I find it deeply humorous that soon after the revelation of scientific malfeasance, skull-duggery, dirty-trickery and subsequent ass-covery on the part of the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd, thanks to the appearance of hacked emails, that our beloved Associated Press promptly kicks out these two gems:

“Glaciers Shrinking Three Times Faster Than in 70s”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576334,00.html
{{Please note the obligatory polar bear photo, stumbling across broken, melting ice pack. Cue crocodile tears.}}

So, to summarize: In the last 10 years, the global mean temperature has risen by…0.4 degreeeeees! 4/10 of a degree. Sea level has risen…an inch and a half!! Guess it’s time to build that bunker I’ve been thinking about.

And…

“Greenhouse Gases at Highest Level EVAH!!” {{Insert: ONOZ!}} http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576368,00.html
“The report by the World Meteorological Organization comes as the European Union urged the United States and China on Monday to set targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions at next month’s climate conference in Copenhagen”

To coin a phrase…”I question the timing.” Can you say “in the tank?” I knew you could.

Or, in another translation…”PAY NO ATTENTION TO THOSE INCONVENIENT EMAILS!! LOOK OVER HERE AT THIS CRISIS! NO, REALLY. LOOK! LOOKLOOKLOOK! WHY AREN’T YOU LOOKING?!”

Because some things bear repeating, I’m reposting this in light of the current activities regarding the health care legislation, as well as rumblings that B.O. is going to try and sign us up for Kyoto 2.0, which however, I might add, still needs to get ratified by Congress if we are a “signatory.”  Before I would have thought that impossible.  Now with the Pelosians signing cap-n-trade legislation behind closed doors, and shoving through a health care bill that no one wants, I suppose anything is possible.   In the previous version, a commenter, one “Ronald Hulme” suggested that it was:

…one of the most charmingly idiotic posts I’ve ever read! Good lord, man… How about ‘checks and balances?’

Really?  Yeah, how about those checks and balances?  Checks and balances only work when two thirds of the triad aren’t in bed together.  So, without further ado…

“IT DOESN’T TAKE A FELONY”

In response to “The Hidden Costs of ObamaCare,” commentor Kate has asked the most burning question of the day:  If we see so clearly the dangers of the path down which Barack Obama is taking us, what then can we do?  What should we do?

I say, ask instead what  MUST we do?

By way of an answer, I submit this definition: MALFEASANCE

malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance.

If Barak Obama repeatedly and deliberately excedes those authorities specifically granted to the office of President of the United States by the U.S. Contitution, then he is guilty of political malfeasance.  If the Speaker of the House or any other elected official conducts themselves in such a manner contrary to their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, then they are guilty of both Malfeasance and perjury.

Our system of separation of powers was instituted specifically to prevent to abuse of power of any one man, or group of men.  The powers and limitations of each branch are specifically enumerated.  If a man, especially the President, sees himself as above these restrictions, if he proposes that circumstances require him to set aside the rule of law in order to secure some intangible benefit or prevent some unanmed catastrophe, then he is already well down the road traveled by numerous despots throughout the world’s history.

Barack Obama is our duly elected President.  As such, we own him the courtesy and respect the office demands.  This does NOT mean, however, that we give him our unquestioning obedience.  We owe no fealty to the man.  We honor the office, at most.

Not insignificantly, the oath of office of every military officer and elected official in this country requires that he or she “support and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States, against all enemies, foreign, and domestic.”  It does not mention the President.  Not a General or any other officer or individual. We pledge to uphold and defend an ideal, as set of codified laws and principles, principles which have become the very definition of freedom and liberty throughout the world.

We do not swear an oath to a man, or an office.  We swear to uphold the ideals which founded this Republic, ideals which are codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If ANY official, regardless of rank or position, undertakes to violate these principles or exceed the legal limits of his power as constrained by law, he will have proven himself to be unfit for office.  One of the foundational principles of our society, one seldom seen elsewhere in the world today or in recorded history, is that NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW.  Not even the President of the United States.

What we must do is remain vigilant.  We must remain watchful.  We must read and understand every Exective Order written.  We must hold our President and elected officials to account for every action they take or fail to take.  We must be prepared to act whenever they violate the covenants they swore to uphold.  This is not disloyalty, this is not sedition.

It is a requirement of citizenship.

