Friday, October 23, 2009

President's Pet Networks Stand Up for Fox News

Color me relieved. The White House's "pet networks" stood up for Fox News! Surely, they must be wondering, "If the White House can turn on Fox, are we next?"

The Obama administration has no business telling Americans that Fox is "not a news network."

Barring Fox from the media pool was a shocking and shameful call on the White House's part.

People, I ask, "IS THIS YOUR AMERICA?" Do you want the White House telling you where you can and can't get your news? Do you want your presidental administration directing other networks to "isolate" and freeze out a network because they won't cater to the administration's "controlled" media image?

Be sure to check out for more of Gonzo's musings!

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

So Much for Democracy... DOJ Overrules the Will of the People in Kinston, N.C.

The Washington Times ran a story today that got me all fired up:

Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party: U.S. blocks N.C. city's nonpartisan vote

I'm pretty much of the opinion that cities, counties and states should be able to self-govern by the vote of their residents and the leadership of their elected officials without too much interference from federal bureaucracy. Therefore, when a city votes nearly 2 to 1 to do away with partisan elections for its city council and mayoral races, I'm inclined to support that outcome. After all, who better to know what will serve voters than the voters themselves?

Apparently, the Department of Justice claims to know better what will serve (black) voters in Kinston, North Carolina.

The Department overruled the city's overwhelming majority vote to adopt nonpartisan elections for city races, stating that "(r)emoving the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office."

What is the "partisan cue?" It's the "D" next to a black candidate's name that prompts white Democrats to vote for that black candidate. Although blacks make up almost two-thirds of the voters in Kinston, the Department of Justice seems to think that they do not have the ability to elect black candidates without white "D" votes.

Does the Department of Justice believe that voters in Kinston are not sophisticated enough to know or learn what a candidate stands for without a party designation?

The Department's ruling goes on to state, "It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice."

What is a "candidate of choice" for black voters in Kinston? It's a black candidate, according to the Department.

And why, with black voters comprising nearly two-thirds of the voting rolls, would they have trouble electing a black "candidate of choice?" Maybe they don't show up at the polls. According to the ruling, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections," due to low turnout.

Therefore, the overruling of the city's vote to eliminate partisan elections is a formula: compensate for low minority voter turnout so that minority candidates still get elected.

Is it just me, or does this ruling seem incredibly racist?

To suggest that black voters need an advantage in getting "their" candidates elected when they hold nearly two-thirds of the votes is an insult to those voters. Rather than enabling minority voter apathy, bureaucrats - if they must interfere - should be pushing minorities to show up at the polls, to harness their large numbers, and CREATE the victory.

If you find yourself wondering at this point (as I did) why the Department of Justice has any say over Kinston, North Carolina's voting procedures, look to the Voting Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted to ensure that racism and discrimination did not prohibit blacks from voting. Several areas of the United States were proven to have used screening methods (such as literacy tests) to disqualify otherwise qualified individuals from voter registration, in an effort to prevent blacks from casting a vote. The Voting Rights Act mandated that certain areas, shown to have demonstrated such discrimination, would not be able to change their election or voting procedures without the consent of the Department of Justice. Certain counties in North Carolina fall under the mandate of the Voting Rights Act, and Kinston happens to be in such a county.

Here's where things get fun: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights isn't exactly cheerleading the Department of Justice's decision. The Commission's Abigail Thernstrom points out, " "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism... There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."

What about the Department of Justice's assertion that low minority voter turnout must be compensated by a "partisan cue" for white voters to cast votes for the blacks' "candidate of choice?"

"The Voting Rights Act is not supposed to be compensating for failure of voters to show up on Election Day," says Thernstrom. "The Voting Rights Act doesn't guarantee an opportunity to elect a 'candidate of choice.'"

Well said. Why not give black voters the privilege - and the responsibility - of generating their own victories?

Be sure to check out for more of Gonzo's musings!

