I can not believe it! First she wants the government to run healthcare and now she wants the government to give money to babies just because they were born!!
AP: Clinton: $5,000 for every U.S. baby
Do you think she will exclude the rich babies? What about illegal immigrant babies?
This is just nuts!
Republicans have given Democrats exactly what they wanted related to K-12 education and local government funding. (AB 506 & AB507)
Now the Republicans are willing to give the Democrats the cigarette tax increase. Huebsch Press Release
What have the Democrats given in on to get this budget passed?
Anything?
Anyone?
Bueller?
This is the message from Senate Democrats who are unwilling to budge an inch on their huge tax increase.
Today Senate Democrat Breske put out the a press release where he says in part, “It’s time to compromise and work out a budget and stop shortchanging Wisconsin residents.” So does this mean that the Democrats are willing to give up their HUGE tax increases? Are they willing to actually negotiate or are they expecting the Republicans to cave completely?
Assembly Republicans realized that the Democrats were going to play dirty with this budget so they passed AB506 and AB507 to fully fund education and our communities but the Senate has been unwilling to pass these measures and have in stead called for passage of a complete budget…or else.
My answer to the Democrats would be this: Pass AB 506 & 507 so that we can negotiate on the remainder of the budget. If you are unwilling to do so and only want a complete budget passed right now…then you have our budget that was passed by the State Assembly that does not raise taxes…pass that so the State can get on with the business of the people.
Last week’s country was Costa Rica.
This week you should have no trouble identifying the country. I give it a 2 out of 10.
I wonder if most global warming alarmists would agree that the Earth’s climate system is damaged.
Reuters: Gaia Guru Urges Ocean Pipes to Fix Earth’s Climate
I find it interesting that while our schools are approaching a budget deadline that will create chaos for the school systems of Wisconsin as well as huge tax increases to the people of Wisconsin; the Senate Democrats are running around talking about how the State should mandate that businesses in Wisconsin spend billions of dollars to curb greenhouse gases. (Senator Mark Miller (D-Monona))
Maybe if Democrats held their breath this whole global warming thing would go away…
Senator Miller is right though “Global warming is the most significant environmental issue ever faced by mankind.”
Think about it…cold weather accounts for over 80% of weather related deaths in the world…if the planet was warmer then mankind would not have to face such a cruel death. But I guess that would hurt the liberal agenda worldwide since they would not be able to capitalize on the suffering of others!!
As most of you know the State Senate still has not taken up AB506 & AB507. Have you written your State Senator and asked for them to take action?
Here is my contribution…why not write to your Senator today?!?! For your convinence I’ve included all of their e-mails below!
Subject: The State Budget
Senator Lehman,
I would like to urge you to push your colleagues in the Senate to take up AB506 and AB507 and put these items up for a vote.
As you know these items are of the utmost importance in order to continue to fund education and our communities across the State.The obstructionist tactics of the Senate Democrats to withhold these funds will not come without consequences to the State, your Party, or to you as you seek re-election in 3 years.
Once again, show leadership on this issue and pass Assembly Bills 506 and 507.
Your constituent,
William Folk
District Number 12
Senator Roger Breske Sen.breske@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 3
Senator Tim Carpenter Sen.carpenter@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 6
Senator Spencer Coggs Sen.coggs@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 2
Senator Robert Cowles Sen.cowles@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 8
Senator Alberta Darling Sen.darling@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 29
Senator Russell Decker Sen.decker@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 19
Senator Michael Ellis Sen.ellis@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 27
Senator Jon Erpenbach Sen.erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 13
Senator Scott Fitzgerald Sen.fitzgerald@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 20
Senator Glenn Grothman Sen.Grothman@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 30
Senator Dave Hansen Sen.hansen@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 10
Senator Sheila Harsdorf Sen.harsdorf@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 25
Senator Robert Jauch Sen.jauch@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 33
Senator Theodore Kanavas Sen.kanavas@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 32
Senator Dan Kapanke Sen.kapanke@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 11
Senator Neal Kedzie Sen.kedzie@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 23
Senator Pat Kreitlow Sen.Kreitlow@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 1
Senator Alan Lasee Sen.lasee@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 24
Senator Julie Lassa Sen.lassa@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 28
Senator Mary Lazich Sen.lazich@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 21
Senator John Lehman Sen.Lehman@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 9
Senator Joe Leibham Sen.leibham@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 16
Senator Mark Miller Sen.miller@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 14
Senator Luther Olsen Sen.olsen@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 7
Senator Jeffrey Plale Sen.plale@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 26
Senator Fred Risser Sen.risser@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 15
Senator Judy Robson Sen.robson@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 18
Senator Carol Roessler Sen.roessler@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 17
Senator Dale Schultz Sen.schultz@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 5
Senator Jim Sullivan Sen.Sullivan@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 4
Senator Lena Taylor Sen.taylor@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 31
Senator Kathleen Vinehout Sen.Vinehout@legis.wisconsin.gov
District Number 22
Senator Robert Wirch Sen.wirch@legis.wisconsin.gov
…so why not play the USA Today Candidate Match Game.
