Do us all a favor.
Publish the list of those who have voted for a withdrawal date from Iraq, and who vote for the illegal alien amnesty bill.
We can then direct our outrage to the correct people and hold them ACCOUNTABLE when we are next attacked and when illegals overrun the country even more than they have already.
2007/05/25
2007/05/20
It's right or wrong, not left or right
This comes from the Patriot Post Email
http://archive.patriotpost.us/pub/07-20_Digest/
Income Redistribution File: Show us the spending!
Imagine being able, with just a few strokes of your keyboard and the click of your mouse, to see how the government spends your money! Kansas is the first state in the nation to adopt a “Google Government” database that will allow citizens to see all state expenditures. The move is due in large part to the “Show Me the Spending” organization, consisting of 19 groups who lobby for such searchable archives in all states. “Thanks to the Sunflower State, a new nonpartisan reform effort has begun to bloom,” said Andrew Moylan, Government Affairs Manager for the National Taxpayers Union who is part of the “Show Me the Spending” movement. “Good tools for public scrutiny can in turn build a good basis for public policy,” he said.
Congress last year passed legislation requiring the U.S. Office of Management and Budget to create a database containing information on all federal grants and contracts (but not full disclosure of all federal spending—the Feds could learn from Kansas, but we’re not holding our breath). “Every state in the country ought to pass similar plans because accountable government is not a left or right issue, it’s a right or wrong issue. The citizens who pay government’s bills deserve to know where their money is going, in order to have an informed debate about where it should head in the future,” Moylan said.
http://archive.patriotpost.us/pub/07-20_Digest/
Income Redistribution File: Show us the spending!
Imagine being able, with just a few strokes of your keyboard and the click of your mouse, to see how the government spends your money! Kansas is the first state in the nation to adopt a “Google Government” database that will allow citizens to see all state expenditures. The move is due in large part to the “Show Me the Spending” organization, consisting of 19 groups who lobby for such searchable archives in all states. “Thanks to the Sunflower State, a new nonpartisan reform effort has begun to bloom,” said Andrew Moylan, Government Affairs Manager for the National Taxpayers Union who is part of the “Show Me the Spending” movement. “Good tools for public scrutiny can in turn build a good basis for public policy,” he said.
Congress last year passed legislation requiring the U.S. Office of Management and Budget to create a database containing information on all federal grants and contracts (but not full disclosure of all federal spending—the Feds could learn from Kansas, but we’re not holding our breath). “Every state in the country ought to pass similar plans because accountable government is not a left or right issue, it’s a right or wrong issue. The citizens who pay government’s bills deserve to know where their money is going, in order to have an informed debate about where it should head in the future,” Moylan said.
2007/05/17
Enough already!
It does no good to talk about Republicans or Democrats. THEY ARE THE SAME EVIL!
We need to form a new ENTITY (avoiding use of the word "party" is intentional, stay tuned)
THE UNITED CONSERVATIVE TEAM "TUCT"
or
The AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE TEAM "ACT"
Rather than another plague of parasites, strict term limit, conservative PLATFORM.
There won't be a three party problem. What is needed is a TRUE SECOND "party".
We need to form a new ENTITY (avoiding use of the word "party" is intentional, stay tuned)
THE UNITED CONSERVATIVE TEAM "TUCT"
or
The AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE TEAM "ACT"
Rather than another plague of parasites, strict term limit, conservative PLATFORM.
There won't be a three party problem. What is needed is a TRUE SECOND "party".
How large the is the Federal Government?
Rush commented today about the 2.9 TRILLION Dollar federal budget.
It truly is unfathomable.
But the average person could realize how big by simply telling them that
one part per million of the federal budget is
2.9 MILLION dollars.
Here's some more info:
Parts per hundred (denoted by "%" and very rarely "pph") — denotes one particle of a given substance for every 99 other particles. This is the common percent. One part in 10^2 (100). This is equal to 0.6 second out of a minute, or (864 seconds) 14 minutes, 24 seconds of a day (exactly).
