Below is a graph of the Earth's temperature change estimates from the IPCC's Third Assessment report in 2001.

Take a look at the period from 2000-2010 on the above graph. Do you see the steady upward climb of the Earth's temperature predicted by the IPCC ? Okay, hold that thought.

Here are the actual measurements of the earth's temperature since 2003.

The Earth's temperature has not followed the IPCC model. In fact, the Earth's temperature hasn't increased at all. It has decreased (ever since the 1998 El Nino effect created a modern high temperature mark).

Bottom line - The IPCC was wrong from the minute it published it's temperature estimates. The SCIENCE says so. We might want to take this into consideration before we wreck our economy by passing cap-and-trade.

No wonder the EPA didn't want to consider Alan Carlin's information. The EPA wanted to issue a carbon dioxide endangerment finding (and it did), and Carlin's information was an inconvenient truth for that agenda, as is the SCIENCE I just pointed out.

This leads me to wonder, is global warming science really settled, as the Goreacle claims, or is it merely global warming politics that is settled ?

Even more important, why isn't the mainstream media talking about this stuff ? Who are they working for ?

The Senate formally apologized for slavery yesterday, one hundred and forty four years too late, one hundred and forty four years after slavery was abolished.

Do we all feel better now ? A bunch of people who had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery have apologized for it. Now we know that America doesn't condone slavery (and here I thought the Civil War settled that issue). Thank goodness. All those American pro-slavery groups can go pound salt. If there are any, that is, which there aren't (I hope).

But even the Senate's unaminous and meaningless kumbayah vote to apologize for slavery isn't without controversy here in grievance-based America, where it seems everyone feels slighted over something. The Senate's slavery apology contained a disclaimer which stated the apology didn't authorize any reparations claim for the descendants of slaves.

Cue the outrage. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus objected to the reparations disclaimer.

Sigh.

To be clear, I believe reparations for slavery were in order, but they were in order 144 YEARS AGO, not now. They were in order for people who actually WERE slaves. There are no reparations in order for people who are six or seven generations removed from slavery, for people who have the same civil rights as everyone else, for people who even have MORE civil rights than everyone else (affirmative action). I agree with President Obama, who said the best reparations are "good schools in the inner city." Obama embodies the lunacy of the reparations argument. Should we pay reparations to Barack Obama, the most powerful man in the world, just because his skin contains the required amount of melanin ? I don't think so.

As I'm writing this, there are some teevee talking heads arguing about whether or not the coverage of Michael Jackson's death is motivated by race. One talking head is saying it is, that the media is talking about all Jackson's drug use because he is black.

Sigh.

That talking head must not remember the teevee coverage of the deaths of Heath Ledger, Kurt Cobain, Anna Nicole Smith, or Elvis Presley. The media wallowed in all the minutiae of each one's drug use, ad nauseum. It's about celebrity, not race.

Speaking of race-based issues, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court ruling in the Ricci case, and ruled that New Haven discriminated against 19 firefighters (18 white and 1 hispanic) when they threw out the results of a promotion test because no blacks scored high enough to be promoted. New Haven officials were afraid of protests by civil rights groups if no blacks were promoted, so they discriminated against the 19 firefighters and denied them the promotions they earned. As with so many of these types of cases, the Supreme Court vote was split. The 5-4 majority decision was resisted by the Court's four liberal members (who think discrimination is fine and dandy as long as it's done against white people). Of note is the fact that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, was one of those overturned by the Supremes. As one of the appellate court judges, Sotomayor thought discrimination against white people was hunky-dory in the Ricci case too.

Your going to hears lots of grievance-mongering and spin about the Ricci case, but there is no reason for any of it. This country was founded on the notion that all men are created equal, and equal protection under the law is mandated in our Constitution. We have a Civil Rights Act that says you may not discriminate against people based upon race. That goes for ALL races. That's why slavery and Jim Crow laws were wrong. All we should do in this country is give everyone the same opportunity (as in, all the New Haven firefighters had the SAME opportunity for promotion, regardless of race. They all took the same test. That's equality). When we go beyond that to dictate outcomes based solely upon race, we violate our own principles and make a mockery of them.

It's time to get beyond race, as well as all the other false constructs that divide us. I've watched the civil rights movement go from one of righteousness in the 60's to the "gimme" entitlement mindset of today. No. You aren't entitled to anything in this country, except the equal opportunity to achieve or fail. After that, it's up to you, no matter who you are.