Friday, October 16, 2009

Congressman Dave Reichert Takes AARP to Task on HR 3200, Medigap

I stopped declaring my love for Congressman Reichert when he had some sort of out-of-body experience or demonic possession during a Cap and Trade vote.

I know he's in a swing district, and I was biting my nails all through the wait for the ballot totals during his last race. Still, the Cap and Tax vote came out of left field for many of his supporters. Whether poorly informed on the issue or under pressure from libs in his district, his vote was not in the best interest of Washington State, home to the Columbia River and its many dams, which produce 100% renewable hydro-electric power.

Anyway, it appears the tenacity and brass bullocks he's known for are once again functional as he takes on AARP, and calls for them to explain their support of HR 3200.

In a letter dated September 21, 2009, Reichert states, "...I believe it does a disservice to the millions of seniors you represent to support massive cuts to their Medicare Advantage health plans without disclosing the potential monetary benefit to AARP of seniors' lost coverage resulting in the purchase of AARP-sponsored Medigap plans."

AARP's response, dated October 1st, does little to clarify its position, and fails to answer the Congressman's concerns that AARP may be throwing its members to the wolves while lining their own pockets. It does state that AARP, in reality, has no idea how many of its members may be under Medicare Advantage plans and that "AARP is not an insurance company."

Not content to be double-talked away, Reichert fired off another screed to AARP on October 15th in which he chastises, "(i)t concerns me that you are strongly advocating for cuts to a program when you have no idea the extent to which these cuts will harm your membership."

As for AARP's claim that they are "not an insurance company," Reichert begs to differ, and points out some figures that AARP Chief Operating Officer Thomas C. Nelson is either unaware of or prefers to ignore:

"... 38 percent of your annual total operating revenue came from United HealthCare. Comparatively, only 23 percent of your total operating revenue came from membership dues. AARP makes nearly twice as much from insurance premiums as it does from membership dues. All told, royalties represent 60 percent of AARP's operating revenue... If you are not an insurance company, as you claim, why are you collecting and holding premiums?" (Emphasis added.)

That's a very good question, Congressman.

Photo credit:

Be sure to check out for more of Gonzo's musings!

Morning Bell: Obamacare Puts You on Welfare » The Foundry (Part 5 of 5)

Here's the final installment on health care reform. I personally found the entire series to be well-thought and informative. I hope you'll express to The Heritage Foundation how much your appreciate their work!

Morning Bell: Obamacare Puts You on Welfare » The Foundry

This Morning Bell is the final installment of a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.

Lost in all of last weeks headlines on how the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) finally delivered a health care product that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was willing to say would reduce the deficit, was how exactly they achieved it. At a price tag of $829 billion, the SFC ’framework’ will reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 29 million, moving the overall percentage of nonelderly Americans with health insurance from 83% in 2010 to 94% in 2019. But of those 29 million with new insurance coverage, almost half (14 million), will get their coverage through the welfare programs Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). That is equivalent to adding every resident of Ohio and Nevada to the welfare rolls.

In other words, for half of those Americans who are being promised health reform, they are going to be stunned to find themselves in a welfare office applying for Medicaid. Under the current baselines for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), there will be 76 million individuals served by these programs for at least some part of the year in 2019. If the SFC proposal becomes law, the number on Medicaid/SCHIP will top 90 million. So why do Obamacare supporters want to put 90 million Americans on the welfare rolls? It is cheaper than providing them with real quality health care.

Medicaid was originally created to provide access to health care for families on welfare. Medicaid pays providers 20-25 percent less than does the private sector, forcing doctors and hospitals to subsidize Medicaid through lower rates. This deters doctors and hospitals from participating in the program, creating a lack of access that itself is a form of rationing. As Time magazine reported this July: “But there are real questions as to whether the program could handle the strain of that many new clients. Already, it is difficult in some areas to find health-care providers who are willing to accept Medicaid patients.”