Do not make the mistake of making some saber-rattling noises about “armed overthrow” or “rising up” against our oppressors.  It only legitimizes those who would seek to paint mere patriots as right-wing extremists or terrorists.  We have a legal recourse available to us.

Short of waiting it out for the next 4 years, the only option we have of stopping the damage being done to our country is to seek articles of impeachment against Barack Obama.  To seek recall elections of officials like Nancy Pelosi or Dick Durbin, and others who have shown themselves to be enemies of our free-market representative republic.

By repeatedly exceeding the authorities of his office, by committing, through either ignorance, neglect, or malice those actions which can be see to not only controvene his oath of office, but which a reasonable man might perceive to cause direct and observable harm to this country, Barack Obama is building the case for his own impeachment.

It doesn’t take a felony.  There need be no Whitewater scandal, missing minutes on a tape, or perjury before a Grand Jury.  It is enough that an individual openly flaunts the Constitutional limits of their elected authority to have grounds for impeachment.

And if we do nothing, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

UPDATE:

Something like THIS for example:

Today’s Czar Count – 32!

Even Democrat Robert Byrd wrote Obama a little note saying that the appointment of all the czars “violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight.” This, in his opinion, is unconstitutional at best.

For all you New World Order and global government types out there:

Belgian PM is first ‘president of Europe’
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/19/eu.presidency/index.html

Food For Thought:

Rough Estimate of total Stimulus Package: $800,000,000,000
Estimated US Population for 2009: 305,000,000

Approximate Stimulus funds provided per person: $2,285.00

So, the U.S. Government incurred $2,285 dollars in debt for every person in the United States. Note: NOT JUST WAGE EARNERS, but EVERY PERSON in the United States.

How much of that “stimulus” money did you see? Uh, perhaps, not one thin dime? Yeah, me either. But maybe, if you were a senior, you got a whopping $250 extra “stimulus” in your Social Security check. Once. Really rollin’ in the dough, ain’t ya? The government charged you $2,285 to give you $250. What a business model, eh? And you thought those payday loan people were bad…

So, let’s say, conservatively, that you live in a four-person household – Husband, Wife, two kids, with one primary wage earner. At $2,285 per person, your FAMILY’S total debt bill is now $9,140.

This is in addition to the taxes you WERE ALREADY PAYING!

So, this now pushes “Tax Freedom Day
(http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/)” until May 29th. You are now working five full months of the year just to pay all the taxes you owe. And I quote:

“Nevertheless, Americans will pay more in taxes than they will spend on food, clothing and housing combined.”
“The only previous years when taxes and deficit spending comprised a similarly large share of national income were 1944 and 1945, at the peak of World War II”

Might I remind you, that this is BEFORE any of the tax hikes and fees for the new National Health Care Plan take effect? Anyone care to hazard a guess when “Tax Freedom Day” will be after THAT happens?

Oh, but wait. It gets better. Since you will be required to both pay increased taxes to fund the federal plans, AND required by law to have Health Insurance, if you’re employer doesn’t provide health care this TOO could come out of your own pocket.

I feel like one of those Ginsu steak knife infomercials. “NOW how much would you pay?!”

So let me ask you this. What would have been better for the economy, really, in the long run? Soaking wage earners for over $9,000 in phantom debt that they will have to repay without ever receiving any direct benefit? Or. Giving nearly $9,000 dollars back to a family of four in the form of tax breaks?

If I knew that I would that I would get, in effect, a $9,000 raise for the year, you think maybe I might consider buying some of those durable and consumable goods out there? Youbetcha.

But instead, families continue to struggle financially, and the U.S. dollar is being devalued on international markets as other countries begin to realize that we will simply never be able to pay our debts, and so are starting to view the United States as a poor credit risk.

This is not the change I was hoping for.

As unemployment crests 10% and continue to climb, as layoffs continue by companies of all sizes who are tightening belts and trimming budgets, as banks continue to be tight-fisted about credit and loans, you have to kind of wonder who’s at the wheel here? Despite billions of “stimulus” dollars, despite lofty rhetoric and glowing promises the economy continues to struggle onward, slowing inexorably like a truck with two flat tires just trying to make the next exit.

There’s really only two possibilities here: 1) The people in charge don’t know what they are doing, or 2) They know EXACTLY what they are doing.

