by a desire to avoid embarrassment or by depression -- which often develops alongside dementia.
Early signs of dementia
Early sign of dementia #1: Personality change
A warm, friendly loved one may seem to morph into a bit of a grouch -- at first occasionally, and then increasingly. A gregarious person still jokes and talks a lot but begins to say inappropriate things or make odd accusations. A mild-mannered loved one begins cursing. All of these are examples of the kinds of personality changes that can predate memory loss in someone with dementia. Often, it's only later that friends and family look back and realize that behaviors they found off-putting or upsetting weren't intentional but related to the Alzheimer's.
Early sign of dementia #2: Problems with executive functioning
Trouble carrying out basic, familiar tasks can creep up slowly but surely. The person may, for example, have difficulty doing something that involves multiple steps, like following written directions or instructions. A longtime cook may avoid complicated recipes. A hobbyist may simplify the form of his or her craft.
Other hallmark trouble areas: making plans and not following through, whether for a vacation or an activity. Not tracking bills. Not being able to solve simple problems, such as mending a broken piece of machinery he or she could once fix easily.
Early sign of dementia #3: Vision problems
Problems with depth perception or visual-spatial coordination can precede memory problems. The person may have trouble driving or even walking well without tripping on stairs. It can be hard to judge distances or see contrasts between like colors, which can lead to accidents. In a more severe example of a perception problem, the person may not recognize himself or herself in a mirror or when passing his or her reflection in a building or window on the street.
Early sign of dementia #4: Language problems
Word retrieval and getting out the right words can become apparent before friends and family notice the more common communication problem of repeating stories or questions. For example the person having trouble may stop in the middle of a sentence, unable to think of the next word. (This can happen to anyone, but when it's a sign of dementia, it happens with alarming frequency, and sometimes the person isn't even aware of doing it.) Or the wrong word may come out -- "mouth cleaner" for "toothbrush" or "picture stick" for "TV remote control."
Early sign of dementia #5: Social withdrawal
Early in Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, the person is often well aware that something is amiss, even if he or she isn't exactly sure of the source of the problem. It can be frightening to feel that you're not quite in control of your faculties all of the time. This can cause the person to use more and more energy to stay in self-command. That leaves less energy to interact with others. Sometimes the person isn't even aware that he or she seems to be losing interest in friends and family, because he or she is concentrating so hard on just getting through the day.
Social withdrawal can also be caused by a desire to avoid embarrassment or by depression -- which often develops alongside dementia.
Is it Obama and his policies or is it "the problem" and our solutions to that "problem?"
Well, we are getting ready to enter the campaign season. We are looking at one of the most important elections in our nation's history and it is such because it will determine whether we are a free market, property rights respecting, state government oriented, society that has the "disadvantaged" at the centre of its social agenda ---- whether they live within our boundaries or struggle for a meaningful life in countries that are, truly, foreign to us and our way of life. The problem is increased because of the tension of "living within our means" versus certain foundational (read: "Constitutional") issues, not to mention the need to help those who cannot do for themselves.
Understand that the United States of America had is beginnings both in a desire for freedom and a certain intellectual rendering not common to any other world power. Indeed, there was a fight for freedom, but more than that, much more than that, we thought ourselves into existence. Our original concerns were not always consistent with stated doctrine, but our founding documents gave us a political and intellectual base upon which to continue the great American experiment. The very notion of "American exceptionalism" is embedded within this reality. And part of that sense of national exceptionalism was and is the "pursuit of happiness." Because it is a part of the Constitutional statement, the pursuit of happiness is not simply an individual right, but a shared national experience. Too bad we think this means we must legislate its existence into some sort of political reality.
When Obama and those of his intellectual ilk deny American exceptionalism, they do so out of a sense of disgust with our historical beginnings and an irreverent view of the Constitution, its Preamble statement, and the Federalist Papers with which the Great American Debate was initially launched.
Obama came to his adult age without knowing what or who he was. His white mother was an atheist and his black father was a foreign national and a Muslim. He was raised as a privileged white boy but did not have a sense of belonging in that world precisely because he was "black." As an adult, he did not participate in the movement for the advancement of Black civil rights and has never attached himself to that movement in terms of position and effort. He went to the white man's school and, somewhere along the way, met an attractive 100% black woman (Michelle).
Everyone noticed his ability to talk. No one noticed his lack of the profound.