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” - Thomas Jefferson

Allow me to construct a hypothetical set of circumstances. Let's say our country was in the midst of a severe recession, that unemployment was rising rapidly as millions of jobs were being lost, that average people were having an increasingly difficult time getting by, that our industries were having a difficult time competing, that the value of the dollar was dropping, that we were up to our ears in debt……

Okay, that isn't hypothetical at all. That's what is actually happening.

Now, in response to this not-so-hypothetical set of crisis circumstances, what would you think of our government if it passed legislation that would bring about massive tax increases, that would make it even more difficult for our industries to compete, that would cause more job losses, that would raise energy costs dramatically, that would increase the price of practically every product consumers purchase, that would put the average person much further in the hole, and that wouldn't even provide the desired benefit of said legislation ???? (link)

I'd call that government destructive to the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd want that government replaced for working against the interests of the American people. That's what I'm thinking today after the House of Representatives passed Cap-And-Trade legislation by a narrow vote of 219-212.

The Cap-and-Trade bill, also known as Waxman-Markey, also known as The American Clean Energy And Security Act, also known as the Let Them Eat Cake Act, is a 1,200 page monstrosity that nobody in the House had time to read, because the final version of the bill wasn't posted until the night before friday's vote, and a 300 page amendment was added at 3:00am on the day of the vote. I seem to remember President Obama saying something about having the most transparent administration EVAH !…….I guess Congress didn't get the memo on that, because they are operating like cat burglars in the dead of night.

Here's a quick rundown of the bad guys and the good guys in the House. The bad guys voting FOR the destruction of America included 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The good guys voting AGAINST destruction included 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans. You can find a complete vote tally here. I'd like to single out Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for praise for standing against this bill. I've maligned Mr. Kucinich in the past, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong about him. He seems to be one of the few in the House who actually stands on his principles. That's noteworthy to me, even if I often disagree with him. The fact that 44 Democrats voted against this bill shows us that the Dems know Cap-And-Trade is a really bad idea, but lots of Democrats caved to pressure from the White House. El Presidente badly wants more control over all aspects of America, and this bill puts him in the express lane toward acquiring that control (but he believe in free markets ! lol).

"We've seen the example in Spain, it's a colossal mistake there, a political and an economic error. This could be the most colossal mistake ever made in the history of the United State Congress." - Congressman Steve King (R-IOWA).

I picked the above quote not only because a guy named King must be right, but because he mentioned Spain. What happened in Spain ?

Spain already implemented cap-and-trade, and has the most far-reaching renewable energy agenda in the European Union. The result ? Unemployment is at 18% in Spain (double the EU average), and there have been 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created. In addition, tons of subsidies are required for green energy initiatives to be competitive. The wind industry jobs created in Spain have come at a cost of $1.4 million PER JOB. (link)

Gee, who wouldn't want to emulate such "success" ???

But my favorite comment on the cap-and-trade legislation came from Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who when asked why he spent an hour reading portions of the bill aloud on the House floor, said, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s–t." (link)

Even those who are in favor of restricting carbon emissions know that this cap-and-trade bill is, um, crap. Here's one such person, billionaire Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway:

"I think if you get into the way it was written, it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. And it's a fairly regressive tax. If we buy permits, essentially, at our utilities, that goes right into the bills of the utility customers, and an awful lot of people in Iowa, in Oregon, and Utah, and places where we are, very poor people are going to pay a lot more money for electricity. So I think that can be improved." (link)

Speaking of restricting carbon emissions, which is the stated purpose of cap-and-trade (all it's negative and destructive effects are just icing on the cake), exactly how much of an effect on global warming will this cap-and-trade bill have ? (for the sake of brevity, I'm assuming here that man-made carbon emissions are a significant cause of global warming, an assumption that is itself a source of controversy).

Washington Post writer Martin Feldstein lays it out in an article called Cap-And-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

Waxman-Markey will have NO EFFECT on global warming, but it will have the "benefit" of further destroying our country.