Parts per thousand (denoted by "‰", the permille symbol, and occasionally "ppt") denotes one particle of a given substance for every 999 other particles. This is roughly equivalent to one drop of ink in a cup of water, or one second per 17 minutes. "Parts per thousand" is often used to record the salinity of seawater. One part in 10^3.
Parts per million ("ppm") denotes one particle of a given substance for every 999,999 other particles. This is roughly equivalent to one drop of ink in a 150 litre (40 gallon) drum of water, or one second per 280 hours (11 days, 16 hours). One part in 10^6 — a precision of 0.0001%.
Parts per billion ("ppb") denotes one particle of a given substance for every 999,999,999 other particles. This is roughly equivalent to one drop of ink in a lane of a public swimming pool, or one second per 32 years. One part in 10^9.
Parts per trillion ("ppt") denotes one particle of a given substance for every 999,999,999,999 other particles. This is roughly equivalent to one drop of ink in a shipping canal lock full of water , or one second every 320 centuries. One part in 10^12.
Parts per quadrillion ("ppq") denotes one particle of a given substance for every 999,999,999,999,999 other particles. This is roughly equivalent to a drop of ink in a medium-sized lake, or one second every 32,000 millennia. Very few analytical techniques can measure with this degree of accuracy; nevertheless, it is still used in some mathematical models of toxicology and epidemiology. One part in 10^15.
It truly is unfathomable.
But the average person could realize how big by simply telling them that
one part per million of the federal budget is
2.9 MILLION dollars.
Here's some more info:
Parts per hundred (denoted by "%" and very rarely "pph") — denotes one particle of a given substance for every 99 other particles. This is the common percent. One part in 10^2 (100). This is equal to 0.6 second out of a minute, or (864 seconds) 14 minutes, 24 seconds of a day (exactly).
Parts per thousand (denoted by "‰", the permille symbol, and occasionally "ppt") denotes one particle of a given substance for every 999 other particles. This is roughly equivalent to one drop of ink in a cup of water, or one second per 17 minutes. "Parts per thousand" is often used to record the salinity of seawater. One part in 10^3.
Parts per million ("ppm") denotes one particle of a given substance for every 999,999 other particles. This is roughly equivalent to one drop of ink in a 150 litre (40 gallon) drum of water, or one second per 280 hours (11 days, 16 hours). One part in 10^6 — a precision of 0.0001%.
Parts per billion ("ppb") denotes one particle of a given substance for every 999,999,999 other particles. This is roughly equivalent to one drop of ink in a lane of a public swimming pool, or one second per 32 years. One part in 10^9.
Parts per trillion ("ppt") denotes one particle of a given substance for every 999,999,999,999 other particles. This is roughly equivalent to one drop of ink in a shipping canal lock full of water , or one second every 320 centuries. One part in 10^12.
Parts per quadrillion ("ppq") denotes one particle of a given substance for every 999,999,999,999,999 other particles. This is roughly equivalent to a drop of ink in a medium-sized lake, or one second every 32,000 millennia. Very few analytical techniques can measure with this degree of accuracy; nevertheless, it is still used in some mathematical models of toxicology and epidemiology. One part in 10^15.
2007/05/12
ACCOUNTABILITY?
Rush, I can not believe you have missed this one for weeks.
You should embrace the Democrats suggestion that Federal Spending be done only under a strict, results based system of accountability!
The last area this should be applied to is the defense of the nation. But military spending is THE ONLY area the federal government gets what it pays for. Best weapons, military equipment, best trained army, etc.
So lets just apply this to all the payments to entitlements and other wasteful programs. They show predicted results or we pull the spending.
Problem solved. End of infinite bureaucracies. Let's start with the department of homeland security. Oh, no. lets start with the program that FORCES all new children to a life of tax servitude to pay for those older than them. You know the 51% of the population that recieves direct government payments from the 10% of taxpayers who foot the bills!
You should embrace the Democrats suggestion that Federal Spending be done only under a strict, results based system of accountability!