The simple reality of this, to me, is that nobody can be THAT stupid. So something else has to be going on. When “environmentalism” trumps basic quality of life, and no one seems to care, I suggest that we’ve got a problem on our hands. We are seeing the symptoms all around us of something akin to letting the inmates run the asylum.  Obama’s policies and politics are causing more and more people to scratch their collective heads, wondering just what exactly is going on with this man?

His actions show either a fundamental ignorance of, or a fundamental disregard for the simple realities of our economic system. I propose the latter is at play, much more than the former. His approach chooses to ignore the reality that consumer confidence is a core element of economic health and success in this country. It shows a willingness to overlook the fact that ever-higher and broader taxes are anathema to generating the kind of disposable income that allows people to buy the goods and services which keep our industry and economy running.

For example, when you set out to “bankrupt” the coal industry (as Obama so openly advocated), you aren’t just shutting down the coal plants. You are shutting down the mines, putting the miners and their families out of business. You are shutting down the coal processing plants. You are shutting down the trucking companies that move the coal from the mines to the processing plant, and from there to the plants that burn it for energy. You are gut-punching the industries that support these efforts, and the towns that house the people that do these jobs. Not only that, but you are forcing increases in the cost of basic services like electricity down onto people that can least afford it…the poor and (now) unemployed!

This is part of the conceit you see in Obama’s approach to things. There is a certain ideological arrogance behind all these moves towards a more socialist state; the idea that such suffering is inevitable, and simply must be born in the pursuit of this brave new world.

At it’s core, though, is a belief running so deep, something so much a part of the core personality that it cannot even be called arrogance; perhaps something more like blind delusion? It’s the elitist belief in the superiority of “your betters.” It is this very elitism which puts the lie to all the grandiose dreams of “equality” and “fairness” under socialism. Socialism requires a ruling class, those exalted and educated political elites who see themselves as burdened not with a sacred trust and stewardship of those who elected them, but rather, with a noble obligation, a calling even, to lead the suffering and under-informed masses into a new era of enlightened Progress.

Sadly, far too few of those teeming masses really understand what is good for them, so few truly comprehend what they SHOULD be willing to sacrifice for the greater good…and so those sacrifices will have to be made for them. It is simply “unavoidable” that heavier and heavier taxes will be taken from them, those rights and privileges deemed unnecessary or inconvenient will be swept aside to clear the way for Progress, and those individuals or groups who continue to resist will be marginalized, ostracized, or even imprisoned. History has shown this to be incontrovertibly true.

Sacrifices will be necessary of course. There will be some “discomfort” with this “transition.” And even if YOU don’t see the rhyme or reason behind any of it, trust that “your betters” do, and have the situation well in hand.

This is the conceit of Obama and his administration. They see themselves as better equipped and informed than “the people” to make those hard decisions. So if it seems like Washington isn’t listening, it’s because they aren’t. If it seems like our voices are being tuned out, or worse suppressed, it’s because they are. Why? Because our betters know better. Our leaders have taken this mandate for “change” and moved beyond the need for anything like accountability to the masses.

As you watch him make his speeches, as you watch him make his choices of friends and allies, as you see what decisions he makes quickly, and which ones he seems to delay or “consider” for quite a while, you should come to understand that Obama seems himself not as the leader of a group, but as the captain of a ship. One that does not ask the passengers where they wish to go, but instead “knows best” where to steer the ship, and the masses below decks are just along for the ride.

The problem is, he’s heading us right for an iceberg, but keeps calling down to the engine room for more steam!

It’s not just that Pres. Obama is a poor leader, but that he’s leading us in the wrong direction. The ideological conceit that is so bound up in all socialist leaders’ “visions” of the future, has taken such a hold of Pres. Obama that he genuinely seems to see himself as above such mundane concerns as doing what’s best for the country (say, perhaps, economically) but rather, what MUST happen in order to bring about HIS concepts of ideological change.

This is a very dangerous attitude for someone with the kind of power the President of the United States can wield…or abuse. Given the historical reluctance of Congress to impeach a sitting president, Obama may be allowed far too much latitude in his efforts before people wake up enough to realize what is happening/has happened to them.

People lived in a stable, prosperous functioning representative republic that has served as a beacon of hope and freedom for the world for over 230 years. And yet they clamored for it to “CHANGE!”