In spite of all this, there are many American corporations ready to jump on the green bandwagon and profit from the carbon credit trading frenzy that El Presidente is trying to unleash on us. You're even familiar with some of these corporations - AIG, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, General Electric…you know, the GOOD corporations that we've all come to know and love so much during the recession. They are ready to jump on the manufactured energy bubble and rake in the big bucks. That these same companies are all recipients of government bailouts is just a big old coincidence, I'm sure. Too bad Enron isn't around any longer. Those guys knew how to run an energy bubble. I bet most of you didn't even know that General Electric got a bailout. Somehow, that hasn't been mentioned by the mainstream media very much. Not only did GE get a bailout, they got a $139 billion bailout, second in size to AIG's bailout. Yet somehow, the enormous GE bailout hasn't been mentioned or condemned by major television networks like……NBC, nor by NBC's retarded cable stepchildren over at MSNBC (aka, The Obama Channel). I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that General Electric OWNS NBC, or the fact that GE is deeply in bed with the Obama administration. I'm sure that can't be it. Everyone knows MSNBC is a group of highly dedicated professional journalists who would never compromise their integrity or ideals for…….LOL. Oh, man. I can't finish this sentence. Sometime I even crack myself up.

But make sure you contact GE for all your carbon credit trading needs. They are primed and ready for all their cap-and-trade lobbying to start paying dividends.

As for you, America, I hope you like cake, because if you don't rise up and stop this Cap-And-Trade disaster in the Senate, cake is all you'll have left. And maybe some government cheese to go with it, if you're lucky.

No politics today.

I'll leave it to others to talk about Michael Jackson's personal problems and strange behavior (and lord knows they will). As a musician, I'd rather focus on the man's unique talent, which was a gift to the world. I am saddened by his passing, more saddened than I even would have expected. Thanks for the memories, Michael.

Billie Jean - w/Jacko's first moonwalk - 1983.

Man In The Mirror - 1988 Grammy Awards

Jackson Five - ABC - 1970

This is a follow-up to the original blog piece I wrote about President Obama's firing of Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General of the CNCS, the watchdog over Americorps and other national service groups.

It's looking more and more like a political hit job.

From the Washington Examiner:

Walpin had certainly displeased the board by his aggressive investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Prior to his election as mayor, Johnson ran an educational organization called St. HOPE, which received $850,000 in AmeriCorps money. Walpin discovered that Johnson and St. HOPE had failed to use the federal money for the purposes specified in the grant and had also used federally-funded AmeriCorps staff for, among other things, "driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands."

Walpin recommended that Johnson be banned from ever receiving any more federal funds. But after the passage of the $787 billion stimulus bill, amid worries that such a ban on the mayor would keep Sacramento from receiving its share of the stimulus cash, the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service reached an agreement with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento under which Johnson would repay some of the mis-spent money and also be eligible to receive new federal grants in the future. Walpin strongly objected to the agreement. (Knowing his opposition, the board excluded him from the negotiations.)

Walpin's objections were the subject of a now-controversial May 20 meeting in which Walpin, to use his term, "lectured" the board on what he believed was its mistake in approving the Johnson settlement. On the morning of the meeting, the Sacramento Bee reported that a man named Rick Maya, who worked with Kevin Johnson in the St. HOPE project, claimed that Johnson's emails had been deleted during the time of Walpin's investigation. The Maya news suggested that there might have been obstruction of justice in the St. HOPE affair, and Walpin used it to drive home his point that the board should have let his investigation stand.

It appears the discussion of the St. HOPE matter was a turning point not only in the May 20 meeting but in Walpin's tenure at the Corporation. In a recent interview, a Republican member of the Corporation board told me that Walpin told board members at the meeting that he wanted to issue some sort of public statement to the effect that there should be more investigation of the St. HOPE matter. "He said, 'I feel so strongly about this that today I am going to issue a statement to the press calling for further investigation,'" the member said, recalling Walpin's words. "The board members all caught that. Several of us wrote down that he was going to be issuing a statement to the press that afternoon."

It was a distressing scenario for the board. As a favorite program of Barack and Michelle Obama, AmeriCorps was enjoying a higher profile than ever before. The Corporation also stood to receive vast amounts of new funding from the $5.7 billion Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which would triple the size of AmeriCorps. And in the midst of that, here was the agency's inspector general saying he might re-open an investigation into an embarrassing episode involving hundreds of thousands of mis-spent dollars and a politically prominent supporter of the president.