The last area this should be applied to is the defense of the nation. But military spending is THE ONLY area the federal government gets what it pays for. Best weapons, military equipment, best trained army, etc.
So lets just apply this to all the payments to entitlements and other wasteful programs. They show predicted results or we pull the spending.
Problem solved. End of infinite bureaucracies. Let's start with the department of homeland security. Oh, no. lets start with the program that FORCES all new children to a life of tax servitude to pay for those older than them. You know the 51% of the population that recieves direct government payments from the 10% of taxpayers who foot the bills!
An idea for a REAL Best of Rush Show
Marie called on Friday May 11, 2007. A caller from 1994 when she was advised to go on welfare to avoid falling asleep in class. This moving interview catalyzed a thought.
Whenever rush has a weekend show they rebroadcast the previous Friday show. On holidays, a show is picked in it's entirety.
A better marketable approach would be to make a compilation of people who have called the show and years later called back, to relate how their life has been changed by adopting the conservative ideology.
Now that would be the "Best of the Rush Limbaugh Show"!
Whenever rush has a weekend show they rebroadcast the previous Friday show. On holidays, a show is picked in it's entirety.
A better marketable approach would be to make a compilation of people who have called the show and years later called back, to relate how their life has been changed by adopting the conservative ideology.
Now that would be the "Best of the Rush Limbaugh Show"!
2007/05/07
It's about Conservatism Not Republicans
http://www.lpky.org/
Just admit to the facts: The Republican Party is no friend to Conservative beliefs. It is the refuge of Moderate Democrats who jumped ship after Regan and the 1994 events.
The real party of conservative beliefs is the Libertarian Party.
You re-shaped republicans in the 1980's so well, the democrats left to join.
We need a two party system. Libertarians are that second party. If you need any proof about the democrats and republicans are the same, just look at the spending and growth of the size of the federal government since 1994.
They just say different things to get elected. Once elected, its socialism as usual. The tax cut of Bush is paltry compared to the tax increase of Clinton.
Now a Regan tax cut would be a tax cut. Even he couldn't shrink the size of government.
85% of the federal revenue comes from a small (10%) of the population, then given back to 51% of the people (more people than taxpayers) in direct payments.
That's socialism. Pure and simple.
http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml
Just admit to the facts: The Republican Party is no friend to Conservative beliefs. It is the refuge of Moderate Democrats who jumped ship after Regan and the 1994 events.
The real party of conservative beliefs is the Libertarian Party.
You re-shaped republicans in the 1980's so well, the democrats left to join.
We need a two party system. Libertarians are that second party. If you need any proof about the democrats and republicans are the same, just look at the spending and growth of the size of the federal government since 1994.
They just say different things to get elected. Once elected, its socialism as usual. The tax cut of Bush is paltry compared to the tax increase of Clinton.
Now a Regan tax cut would be a tax cut. Even he couldn't shrink the size of government.
85% of the federal revenue comes from a small (10%) of the population, then given back to 51% of the people (more people than taxpayers) in direct payments.
That's socialism. Pure and simple.
http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml
CFL -- The facts
CFL's- COMPACT FLOURECSENT LIGHTS
Rush has stumbled on the science here as well.
There is no doubt they save electricity over incandescents. It will save a lot of money if implemented.
Oh yeah, and energy too. If you are worried about the CO2, nuclear power would have a much more significant impact to reduce overall CO2 emissions.
Biggest downside technically is they take time to warm up to full brightness.
Compared to incandescent lamps of the same luminous flux, CFLs have a longer rated life and use less energy. A CFL can save over US$30 in electricity costs over the lamp’s lifetime comparing to an incandescent lamp.[2]
On the other hand, initial purchase cost of a CFL is often significantly more expensive, and CFLs exhibit a different visible spectrum of light than incandescent lamps.[3] CFLs may also be inconvenient due to size or incompatibility with existing light fixtures or dimmer controls.