Even those who are not pushed into welfare will feel the strain on the health care system. The majority of individuals moved into Medicaid will be young and healthy. Keeping them on welfare rolls will shift even more costs to individuals and families buying private health insurance, as doctors and hospitals recoup their losses from Medicare/SCHIP by charging more to the privately insured. In effect, the congressional policy seems to be to expand dependency by discriminating against individuals based on their income.

And then there is the effect on states. The CBO estimates that the Finance Committee plan will cost states $33 billion over 10 years. But even that may be a low estimate. Governor Phil Bredesen (D-TN) has warned that the costs for his state alone could be as high as $3 billion. Thanks to strings attached to Obama’s failed stimulus, states already are facing an erosion of their authority to manage their Medicaid programs. The true cost to taxpayers in the states will only become apparent as spending for education, child welfare, public health, and investment in transportation systems and infrastructure are crowded out over time.

As Heritage Senior Fellow Dennis Smith reminds us:

"In June, President Obama told Senate Democrats, 'As we move forward on health care reform, it is not sufficient for us simply to add more people to Medicare or Medicaid.' Unfortunately, that is precisely what Congress is going to do with the Baucus proposal."

Be sure to check out for more of Gonzo's musings!

Morning Bell: Obamacare Forces You to Fund Abortions » The Foundry (Part 4 of 5)

Here's the fourth installment of the five-part series on health reform. I find the statistics on current support for legalized abortion especially interesting:

Morning Bell: Obamacare Forces You to Fund Abortions » The Foundry

This Morning Bell is the fourth in a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.

“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions,” Or so President Barack Obama promised to the American people in his health care address before a Joint Session of Congress on September 9th. But then why did the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops send a letter to Congress on October 8th writing: “No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. … No current bill meets this test”?

Who is telling the truth? The President or the Bishops? Last Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked this question during his daily press briefing and answered: “Well, I don’t want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there’s a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn’t going to be changed in these health care bills.” Unsatisfied, the CNS News’ Fred Lucas again pressed on Friday:

"The Catholic bishops have repeatedly said that the Hyde amendment would not apply to the health care bill and yesterday in the letter that they sent to Congress they said that if language expressly prohibiting abortion funding is not added to the health care bill, they will vigorously — 'vigorously oppose' — that’s a quote — the bill. My question on that, does the President support the bishops on this?"

Gibbs replied:

"My answer isn’t different than it was on Wednesday. There may be a legal interpretation that has been lost here, but there’s a fairly clear federal law prohibiting the federal use of money for abortion. I think it is — again, it’s exceedingly clear in the law."

How to put this politely … it is safe to say that Gibbs’ above statement is less than true. The next time anyone tries to convince you otherwise, that the White House is telling the truth ask them where exactly in the Federal Code it says this. The truth is… it doesn’t.

But what about the Hyde amendment mentioned by the White House reporter? Is the Hyde amendment not the law of the land? No, it is not even a statute. First passed in 1976 by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) as a rider to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the Hyde amendment must be passed again every year as part of the HHS appropriations bill and even then it only applies to current HHS programs. The Hyde amendment would do nothing to stop Obamacare from funding abortions and all the versions of Obamacare passed by Congressional committees so far do exactly that.

Conservatives introduced amendments in all five committee markups (three in the House and two in the Senate) that would have specifically prohibited federal funds from being used to cover abortion. None of them passed. Worse, the “compromise” the White House has adopted is an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record according to the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Not only does the Capps amendment allow for federal money to subsidize abortions in private plans and mandate federal funding for abortions in the public option (this according to, it also requires that at least one insurance plan cover abortion in every geographical region in the country.