"Right now, when there is such a great emphasis on service, we did not need any press out there on this St. HOPE matter, which was already settled," the board member told me. "We thought he was going to use the press…He had an issue with the fact that a settlement was reached…and he was doing everything he could to continue to keep the issue at the forefront."

Later in the meeting, members questioned Walpin about his intentions. It was at that point that they say Walpin became confused and disoriented. But whatever Walpin's demeanor, it appears that board members, of both parties, were worried about the possibility of embarrassing new revelations involving a sensational case they thought had been closed. After the meeting, the board began an accelerated effort to remove Walpin, compiling an informal list of grievances against him — he could be difficult, he telecommuted, he was somehow disabled — that the White House would ultimately cite as cause for his firing. But there is no doubt that, whatever the other reasons, the board feared that a revival of a scandal they thought was in the past would be embarrassing to the newly-prominent AmeriCorps.

Sounds like the board might have gotten together to manufacture some reasons to get Walpin fired because they were afraid he'd go to the press, and that's when they decided Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented," among other things. They wanted to dump him because he was a thorn in their side and was going to expose the St. Hope "settlement" (free pass).

As further evidence, 147 people, both Democrats and Republicans, have signed a letter to Congress attesting to the soundness of Walpin's mental state. Here's an excerpt from that letter:

We have known Gerald Walpin as a leading member of the New York Bar for many years. Many of us have seen him and heard him speak, including at this month's meeting of the Second Circuit Judicial Conference and last week's meeting of the Board of the Federal Bar Council.

We have never seen Mr. Walpin to be "confused, disoriented, [or] unable to answer questions." While none of us was present at the meeting referred to in Mr. Eisen's letter, we can report only that such an allegation is totally inconsistent with our personal knowledge of Mr. Walpin who has always, through the present day, exhibited a quick mind and a command of the facts (whether we agree with him or not) and eloquence - essentially the opposite of someone who is "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions."

We note that the signers of this letter include both Democrats and Republicans, voters for both President Obama and Senator McCain, and many who do not agree with Mr. Walpin's personal political views. But all of us are unanimous in affirming Mr. Walpin's integrity and competence.

If it matters, and it shouldn't, Mr. Walpin calls himself a conservative.

Message to Geral Walpin - don't mess with the President's pet projects and friends, peon, or you'll be crushed under the wheels of the Hopenchange Express.

P.S. - As of this writing, the twelve questions Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IOWA) wanted answered by June 24th about Walpin's firing have NOT been answered by the White House.

P.P.S - The FBI is investigating St. Hope and Kevin Johnson for obstructing the investigation into the misappropriation of funds (the obstruction was one of Walpin's biggest objections to the settlement).

Here's President Obama during yesterday's press conference, talking about the public health insurance option he wants as part of health care reform:

OBAMA: As one of those options, for us to be able to say, here’s a public option that’s not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs, and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price as one of the options for you to choose, I think that makes sense.

QUESTION: Wouldn’t that drive private insurance out of business?

OBAMA: Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If — if private — if private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.

Now, the — I think that there’s going to be some healthy debates in Congress about the shape that this takes. I think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly that over time they can’t compete with the government just printing money, so there are going to be some I think legitimate debates to be had about how this private plan takes shape.

But just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they’re giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can’t compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what’s the best deal, that defies logic, which is why I think you’ve seen in the polling data overwhelming support for a public plan.

The President is being disingenuous, to say the least. He's a smart guy. He KNOWS there is no way private companies can compete directly with the federal government, on health insurance or anything else. The reasons are obvious, and ironically, the President even named some of those reasons in his press conference. I see Obama engaging in his 'up is down' version of reality again.

First of all, the government has a guaranteed source of income, the taxpayers. The government can just force the taxpayers to pay for anything of the government's choosing. Private industry cannot do that. The private sector depends upon consumer choice. It's voluntary. Advantage - government.

Second, the government doesn't have to turn a profit to survive. Private industry does. The government can run the most inefficient, bloated, and even corrupt program imaginable, and the taxpayers must still subsidize it. On health care, the government can charge, say, $200 per month for public health insurance, and it doesn't matter, because the taxpayers can be forced to subsidize the rest in any variety of ways. Private health insurers can only charge a monthly fee that will allow them to survive. Currently, that amount is around $400 per month. Advantage - government.