No real surprises here but it is interesting to play and see whose opinion matches yours!
Rep. Vos is on the right side of this issue! Call your legislators today and tell them we do not want to pay for another “service” that will not be used by the majority of people in the area.
This train will only drain our paychecks in the future when there isn’t the ridership to continue service and the business community revolts from the tax increases that will be needed to continue paying for this boondoggle!
Over 90% of SE Wisconsin drives…less than 0.5% use the train and many of them need to use the roads once they get to their destination since the train isn’t flexible! So spend the money to build better roads not to waste them on 19th century technology!
Yesterday’s Investor’s Business Daily published the following editorial
The ‘Old’ Consensus?
Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.
On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.
The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.
Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.
So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?
"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.
Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.
This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory "court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?
People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There's nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.
But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?
If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age projections of the early 1970s.
Could be he's feeling a little chill in the air again.
[Emphasis added by gopfolk]
Three white teens make overt racial references by hanging empty nooses in a tree.
Six black teens physically assault a single white teen.
The white teens broke no laws but committed a morally offensive gesture and they were suspended from school.
The black teens broke the law by beating on another person and they have been arrested and are going to be charged with battery.
Rev. Sharpton wants “federal intervention to protect people from Southern injustice”
Why don’t we turn the tables on Rev. Sharpton and ask the following hypothetical:
Six black teens, upset due to an out of date “white tree,” place pointed white hoods on the lockers of those white teens that hang out by this old “white tree.”
Days after the event, three white teens jump a single black teen and beat on him.
Should the white teens in my scenario be “set free”?
Any way you cut it what the teens did was wrong. The black teens unfortunately took it too far and now they are facing criminal charges. There were better ways to have handled the situation.
I think Rev. Sharpton would have been right to have “marched” after what the white teens did, not that it would have done anything, but that would make much more sense. But the idea of supporting a bunch of criminals (black, white, or purple) just makes a mockery of the Rev. and of the civil rights movement that he was a part of.
It seems that due to a high number of counterfeiters “bleaching $5 notes and printing fake $100 bills with the bleached paper to take advantage of the fact that some of the security features were in the same locations on both notes” It was time for the 5 to have a face lift.
Here is an image of the new $5 bill and if you click on it, it will take you to an “interactive bill” that will show you all of its new features.
Here is last week’s country with a hint:
Don (Paul actually) would love to have you as a guest.
This week’s country should be easier to get. 3 out of 10.
Country #2:
I like to give people my opinion all the time but on the following issue (which I have expressed my opinion on once before) I’d like to know what you all think about this…
Many of you may have read the Journal Times article of Friday talking about the GOP Budget Compromise: Local GOP legislators ready to deal on budget
But did you get the chance to read the letter to the editor on Saturday from Rep Vos and Rep Gunderson?
GOP firm on taxes
On Saturday The Journal Times ran a story that indicated Republicans were willing to work together with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to find an answer to the budget stalemate in Madison. While that part of the story is accurate, other aspects didn’t fully reflect our position.
We understand that politics is about give and take. Republicans are willing to sit at the table and negotiate our spending priorities with Democrats as long as it takes. However we will not negotiate on one of our most important principles: our heart-felt belief that tax increases are not the answer to balancing this budget.
Unfortunately some Democrats have already indicated that they will oppose the proposal and insist on their demand for higher taxes.
The proposal that will come before the State Assembly on Tuesday clearly reflects the priorities of our state; strong support for local schools, municipalities and counties while clearly showing our belief that these priorities can be funded without the need for any additional taxes.
While the story also didn’t mention this point, the proposal also sets a maximum property tax increase of 2 percent for 2008 and 2009.
We are committed to finding workable solutions to ensure Wisconsin keeps moving forward and that taxpayers are protected.
State Rep. Robin Vos, R-Caledonia.
State Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford
Now I see that the JT is weighing in on this issue and is siding with Vos and Gunderson.
State GOP pushes budget compromise
What do you think?
Babu: Quiet!! You shut up! You make me change restaurant, but nobody comes! You say make Pakistani, Babu Bhatt have only Pakistani restaurant. But where are people? You see people? Show me people. There are no people!
Jerry: You know, I think I'll just take the check.
Babu: You bad man! You very very bad man! [leaves]
Jerry thinking: Bad man? Could've my mother been wrong?
In case you missed it the country was Pakistan!