He had a spiritual inclination that would not be denied. His concept of efficacy, however, evolved (some might say "devolved") into a very specific sense of self-efficacy, allowing him to say things such as "now is the time when the earth begins to cool and the oceans begin to recede." The fact that he was the first American candidate to campaign for the American presidency on the world's stage, gave us all a window through which we could measure how he was viewing his own sense of self worth.
His view of God and Jesus became a distorted concept of reactionary black theology (also known as Black Liberation Theology); a view he came to accept after 22 years of sitting at the feet of Jeremiah Wright; a view he holds but without the sophistication of studied theology.
In Obama, I personally see a sense of anger that goes back to [perhaps] a disappointment in never having really known his father. His individual persona is something he has created for himself; it was not given to him by rite of familial association or breeding.
While there is a certain noteworthiness to all this, he possesses a degree of social immaturity that has allowed him to be "used" by the Establishment he sought to redefine. In the end, he has been swallowed up by the political forces that put him in office and now demand continued payback for their efforts. There are more [green] lobbyists that ever before. His disdain for congressional review and legislative order has become more than obvious. His contempt for "American exceptionalism" bespeaks a personal criticism for the white man's mistreatment of the black community. He reached his ideological pinnacle just before his election. He [almost] immediately forfeited his ideals with the stimulus/pay back bill of February of 2009 and the terribly dysfunctional legislative process that birthed the health care bill. He has never recovered his sense of idealism.
Here is an opinion of a flaming liberal supporter and it, somewhat, gets to the heart of what is wrong with Obama. It ties in with my claim that his liberal/one world/ social agenda was taken over by the Establishment Liberal community:
It’s all nonsense. Obama is smart, decent and tough, with exactly the right instincts about where the country needs to go. He has accomplished a lot more than he’s gotten credit for — with an opposition dedicated to making him fail. But lately he is seriously off his game. He’s not Jimmy Carter. He’s Tiger Woods — a natural who’s lost his swing. He has so many different swing thoughts in his head, so many people whispering in his ear about what the polls say and how he needs to position himself to get re-elected, that he has lost all his natural instincts for the game. He needs to get back to basics. ---- Thomas Friedman, NYT, August 23.
Whether it is true or not, the supporters, at least, of Obama believed he was and is a man of ideas. Read this comment from Michelle Obama, spoken in May of 2008:
Many of us knew of this and similar comments and our opposition to Obama's election was directly related to such political nonsense.
But, none of this happened. He did not change America for the better nor did he install a new world order. If Michelle and others were accurately describing the Barack they knew, he certainly lost his way during that first year in office. He has devolved into a partisan, hateful, novice, stuck in a position of leadership for which he is painfully unqualified.
Bush 43 was a big spending Establishment Republican; a wonderful fellow but an Establishment Republican, none-the-less. If the GOP is not about ideas and thoughtful solutions in this election, then we all lose in the coming campaign. The Grand Old Party cannot remain as it now presents itself. The Establishment (i.e. John McCain and others) has no ideas/solutions that successfully deal with the immigration mess in which we find ourselves. No amount of increased taxation can give us escape from the need to cut our spending by 80 to 90 percent. And what are we really going to do about increased health care costs? They continue to rise, 8 to 12 percent in this year, alone. ObamaCare did not solve the problem and most within the liberal community are now admitting that this health care "reform" law will cost the nation more than 3 trillion dollars in its 2nd decade, beginning in 2020. If we win the abortion war, what do we do with the 1.3 million children suddenly put into the system each and every year, children that are obviously unwanted? The solution is not impossible, but if we ignore the question, nothing good will be gained by the potential "pro-life victory."
What am I saying? The GOP needs leadership that goes far beyond what we are currently arguing about. Increasing taxes on the rich is a rather stupid idea in view of the fact that such increases will miss total revenues needed to balance the budget by more than 92% !!. And, debating Obama's vacation time when compared to Bush 43 does nothing for this country, either. It is completely beside the point.
Democrats cannot formulate "solutions" that do not include spending trillions of dollars. But, Republicans have few solutions apart from a "you're on your own" mentality. Personal responsibility is critical to this country dealing with its problems, but there are millions within our population who cannot help themselves.
While I am not talking about welfare or an increasingly large entitlement state, I do believe this: to whom much is given, much is required.