Third, the government sets the rules of the game. It can legislate one set of rules for itself, and another set of rules for the private sector. That tilts the playing field so heavily in the government's favor that it's laughable to say any private company could compete with that. If Walmart could set the rules of retailing, how long do you think K-Mart would be able to compete ? Not very long, because Walmart would set all the rules to favor Walmart. Advantage - government.

Fourth, once the government undercuts the private health insurance market, the floodgates will open. Citizens and employers would flock to the public option, not only because it's cheaper, but also because the public is ALREADY PAYING FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION (so it would be illogical not to use it), and because all employers would be REQUIRED to provide health insurance for their employees or be fined. If the public option is cheaper, they will go to the public option. It's obvious. Advantage - government.

The President is using the public option as a Trojan Horse to implement government run health care even as he denies doing it. That's obvious too. I don't mind having the debate between public and private health insurance, because our current health care system is not sustainable over the long term. I'm open to any and all ideas, but I don't care for all the deception. I don't like the President treating the American public like they're a bunch of dummies.

I also don't like the idea of using government force to mandate health care coverage. Obama used to rail against forced insurance too, but that was BEFORE he bacame President. That was back when he was only making those disposable campaign promises that got him elected.

Be sure to stay tuned tonight for Obama's hour long health care infomercial on ABC, where no Republicans will be allowed. I'm sure the prez will appeal for bipartisan support, even as the GOP is barred. Do we still call that CHANGE ?

Recent polling shows that Americans increasingly have no party identification. There are more Independent voters than those having allegiance to either Democrats or Republicans. Here's a chart from Pew Research:

The above chart shows that Republican voter identification has plummeted since 2004. Democratic voter identification has remained relatively stable (though it has dropped since Obama became president), and Independent voter identification has risen steadily. It's not too difficult to figure out why the Republicans have lost ground. After 8 years of Bush, I can summarize it in three words - war, deficits, recession. There are other reasons, but those are the big ones. The Republican party has become marginalized.

Now for the twist. If you remove political parties from the equation and just ask the voters about their political ideology, you get a far different picture of America. The following chart comes from a recent Gallup poll:

Suddenly, conservatives rule, with moderates a close second. Liberals are marginalized. This gives credence to the idea that we are a center-right nation (75% conservative or moderate).

So, why the disconnect between the low poll numbers of Republicans and the high poll numbers of conservatives ? After all, aren't Republicans supposed to be the conservative party ?

My answer is, yes, they are SUPPOSED to be the conservative party, but that's not what they were during the Bush years. They were just the opposite, so it's not a surprise that lots of conservatives and many moderates abandoned them. That also explains the huge rise in Independent voters. The voters didn't change ideologically and become a lot more liberal. The voters remained pretty much the same. It was the Republicans who changed. It was the Republicans who abandoned conservatism.

Ronald Reagan once said, "I did not leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me." I bet a lot of conservatives feel the same way about the Republican Party these days.

To the deep thinkers in the Republican Party (if there are any left) - If you want to get back into power, the answer is staring you right in the face. Return to conservative principles. And then don't ABANDON them if you do acquire power.

To the deep thinkers in the Democratic Party (if there are any left) - If you want to stay in power, forget about the liberals (who else are the liberals going to vote for, anyway ?), and move to the middle, where America is. If you do that, the Democrats can remain in control for quite a while. If you don't, you'll be kicked to the curb just like the Republicans were. So far, it looks to me like the Dems want to be kicked to the curb.

My advice to the nation would be to kick both these corruptocratic parties to the curb, but that's probably not realistic. The corruptocrats have rigged the game heavily in their favor. A poor Libertarian or other third partier has a long, steep, uphill battle in front of them. One reason the Big Two parties are so corrupt is that they CAN BE. They're a duopoly.

And as I said in yesterday's post, FREE CHEERIOS FROM TYRANNY !

No justice, no peace.

The latest out-of-control federal government agency that has succumbed to excessive moonbattery is the Food And Drug Administration. In an attempt to crack down on health claims made by food manufacturers, Obama's FDA is targeting…are you ready for this???

CHEERIOS.

I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. Because a box of Cheerios has a statement on it that says eating Cheerios can help lower cholesterol (which oat bran does do), The FDA is in a tizzy. This is from a letter the FDA sent to General Mills:

"Based on claims made on your product's label, we have determined (Cheerios) is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation and treatment of disease."