I rate this week’s 8 out of 10.
It is time that the Democrats pull their collective head out from there ass and see what is going on in the world.
PR Newswire: Pelosi: President's Policy is a Path to 10 More Years of War in Iraq
AP: Democrat Reid: Iraq plan unacceptable
Reuters: Democratic 2008 contenders bicker over Iraq pullout
If they truly believe that the Iraq policy is wrong then they have the ability to pull the plug…but they won’t do it. They can’t do it.
Democrats could, right now, vote to de-fund the Iraq War and have the troops home by year end. So why wont they do it?
They know that the chaos that would ensue in the Middle East as well as the image of US soldiers turning tail and running would only cause bitter hatred of not only the US abroad but of the Democrat Party here at home.
To make myself perfectly clear…the reason the Democrats will not vote to de-fund the war is because they know that they are wrong.
They know that the ‘Bush-Petreaus Doctrine’ is correct and that given time the Iraqi government and military will be fully functional. They also know that if they were to win in 2008 (I’m highly doubtful that they will) they will have to continue helping the Iraqis and therefore be labeled as a liar or a ‘flip-flopper.’ That is why they want Bush to end it…if they do, they look weak…if they wait until 2008, they won’t end it, so they will look like liars…if they win and they end the war prematurely they will be responsible for the consequences of leaving the vacuum in the Middle East…they would rather blame Bush for that.
In the end it looks like the Democrats are “damned if they do and damned if they don’t.” 2008 just might be another sweep…with the Democrats on the losing side this time.
September 11Almost everyone remembers where they were on a bright, comfortable Tuesday morning six years ago today, when 19 men dispatched by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and armed with boxcutters brought the reality of jihadist terror to our shores. Five terrorists, one pilot and four "muscle hijackers" (used to subdue passengers) hijacked three planes; American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were flown into the World Trade Center, and American
Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. A fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, carrying four hijackers and apparently headed for the U.S. Capitol, crashed into a hillside in southwestern Pennsylvania after a fierce struggle between the terrorists and heroic passengers who stormed the cockpit.
During a period of less than two-and-a-half hours, ending at 10:28 A.M. when the second World Trade Center tower collapsed, nearly 3,000 Americans and foreign nationals were killed — many dying on impact when the planes crashed. On some of the planes, passengers and flight attendants were stabbed to death; as many as 200 people jumped to their deaths from the top floors of the World Trade Center to escape the infernos raging around them. More than 300 firemen and paramedics died in an effort to rescue people trapped inside the World Trade Center.
Six years later, the images of that horrible day remain etched in our memories: the chilling reports that United Airlines and American Airlines were each missing two planes; the gaping hole where Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and set it on fire; the television pictures of Flights 11 and 175 hitting the World Trade Center and the collapse of both towers; and watching pedestrians near Wall Street running away from a massive cloud of dust from the collapse of Twin Towers. Some of the most sobering sounds from that day were the recorded telephone calls from the brave people on the doomed airliners, passengers describing the hijackings and announcing, on Flight 93, their intentions to die fighting the hijackers for control of the plane.
For a brief period after September 11, Americans were more or less united in their determination to defeat the terrorists who attacked us that morning. But six years later, Americans are deeply divided as to the nature of the threat and the danger it poses to our nation. Many Americans, especially in the Democratic Party and on the political left, believe President Bush is exaggerating the magnitude of the terrorist threat — which is why we have such heated debate over issues such as electronic intercepts of terrorist suspects' conversations, interrogation methods, "secret" CIA prisons, the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay.
It drives his political adversaries wild, but Mr. Bush says that all of these controversial measures help explain why we have not been attacked again since September 11. Within weeks of the attacks, Congress passed and Mr. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act, the chief feature of which was breaking down the "wall" instituted by the Clinton administration. That wall made it nearly impossible for intelligence agencies and law enforcement to exchange information in terrorism-related investigations. Since September 11, more than 200 persons have been convicted in U.S. courts on terrorism-related charges, and law enforcement officials say that the legislation has been essential in helping them break up terrorist cells in places such as Virginia, New York, Oregon, Washington and Michigan.
The danger in citing the lack of a subsequent attack on American soil as evidence for the success of administration policies is obvious: An attack could happen at any time, and there is no definitive way to know whether we haven't been hit again because the enemy is taking its time or because we have been much more vigilant for the past six years. It is equally clear that, if America had been hit again, Mr. Bush would bear much of the blame. Whatever the reason, we have been spared the carnage experienced in such places as London, Madrid, Baghdad, Amman and Bali during the past six years. That is why America must remain evermore vigilant.
Number one, I can not believe that the Committee Chairman of Foreign Affairs can’t remember that it was Congress itself, not the President, which asked for a report on the status of the surge. Do they actually believe that an upstanding four star General, who the Senate approved for this post, would actually come before Congress and lie?