The mercury issue is real and a real health hazard. The advocates claim they put less mercury in the environment than the fumes from burning coal. This is a bit deceiving. At least when burning coal it is deposited outside, where it can be converted to a sulfide. Not really a good option when it is spilled on my floor when I drop the bulb. The best way to reduce the mercury is to use NUCLEAR POWER and encapsulate the CFL bulbs.
Polymer wrap is a possible solution to contain the mercury and the glass shards.
How about those shop fluorescents that have been around for years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
Rush has stumbled on the science here as well.
There is no doubt they save electricity over incandescents. It will save a lot of money if implemented.
Oh yeah, and energy too. If you are worried about the CO2, nuclear power would have a much more significant impact to reduce overall CO2 emissions.
Biggest downside technically is they take time to warm up to full brightness.
Compared to incandescent lamps of the same luminous flux, CFLs have a longer rated life and use less energy. A CFL can save over US$30 in electricity costs over the lamp’s lifetime comparing to an incandescent lamp.[2]
On the other hand, initial purchase cost of a CFL is often significantly more expensive, and CFLs exhibit a different visible spectrum of light than incandescent lamps.[3] CFLs may also be inconvenient due to size or incompatibility with existing light fixtures or dimmer controls.
The mercury issue is real and a real health hazard. The advocates claim they put less mercury in the environment than the fumes from burning coal. This is a bit deceiving. At least when burning coal it is deposited outside, where it can be converted to a sulfide. Not really a good option when it is spilled on my floor when I drop the bulb. The best way to reduce the mercury is to use NUCLEAR POWER and encapsulate the CFL bulbs.
Polymer wrap is a possible solution to contain the mercury and the glass shards.
How about those shop fluorescents that have been around for years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
Honey Bees - THE FACTS
It is currently believed the very real decline in honey bee population is due to a virus.
Additionally, their demise will have an impact on food, and will cause problems agriculturally.
Here's a good article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070426100117.htm
Additionally, their demise will have an impact on food, and will cause problems agriculturally.
Here's a good article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070426100117.htm
2007/05/04
GREAT Global Warming Documentary
Be sure to check out this excellent BBC documentary, first broadcast March 8, 2007, not publicized here in the US at all (oh gee, what a surprise!)
UPDATE 1/28/2010
This is just a preview, the full documentary removed some time ago, but still worth the time if you can get a copy of the full documentary.
When I taught an Environmental College Chemistry Course in 2007, I used this to defend the data I presented, much to the hositilty of the students. At the time, I predicted the Hoax would eventually be brought to light. I believed then that the data was false, since no one could third party verify the data used by the IPCC. The satelite data was directly opposed to the data used by Al Gore and the IPCC. If the atmosphere was not heating up as measured by satelites, then the earth could not be heating up.
I predicted the biggest vistim of the global warming swindle would be SCIENCE.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/hpWa7VW-OME-manmade-global-warming-hoax-part.aspx
UPDATE 1/28/2010
This is just a preview, the full documentary removed some time ago, but still worth the time if you can get a copy of the full documentary.
When I taught an Environmental College Chemistry Course in 2007, I used this to defend the data I presented, much to the hositilty of the students. At the time, I predicted the Hoax would eventually be brought to light. I believed then that the data was false, since no one could third party verify the data used by the IPCC. The satelite data was directly opposed to the data used by Al Gore and the IPCC. If the atmosphere was not heating up as measured by satelites, then the earth could not be heating up.
I predicted the biggest vistim of the global warming swindle would be SCIENCE.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/hpWa7VW-OME-manmade-global-warming-hoax-part.aspx
Global Warming
It's very simple.
Take a dollar in change. Put 95 cents in your pocket. That is how much water vapor (not clouds) contributes to the 34 deg Celsius warming the entire atmosphere contributes due to the greenhouse warming effect. Of the 5 cents left, put another penny in your pocket. That is how much other gases EXCEPT carbon dioxide contribute. Of the remaining 4 cents, somehow put all but 2% of the remaining currency in your pocket. You now have 0.0008 cents.
What is left in your hand is the HUMAN CONTRIBUTION to global warming due to greenhouse gas carbon dioxide emissions.