So, the FDA says Cheerios is a drug now. That's just great. Thanks for cluing me in to Cheerios' grave and gathering threat to America, Big Brother. Don't know what I'd do without y'all. On the bright side, Cheerios was NOT declared to be an enemy combatant, so liberals are not demanding civil rights be granted to Cheerios.

I'm sure glad I bought a box of Cheerios at the grocery store this morning before the FDA crackdown forces me to get a prescription from my doctor to buy it. I wonder how long it's going to take the FDA to realize that every single thing we put in our bodies has some type of drug-like effect. Once the food Nazis make that realization, they can regulate EVERYTHING. Oh wait, they already DO regulate everything. Well, they can regulate it more.

And to think, I thought it was silly when the FDA banned cherry flavored nicotine products last week, while still leaving nicotine legal. That's like banning lime-flavored vodka while still leaving vodka legal. It has NO effect. For those of you out there who may be thinking, 'but, but, CHILDREN like cherry flavored stuff. They are doing it FOR THE CHILDREN.' Please keep in mind that children cannot buy nicotine products, so banning cherry-flavored nicotine is meaningless (but it does make Big Brother look like he's taking action. That's the important thing).

An addendum to the flavored nicotine product ban - The FDA made an exception for MENTHOL flavored cigarettes, because, you know, lots of people actually SMOKE THOSE, and the government needs the tax revenue from cigarettes. It's nuanced, not to mention laughably hypocritical. Statistics show that the biggest menthol smokers are women and black people. I guess those misogynistic and racist liberals running the FDA now don't care if those groups die off (that's the argument liberals would be making if conservatives were doing this, so I thought I'd throw it in).

If the government wants to start going after food manufacturers in it's continuing war on the private sector, why would they start with Cheerios, anyway ? Cheerios is a pretty health product. Why don't the food Nazis go after, say, Ho-Ho's ??? According to recent estimates from the Rubberat Ministry Of Truth, a Ho-Ho can sit on the grocery shelf for about 235 years and not spoil. Nobody knows for sure how long a Ho-Ho will last, because the Ho-Ho's outlast the scientists conducting the research. The scientists all die of old age, but the Ho-Ho's go on forever. I don't even think Ho-Ho's are food, technically. They are probably polymer plastic of some sort.

As long as Cheerios is being considered a drug, and if doctors will soon be controlling the supply of those dangerous O-shaped opiates, I think General Mills should go ahead and develop cherry-flavored nicotine Cheerios. That way, we'll only have to fill one prescription to get our recommended daily allowance of both items.

I also want to cast my vote for making brussel sprouts illegal. They smell, and they look like alien space pods. If there's a food conspiracy afoot, brussel sprouts is in the middle of it. Notify the Truthers.

FREE CHEERIOS !!! No justice, no peace.

We have another Obama nominee who didn't pay taxes (notify the CDC. This is becoming an epidemic):

President Obama’s choice as chief of protocol for the State Department, a position that carries the status of an ambassadorship, did not file tax returns for 2005 and 2006, errors she corrected last November. The nominee, Capricia Penavic Marshall, has placed blame for the problem on the Postal Service and on miscommunication between her husband and their accountant.

Ah, the old "it got lost in the mail" excuse. I'm also wondering what kind of an accountant forgets to file one's income taxes. Perhaps the Dems all use the same one. Time for a switch.
—
President Obama is in trouble with a liberal group - for killing a fly during a television interview, in an impressive display of hand-eye coordination by our prez. PETA is upset. They are terming Obama's act an "execution," and called for President Miyagi to show compassion for "the least sympathetic animals." Compassion for unsympathetic creatures is a liberal trait, so PETA has a point here. I mean, who is a more unsympathetic animal than 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ? Liberals have sympathy for him. They'd even like to put President Bush in prison for swatting KSM. I have more sympathy for the fly.
—
An Iranian envoy to the IAEA, the UN atomic watchdog group, is gonna be in big trouble with the Mullahs back home, because he let the cat out of the bag regarding Iran's intentions to acquire nuclear weapons (like we didn't already know):

After saying as usual that Iran was only pursuing nuclear energy for civilian purposes, Ali Asghar Soltanieh strayed alarmingly from the Islamic republic's usual line.

"The whole Iranian nation are united… on (the) inalienable right of (having a) nuclear weapon," the envoy to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency said.