Number two, what does this Democrat from California not “buy?”
Does he not “buy” that the number of deaths in Iraq is down?
Does he not “buy” that the numbers of IED’s are down?
Congress is filled with politicians and the military is filled with, you guessed it, military personnel. If there is a war to be waged or if we are looking to find out the status of the war I would look to the military leaders before I would look to the politicians. They are the ones that understand the goings on of the fight.
General Petraeus has done an exemplary job and should be commended not condemned by this Congress. If people like Clinton, Obama, or even Mr. Lantos have an axe to grind with the Bush Administration then they should be man enough to stand up to the administration not to bad mouth a decorated military officer and waste his time sitting in open session listening to these people belittle a report that they have yet to hear.
Here is the Presentation that General Petraeus presented to Congress.
Here is General Petraeus’s report to Congress.
Here is Ambassador Crocker’s report to Congress.
AP: Iran fined $2.65 billion for terrorism
24 years after the bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut a federal judge sided with the victim’s families and fined Iran for sponsoring terrorism.
Iran has tried to push the blame off on Hezbollah, an Islamic militant group.
H/T to my by my brother-in-law, thanks BJ, and the Brussels Journal.
Pro-Hezbollah Group Will Demonstrate in Brussels on 9/11
It was a rather interesting read. The Arab-European League (AEL) is planning to hold a demonstration to counter the Danish-British-German organization SIOE (Stop the Islamisation of Europe) which has been banned from protesting.
The SIOE was to protest outside of European Union Buildings against the introduction of Sharia laws to Europe. The SIOE was told that their protest was a criminal act because it was intended to incite discrimination and hatred and the Socialist Mayor of Brussels, Thielemans, has since banned the protest.
Hmmm, but a group (AEL) that has called for the printing of comics that claim the holocaust did not occur and also held violent protests about a comic that depicted Muhammad has not been banned from protesting…very interesting.
The SIOE has meet with other issues on their road toward keeping religious zealots out of the European government when they decided to appeal Mayor Thielemans ban in court they were delayed while the courts decided which language the court should hear the appeal in. See article here:
Kafka in Brussels: Organizers Anti-Sharia Demo Have to Speak French
On August 29th the appeal ended in short order with the courts siding with the Mayor.
On September 4th the SIOE filed a civil suit against the Mayor hoping that this will put the Mayor into a position to allow them to protest or face monetary implications for banning the protest.
September 5th brought forward even more confusion when the German co-organizer of the SIOE demonstration called the whole think off because of the increasing amount of extremists interested in the demo. The German called the demo off due to security concerns.
This prompted an immediate response from the Danish and British co-organizers who immediately expelled the German from the SIOE group due to his unilateral decision to halt the demo.
So why would I spend the time to post all of this?
When anyone is afraid to stand against a group due to the potential of violence from a small segment of that group we have created a situation that will cause that group to gain more power. As that group gains power it will exert even more pressure to censure those that speak against them creating a never-ending cycle.
This is what we are seeing in areas of high Islamic concentration like the Netherlands. Islam itself is not the problem but the radicals inside the religion and those outside the religion that want to placate them are!
I do not see the SIOE as being the bad guys here. I think that their protest needs to be held just too simply point out that Sharia law is religion not law. If there are violent people at the SIOE they should be prosecuted but their voices should not be squelched any more than those of the AEL.
The country was Slovakia!
The math problem could have been solved one of two ways…the most accurate way is to know what the country was and determine how wide the country was…in this case Slovakia is approximately 263 miles across.
3.5 inches = 263 miles
3.5/3.5 = 263/3.5
1 inch = 75.1 miles
The other way that would be less accurate would be to measure the width of the country as it appeared on the blog. It should have been approximately 0.34 inches and the scale of the map was 1 inch = 780 miles
0.34(1) = 0.34(780)
0.34 inches = 265 miles
if the country was 3.5 inches wide then the scale would have been:
3.5 = 265
3.5/3.5 = 265/3.5
1 inch = 75.7 miles
This week we are going back to the original version of this ‘game.’
I give this country a 7 out of 10.
But in case you are like Justin and think that this is too hard well I’ll help to easy you back into things…the scale is 1:267I don’t know how to feel about this headline:
One Man's genes show DNA is still a mystery
Are they implying something or am I being overly sensitive?
First there was the 1999 Algore quote “I took the initiative in creating the Internet”
Then in 2004 John Kerry said “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.”
Now in 2006 we have Bill Richardson saying “Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary.” DesMoinesRegister.com Article: Richardson: God Wants Iowa First
Does Richardson really think that God cares if Iowa is first…please!?!?