In 2007, then candidate Barack Obama promised Planned Parenthood: “We’re gonna set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services including reproductive services. … We will also subsidize those who choose to stay in the private insurance market, except, the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care including reproductive care.” A Rasmussen poll released last month showed that only 13% of Americans want the health-care reform bill to use tax dollars to fund abortions, clearly demonstrating that even most pro-choice believers do not favor taxpayer funded abortions. A Pew Research Center poll two weeks ago showed that support for legalized abortion has dropped to its lowest level in years to 47%, down from 54% last year. Obama can either please NARAL and Planned Parenthood or he can honor the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Americans. He can’t do both.

Be sure to check out for more of Gonzo's musings!

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Morning Bell: It’s All Downhill From Here » The Foundry (Part 3 of 5)

This piece from The Foundry is third in a series of five on proposed health care reform:

Morning Bell: It’s All Downhill From Here » The Foundry

This Morning Bell is the third in a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.

The scariest part about yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee vote passing its version of Obamacare, is not what is in their bill (to the extent that it even exists), but that the Finance Committee bill promises to be the high water mark for “bipartisanship” in health care reform.

Now all of the other bills will be merged together behind the closed doors. All the bills are fundamentally flawed and will only get worse as the leaders in the House and Senate have to commit to actual details.

COST — All the proposals carry a hefty price tag. The Finance bill estimates start at $829 billion. Preliminary estimates of the House Tri-Committee bill put the price tag over $1 Trillion and adding another $245 billion to the deficit. Preliminary estimates of the HELP Committee bill would add $598 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. And the outlook for the following ten years looks far far worse.

EMPLOYER MANDATE - More spending means more taxes. All the proposals include new taxes on employers. Taxes on employers will ultimately result in lower wages, fewer jobs, and slower economic growth. According to The Heritage Foundation, the mandates, like those in the House bill, could cost businesses up to $49 billion a year, 10.2 million workers will be at risk of slower wage growth and cuts in other benefits, and as many as 9 million low-wage and part-time workers will lose their employer-based health insurance.

PUBLIC PLAN - All the proposals include the creation of a new government health plan. The Finance proposal calls it a co-op while the House Tri-Committee bill and the Senate HELP Committee all call it a new public plan. Despite what activists on the left claim, a government run health insurance “option” will not be on a level playing field with other private options. The playing field will be skewed to push millions out of Americans out of their current private health insurance and into the government run plan.

INDIVIDUAL MANDATE - All the proposals force every Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, some even threatening jail time if they do not comply. Such a mandate is a massive tax increase on individuals and families whose health insurance does not meet the new federally determined standards. This means that Congress will, for the first time in U.S. history, force Americans to buy federally designed packages of health benefits, even if they do not want or need those benefits.

MEDICAID EXPANSION - Hidden in all the proposals is a massive expansion of the Medicaid program. The result is millions more Americans would be dependent on this growing entitlement program. This means more costs to taxpayers, less flexibility for the states, and worsening markets for the privately insured.

MEDICARE CUTS - All the proposals depend heavily on billions in Medicare cuts to pay for their versions of Obamacare. Traditionally, such cuts rarely come to fruition. Special interests lobby to stop any real cuts from occurring after the bill is passed. And some so-called fraud, waste and abuse cuts, like those to the Medicare Advantage, will put millions of seniors’ benefits at risk.

Do high costs, government expansion, huge tax increases, major unfunded expansions in Medicaid and major cuts to Medicare sound like a recipe for success? It’s all downhill from here.

Be sure to check out for more of Gonzo's musings!

Morning Bell: Obamacare Sends Deficits Off Cliff » The Foundry (Part 2 of 5)

This piece is second in a series of five from The Foundry:

Morning Bell: Obamacare Sends Deficits Off Cliff » The Foundry

This Morning Bell is the second in a five-part week-long series (read Monday’s on out-of-pocket costs) on how Obamacare will affect you.

“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.” President Barack Obama promised this to the American people in his health care address before a Joint Session of Congress on September 9th. Problem is, no one believes him.