Oops. Maybe what Soltanieh meant was, Iran would only use their nuclear weapons for civilian purposes, like to nuke those civilian protestors and their crazy ideas about fair democratic elections.
—
It seems the Israelis have lost their appetite for Hopenchange. They no longer think Obama is pro-Israel, according to the latest poll:

The percentage of Jewish Israelis who see the Obama administration as being pro-Israel has declined from 31% to 6% since May 17 according to a JPost/Smith poll published in Friday's editions. In the intervening month, Obama gave his homily to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, and his administration has come into open conflict with Israel's leaders over a 'settlement freeze' and over the opening of the Gaza crossings without the release of kidnapped IDF corporal Gilad Shalit.

In related news, more Americans are starting to catch on to what Hopenchange really is - total domination by the federal government. Obama's poll ratings are dropping here too, down to 56% approval for the prez, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey:

According to the survey , the greatest loss of support was registered among those who described themselves as "politically independent."
"President Obama’s honeymoon is coming to an end," affirmed Chuck Todd, the NBC correspondent to the White House, while presenting the results of the survey.
"The public appears to be judging the president for some of his actions. There is now a growing concern over the budget deficit, as well as other government measures with respect to the economy," he added.

Outrageous. Judging the president for his actions ?!?! What kind of right-wing claptrap is Chuck Todd trying to pass off here ? You just gotta B-E-L-I-E-V-E, people. Don't worry your pretty little heads. Remember, Obama is "saving" jobs, even though we've lost 1.6 million jobs since the $800 billion Porkulus package was passed. Remember, Obama is "fiscally responsible," even though we're going to have the largest single year deficit in American history, with more enormous deficits as far as the eye can see. Don't worry, be happy. Besides, the Federal Reserve is in charge now, with the new financial rules Obama has put in place. The Fed will oversee everything, so it's all being handled. Problem solved.

As a reminder of how well the Fed handles things, just remember what a great job Ben Bernanke, the current Fed chairman, did in predicting the housing market crash and recession we're in now. Let's go to the videotape !

In Bernanke's defense, except for housing, energy, the automobile industry, the stock market, the economy, the coming recession, jobs, and just about everything else, Bernake NAILED it from 2005-2007. Also, once we were up to our necks in the recession, Bernanke DID recognize it. He's the expert leading the Fed now, so, no worries. What could possibly go wrong ?

In 2006, President Bush fired eight U.S. Attorneys. It was within the rights of the executive branch to fire those attorneys, who serve at the pleasure of the President. Bush did not have to give a reason or provide cause to fire them. Following those firings, there have been 2 1/2 years of accusations, scandal, and investigations of the Bush administration. The investigations continue to this day.

Then the great CHANGE occurred, and Barack Obama became President Of The United States. Things would be different now. No longer would people be hired or fired for political reasons.

And then Obama fired Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General Of The Corporation For National And Community Sevice (he was the watchdog over Americorps and other national service organizations). It was Mr. Walpin's job to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and that's what he did. Among other mishandlings of taxpayer funds he ferreted out, in 2008 Walpin discovered that St. Hope Academy had misused a large share of over $800,000 it had received in taxpayer funds. The CEO of St. Hope Academy was Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and big-time Obama supporter. Johnson and St. Hope were barred from receving further federal funds. So far so good. Things were working as they should. You defraud the taxpayers, you pay the price. Walpin was doing his job.

Then, on April 9, 2009, the Acting U.S. Attorney for California's Eastern District, Lawrence G. Brown, cut Kevin Johnson a deal. Here are some of the details:

Acting United States Attorney Lawrence G. Brown announced today that St. HOPE Academy has agreed to pay $423,836.50 to settle allegations that St. HOPE did not appropriately spend AmeriCorps grant awards and education awards in accordance with the terms of grant requirements and did not adequately document its expenditures of grant awards. The amount of the civil settlement represents one-half of the $847,673 in AmeriCorps grant funds received by St. HOPE Academy…The lifting of the suspension against all parties, including Mayor Johnson, removes any cloud whether the City of Sacramento will be prevented from receiving much-needed federal stimulus funds,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Brown…St. HOPE will make an initial payment of $73,836.50 by electronic transfer within five business days from today…Kevin Johnson will pay $72,836.50 of the initial payment by St. HOPE, with possible repayment to Johnson by St. HOPE when it is financially able to do so…St. HOPE has entered into a stipulated judgment for $350,000.00, plus five percent annual interest, payable at $35,000 annually for 10 years.