One dollar buys 34 degrees Celsius. You can now buy 0.0272 degrees Celsius in global warming.
The planet is warming. Thank god! (The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago and the two mile thick ice sheet scraped away the falls of the Ohio River Devonian fossil bed in Louisville, Kentucky.)
The CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere over Manu Lea in Hawaii 800- 1000 years since the last warming period, from 1000 A.D to 1400 A.D., ( you know when Greenland was GREEN and world flourished due to temperate improvements in crops. It was called the Renaissance), as the ice cores samples show has happened for eons. CO2 rises AFTER the warming, not as the CAUSE. The largest contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere is the oceans; you know the water that covers 2/3 of the planet.
BUT MAN DID NOT MAKE IT HAPPEN THE COUNTLESS TIMES IN THE PAST, and man is not causing it this time.
So what causes the warming? The same cause as causes the planet to be temperate at all: THE SUN! WOW! What a powerful scientific theory! You mean it is not constant? No, never has been, and on top of that the cooling of the planet occurs due to the cloud cover (more water effect), none of which can be computer modeled. Great new science about solar magnetic minimum and lack of cloud formation.... Mars is losing its ice caps, and moons of Saturn and Neptune are warming......
Be sure to check out this excellent BBC documentary, not publicized here in the US at all (oh gee, what a surprise!) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=great+global+warming+swindle&hl=en://
Take a dollar in change. Put 95 cents in your pocket. That is how much water vapor (not clouds) contributes to the 34 deg Celsius warming the entire atmosphere contributes due to the greenhouse warming effect. Of the 5 cents left, put another penny in your pocket. That is how much other gases EXCEPT carbon dioxide contribute. Of the remaining 4 cents, somehow put all but 2% of the remaining currency in your pocket. You now have 0.0008 cents.
What is left in your hand is the HUMAN CONTRIBUTION to global warming due to greenhouse gas carbon dioxide emissions.
One dollar buys 34 degrees Celsius. You can now buy 0.0272 degrees Celsius in global warming.
The planet is warming. Thank god! (The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago and the two mile thick ice sheet scraped away the falls of the Ohio River Devonian fossil bed in Louisville, Kentucky.)
The CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere over Manu Lea in Hawaii 800- 1000 years since the last warming period, from 1000 A.D to 1400 A.D., ( you know when Greenland was GREEN and world flourished due to temperate improvements in crops. It was called the Renaissance), as the ice cores samples show has happened for eons. CO2 rises AFTER the warming, not as the CAUSE. The largest contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere is the oceans; you know the water that covers 2/3 of the planet.
BUT MAN DID NOT MAKE IT HAPPEN THE COUNTLESS TIMES IN THE PAST, and man is not causing it this time.
So what causes the warming? The same cause as causes the planet to be temperate at all: THE SUN! WOW! What a powerful scientific theory! You mean it is not constant? No, never has been, and on top of that the cooling of the planet occurs due to the cloud cover (more water effect), none of which can be computer modeled. Great new science about solar magnetic minimum and lack of cloud formation.... Mars is losing its ice caps, and moons of Saturn and Neptune are warming......
Be sure to check out this excellent BBC documentary, not publicized here in the US at all (oh gee, what a surprise!) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=great+global+warming+swindle&hl=en://
I stopped calling in to the Rush Limbaugh show.....
... because the call screener would simply take my ideas and send them onto Rush, without crediting my contribution. Of course lots of times I can not even get through.
Well, YOU TOO can have the benefit of my commentary, and RUSH, feel free to use this, especially the validation of the science. I am a consultant in the printing industry, a chemist by training, and a student of astrophysics and global warming. I have been a conservative since my high school days (1969), long before it was fashionable.
Well, YOU TOO can have the benefit of my commentary, and RUSH, feel free to use this, especially the validation of the science. I am a consultant in the printing industry, a chemist by training, and a student of astrophysics and global warming. I have been a conservative since my high school days (1969), long before it was fashionable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