The Congressional Budget Office has issued reports on the Senate Health Committee bill (HELP), the House Tri-Committee Bill (HR 3200), and the Senate Finance Committee bill (Baucus bill). According to the CBO, the HELP bill would add $600 billion to the deficit in just the first ten years, HR 3200 would add $239 billion to the deficit in just the first ten years, and the Baucus bill claims to reduce the deficit by $81 billion.

But nobody believes that the Baucus bill will accomplish what it claims to do. As the Washington Post reported:

The cost difference stems from the fact that the House measure is honest enough to include the full 10-year cost of the so-called “doc fix” — $245 billion to reverse scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to physicians — although not fiscally responsible enough to pay for it. The Senate just patches the problem for one year and pretends that doctors take a 25 percent cut in reimbursements the following year and then stay at that low level forever. No one believes that will happen, so the money is going to have to be scrounged up later or else add more to the deficit.

The Washington Post is right: claims that the Baucus bill reduces the deficit are a complete fraud since there is simply no way Congress is going to cut doctor pay by 25% in one year. But all of these bills are deeply dishonest about their true costs in a more fundamental way.

Look at these charts on spending levels in the HR 3200 and the Baucus bill over time. Notice how in both bills the increased revenues (a.k.a. tax hikes) occur immediately but the increased spending doesn’t really ramp up until 2013. In other words, in order to game the CBO scoring system (explained by former CBO Director Donald Marron here), Democrats have packed ten years of taxing, but only six years of spending, into the CBO’s ten-year budgeting window.

So what happens to the deficit in those years after the CBO budget window? Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), a member of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition explains: “Every year, you lose ground. It’s likely after 10 years, we fall off a cliff.”

Falling off a cliff. That is the verdict from members of his own party on what Obamacare will actually do to the federal deficit.

Be sure to check out for more of Gonzo's musings!

Morning Bell: Obamacare Invades Your Wallet » The Foundry (Part 1 of 5)

This informative piece is the first in a five-part series from The Foundry:

Morning Bell: Obamacare Invades Your Wallet » The Foundry

This Morning Bell is the first in a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.

Throughout his campaign, and even in to the first few months in office, President Barack Obama repeatedly promised the American people that his health care plan would reduce their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It has been a while since President Obama made that promise, and any honest look at the health legislation being considered in Congress explains why.

The Senate Finance Committee bill written by Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) (the Baucus bill) first drives up the cost of health insurance for all Americans and then forces everyone to buy it or face tax penalties or jail time. While the Baucus bill does cap out-of-pocket costs based on a person’s income, the effect on American families is still staggering. According to the Center for Data Analysis, the Baucus bill would:

  • For individuals making $34,140 (three times the Federal Poverty Level) the Baucus health care proposal could mandate up to $4,097 in annual premiums, a sum which could have been spent on over nine months of food, almost four months of housing or well over a year of utilities.
  • For a family of four making $69,480 (300% above poverty) the Baucus bill mandates annual health insurance premiums of $8,338, which would be worth the equivalent of over ten months of food, four months of housing or almost two years of utilities.
  • For individuals earning $45,520(400% above poverty) Baucus mandates $5,462 for health insurance, or over a year of food, four months of rent or a year and a half of utilities.
  • For families earning $92,640 (400% above poverty) Baucus mandates $11,117 in health premiums, the equivalent of over a year of food, five months of housing or two years of utilities.

And those numbers include the subsidies for health insurance in the Baucus bill. To pay for all this new health care spending, plus the massive expansion of Medicaid, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Baucus bill will collect $4 billion in fines from those who do not purchase insurance, $200 billion taxing health insurance companies with generous health plans, and $25 billion in taxes on employers. Not to mention the billions in cuts to Medicare payments to hospitals which will result in significant cost shifting to consumers.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has done a study on what all these new taxes and regulations will do to Americans health insurance premiums and the results are not pretty. Instead of reducing the average family’s health insurance premiums by $2,500 per year, as President Obama promised, the Baucus bill would actually raise them by $4,000 more than they would have been without reform.