Let's put this into perspective. Kevin Johnson and St. Hope Academy bilked the taxpayers out of over $400,000. Their penalty ? Pay it back, and they get 10 years to do it. That's it. No further punishment, and their right to receive more taxpayer money is restored. Do any readers out there think they'd get a similar deal for defrauding over $400,000 ? No, me neither. It's good to have friends in high places, and Kevin Johnson certainly has them. And if you noticed, Kevin Johnson ends up paying NOTHING out of his pocket. He gets reimbursed for the money he pays back, even though the original misspent Americorps funds included personal services performed for Kevin Johnson. Even worse, St. Hope Academy is a NON-PROFIT organization, so their future funding, the money they will use to PAY BACK the money they defrauded the taxpayers out of, will come from FUTURE TAXPAYER MONEY endowed upon them by Barack Obama (who, btw, increased Americorps funding by $5 billion, because, you know, the American economic situation is SO GOOD right now. That's Obama's idea of fiscal responsibility).

When Gerald Walpin found out about the sweet deal that Kevin Johnson and St. Hope Academy received for their criminal behavior, he objected in a May 13, 2009 letter to Congress that the settlment reeked of impropriety. Walpin urged Congress to act.

It appears Walpin ruffled the wrong feathers, the feathers of power, because Walpin was fired. He received a phone call from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Reform, notifying him that he had one hour to resign or be canned. Walpin, who had not only finished a report on misuse of funds by St. Hope, but who had also just finished a report of misuse of funds by the City University Of New York, Americorps biggest program, told Eisen he thought the timing of his firing was "very interesting." Eisien replied that is was a "pure coincidence." Sure.

Here's the problem. Gerald Walpin didn't serve at the pleasure of the President, as did those U.S. Attorneys who were fired by George W. Bush. According to the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act (that Senator Obama CO-SPONSORED), the President must give Congress 30 days notice and a sufficient cause to fire an Inspector General. Obama had done neither, and was in violation for firing Walpin. Obama's intial explanation was that he lost confidence in Walpin, which, as Walpin himself noted "is a conclusion, not a cause."

Some members of Congress, including Democrat Claire McCaskill, objected. So did members of the conservative media. That prompted a second explanation from President Obama of why Walpin was fired, so Obama would be within the law. Eisen wrote a letter to Congress as follows:

“Mr. Walpin was removed after a review was unanimously requested by the bi-partisan Board of the Corporation ,” Obama ethics counsel Norm Eisen wrote in a letter to senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Me.), with a copy directed to McCaskill. “The Board’s action was precipitated by a May 20, 2009 Board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.”

They are practically saying the 77-year old Walpin is senile. But if you read Walpin's letter to Congress in May, or his other reports on St. Hope or CUNY, he hardly seems senile. He seems quite clear and precise. He also didn't sound at all senile during a Fox News roundtable discussion on the issue.

And even if Walpin had some kind of medical problem during that May 20th meeting that affected his mental abilities, how EMPATHETIC is it for Obama to fire him over it ? Not at all. It's cold-hearted as hell. How about they recommend that Walpin go see a doctor instead ? Of course, they didn't do that, because they didn't fire Walpin for cause, they just made up a cause. They fired him for political reasons, because Walpin the watchdog was blowing the whistle in places the Obama administration didn't want it to be blown - on Obama's cronies, on Obama's pet projects. That's sure how it looks to me.

Walpin is fighting back. He refused to resign and has described Obama's alleged "cause" for firing him as "outrageous," "smears," and "total lies." Good for him.

How long do you think the investigation into the Walpin firing will be ? 2 1/2 years and counting, like the Bush attorney investigation, or ZIP ? I'm going with zip, because, you know, Obama is a Democrat, and we don't really want to waste our time investigating Democrats these days. That's "non-productive," just like it was when Congress decided there shouldn't be any investigation into Nancy Pelosi's accusation that the CIA lies to Congress all the time. Who cares if the CIA is lying ? Much ado about nothing. It's only our national security at stake. But Bush firing those attorneys, which he had every legal right to do, well, that's BIG. Somehow.