Be careful what you ask for…

It is disheartening to read all the various apologia and hand-wringing conjecture going on about what REALLY caused (Maj) Hasan to go all Al Qaeda at Ft. Hood. Some have even taken to invoking the Klebold Defense, something to the effect that he was bullied because he was a Muslim, he was a social outcast, dey huwt ‘is widdle feewings, and other such crap.

For one, the Klebold Defense just doesn’t hold up. As we are finding out, much to our chagrin and detriment, there is simply no way for an ongoing pattern of discrimination to have survived the light of day in today’s Army. One WHIFF of a “hostile” work environment, off-color joke, or discriminatory word or action based on race or religion, and all Hasan would have had to do was notify his chain of command, and it is instantly guilty-until-proven-innocent for whomever he identified as the culprit. Today’s diversity-sensitized military gets an instant case of the vapors if anyone cast the least “unjustified” aspersion on a minority co-worker; something which may very well have prevented Hasan from being properly identified as a threat before it was too late. So to suggest that poor old Nidal was somehow the victim here is pure, festering codswallop.

Even IF poor old Hasan really was being “persecuted,” it was probably not because he was a Muslim, but because he was openly advocating opposing deployments to Iraq to a group of people who most likely already had two or three deployments under their respective belts. I also suspect that listening to some medical corps whiner whinge on about how Muslims shouldn’t fight Muslims, after they’ve had to sponge up the aftermath of yet another Muslim suicide bomber in a market square full of Muslim women and children, probably didn’t go over too well.

There’s also some buzz about how his yelling “Allahu Akbar” before going on a shooting spree doesn’t necessarily make him a terrorist. Uh, actually, yeah, it sorta does. Holding this view doesn’t make one a racist, or a hater or a bigot. It’s merely a conditioned response, one conditioned in us by the terrorists themselves.

I mean, face it. If you are standing in line at McDonalds, and a middle-eastern looking gentlemen walks through the door yelling, “Allahu Akbar!!” at the top of his lungs, you probably don’t “jump to the conclusion” that he’s just excited about American fast food and wants to buy everyone fries and a shake. You figure that some pretty major violence is soon to follow, and so you promptly hit the floor or run screaming for the exits. Why? BECAUSE THAT’S THE WAY IT USUALLY HAPPENS! Time and again we’ve been exposed to news reports of militant Islamicists firing off an “Allahu Akbar” before firing off their AK-47 or bomb belt. It happens a lot, so we begin to expect it. It’s become a conditioned response. We’ve come to take that phrase as a warning sign foretelling violence, not a sign of impending religious piety.

“Allahu Akbar” is not the equivalent of a western “Praise the Lord.”  No, sadly, yelling “Allahu Akbar” has now become the Islamic equivalent of yelling “Fire in the HOLE!”

Boom.

It is also unfortunate that there is an undeniable truth to the statement that while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists have some tie to Islam. It cannot be ignored or wished away. And actions like those of two-gun Hasan at Ft. Hood only serve to reinforce this view in us slack-jawed redneck haters who don’t know no better.

This is one of the best Birthday Messages I’ve seen.  Worth the watch, even if you ain’t one of the Few.

Semper Fi, Marines.

As the Democrat-controlled Congress churns and grinds its inexorable way towards enshrining socialized medicine into the American lexicon and socio-economic structure, I find myself wondering what other “rights” we can expect our Progressive overseers to legislate into law over the next four years?

More than that, I am curious as to how health care became an “inalienable” right guaranteed by the Constitution?

See, here’s the deal. Say I’m too damn lazy or broken down or busy to mow my own lawn. The thing’s looking pretty scruffy, the wife is all up in my knickers because of how it’ll look to the neighbors, and soon I could start making a little extra money running safaris through the back yard. So, I hoodwink one of the neighborhood teens to do it for me. And you know what? I fully expect that I am going to have to pay him to mow it for me.

Say I need my house painted, my car tuned up, or my appendix removed. Do I expect that somehow it’s my “right” to have a freshly pained house? Do I expect that there is “someone” out there who is morally obligated to overhaul my small-block Chevy for me just because I’m a helluva guy? Moreover, what kind of quality can I really expect from someone willing to do it or free? I’m reminded of the old car care commercial that shows the inbred goober playing with the water house, who drools out the statement, “Lemme try, boss. I’ve always wanted to fix a transmission!”