The Baucus bill spends at least $1 trillion, fails to cover all Americans, taxes employers for creating jobs, and inflicts higher out-of-pocket health care costs on all Americans. We can do better.

Be sure to check out for more of Gonzo's musings!

Sunday, October 11, 2009

I'm Real Happy for You, Barry, and I'm-a Let You Finish, BUT...

Where is Kanye West when you need him?

Certainly, Mr. West could have rushed the stage during President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech with a little of his tried and true, "I'm real happy for you... and I'm-a let you finish, but..." there were other, more deserving candidates for the award. (H/T to The Conservative Lady)

But, really, what are we to expect from the committee who, in 2007, passed over Irena Sendler, who saved 2500 Jewish children from the Holocaust, to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore for his little "research project" on climate change?

Perhaps I'm being too hard on the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Perhaps they knew what they were doing, back in 2007.

After all, haven't we just learned from the mainstream media that global warming contributes to terrorism?

Ahem. I stand corrected.

Seriously, though? What message is Oslo sending by awarding the Peace Prize to a president who "is prepared to accept some role for the Taliban in Afghanistan's political future," has thrown our longtime allies under the bus, and who maintains that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements?"

Are these the new standards for peace?

Let's not forget that this committee is the same one who declined to award Mahatma Gandhi the Peace Prize five times: in 1937 (awarded instead to Robert Cecil), 1938 (awarded to Nansen International Office for Refuges, an organization of the League of Nations), 1939 (the Peace Prize was not awarded at all), 1947 (jointly awarded to the UK's Friends Service Council and the US's American Friends Service Committee) and finally, in 1948, the year of his murder, the committee did not award the Prize, as there was "no suitable living candidate."

But, you know, whatever... I'm sure the president will enjoy his new toy, especially since his buddies have one: Yasser Arafat (1994), Jimmy Carter (2002), and Al Gore (2007).

Let's not forget that nominations had to be in by February 1st, mere days after Mr. Obama took office. Presumably, his nomination was based upon the great things he was certain to do before the announcement of the award.

I've had my newspaper column running since December 2008. Call me a pessimist, but I'd certainly question the judgement of anyone who put my name forward for a Pulitzer based upon my column proposal.

Be sure to check out for more of Gonzo's musings!

Photo credit:

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Global Warming Zealots Need a Chill Pill

Google has teamed up with Al Gore to scare the world about global warming. I only hope that Google will seek its science from sources un-Gore.

Al Gore won't tell you that for the second straight year, the arctic ice cap has seen a record increase. He won't tell you that the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best.

When Dr. Alan Carlin of the Environmental Protection Agency presented an analysis that pointed out the downward trend of global temperatures, problems with climate models and other evidence contrary to Gore & Co.'s dire warnings, Dr. Carlin was warned by his boss not to leak the information, because "(t)he administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)

When Dr. Carlin's analysis was made public, certain media outlets responded by picking away at his credentials, even as studies by those with similar CVs are heralded as gospel.

Bob Ellis of the Dakota Voice quotes the July 2009 SPPI Monthly CO2 Report:

No longer can it be credibly argued that “global warming” is worse than previously thought. No longer can it be argued that “global warming” was, is, or will be any sort of global crisis. Recent papers in the peer-reviewed literature, combined with streams of data from satellites and thermometers, now provide a complete picture of why it is that the UN’s climate panel, the worldwide political class, and other “global warming” profiteers are wrong in their assumption that the enterprises of humankind will disastrously warm the Earth.

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.

Do we need to reduce our consumption? Yes.

Should we rein in our dependence on foreign oil? Yes, but not just for the warm, green fuzzies. Our appetite for foreign oil takes us, from a political and military standpoint, places we needn't - and perhaps shouldn't - go.

By the way, if you really want to save the planet and reduce your impact on global warming, become a vegan.

Photo credit: Wikimedia/Ansgar Walk

Be sure to check out for more of Gonzo's musings!