No, in this society, in this economy, I fully expect that having a trained, competent, and experienced mechanic fix my truck is going to cost me a pretty decent chunk of change. To hire someone to paint my house who won’t make a complete nightmare of the job is going to cost me some pretty serious cash. And to have one of my internal organs removed, an MRI of my brain, or a chunk of burgeoning skin cancer excised from my arm are things for which I should reasonably be expected to pay as well, right?

Do I really want my health and life put in the hands of the lowest bidder? There is a very simple and nearly immutable truth which I have seen borne out time and again in this life; whether it relates to cars, or VCRs, hookers or housepainters, the inescapable reality is that more often than not, you really DO get what you pay for!

Is it really realistic that we should expect anything different from our health care providers? Can we realistically expand coverage nearly three-fold without a commensurate increase in doctors and nurses, clinic and hospital beds, all the while promising that it’s going to cost less? Seriously?

I don’t expect to be provided free lawn care as some sort of right. That teenage do-gooder provides a service, he expects to be paid for it. I don’t expect that my right to comprehensive auto maintenance is enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. And yet, apparently my “right” to a free colonoscopy is immutable and inalienable, right up their with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Wait a sec. “Liberty.” Hmmm. Liberty is a guaranteed right. Can’t argue with that. Synonymous with “Freedom.” What about when my government forces me to spend thousands per year on insurance I may not want or need, or face prison? Is that Liberty? Is that Freedom?

According to Dictionary.com, “Liberty” is defined as:

~ freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
~ freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
~ The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
~ A right or immunity to engage in certain actions (or NOT engage, I would submit) without control or interference:

Notice that you can’t define liberty without using the word “freedom.”

The big tear-jerking heart-string puller in all this is that everyone should have “access” to health care. Newsflash: everyone already DOES have access to health care, they just may not be able to afford it. There is this meme that millions of Americans are being “denied” health care, as in prevented “back of the bus” style from purchasing health care, relegated to second-class status behind the “rich people only” health care system.

Another news flash: The more you pay, the better plan you get. This is not “unfair,” is basic economics. I don’t whine that it’s “unfair” that I can’t buy a Mazerati for what it costs me to finance my Impreza, right?

I’ve been on the outs. I’ve struggled to pay for health insurance, eating hefty co-pays for mediocre coverage. It sucked. That doesn’t mean I had a “right” to anything better, it just meant that that was all I could afford at the time. But it wasn’t any official law, or policy, or armed thug that was “denying” me better health care; it was my paycheck. In effect, the only person “denying” me better health care was me.

Since then, I’ve gotten a better job, so I can afford better health benefits.

I find it tragic that we, as a nation, have developed such an overweening sense of entitlement that we are so readily able to turn such a blind eye to the basics of economic realities in our pursuit of gifts given, not benefits earned.

Governments do not provide freedom. A government merely helps ensure an environment wherein freedom CAN flourish if allowed to. However, true “freedom” is not obtained “from” government, it is instead achieved by those who require it from themselves and others. What so many fail…or refuse…to see is that government can become the enemy of freedom, for the more we require from it, the more it will, in turn, require from us.

True freedom is found in self-sufficiency, in personal responsibility, and moral fortitude. Too readily forsaking any one of those three in exchange for unearned largesse or unwarranted comfort is a certain path towards becoming “subjects” rather than “citizens.

In case you didn’t hear (http://tinyurl.com/yznskn3), Sen. Barbara Boxer shoved her Cap-n-Trade bill through and out of committee without the irritating hindrance of opposition by any Republicans. How you might ask? She simply didn’t invite them. Much easier, smoother, more streamlined process that way. No more pesky “debates” and no questions or worries about inter-party accountability. Nope. Just make sure you have a unanimous majority and then ask for a show of hands? Really? No dissenters? Well, I guess we’re done here then!

“said Boxer. ‘The majority has to be able to do its work…otherwise the whole Senate could come to a screeching halt.’

That’s right. Because they have a MANDATE don’t you know. And can’t let a little thing like bipartisanship, established precedent, or, you know, the rule of law to stand in the way of PROGRESS! And what better way to get what you want that to make sure no one else has a say in the process? Why follow the rules when it gets in the way of doing what you want, right?

Democrats only stick up for minorities when it suits their political purpose. If not, then majority rule is just honky-dory and the minority just needs to get on board and deal with it. How truly “progressive.”

This woman should be at a minimum censured, and fined, arrested or just plain impeached.

H/T to Gateway Pundit (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/)

I can post by email? Who knew?