President Obama is getting a taste of what it is like to be a president whose ideas aren't embraced by the rest of the world. While he speaks of a world without nuclear weaponry, North Korea shoots off a rocket! Guess they let us know what they think of a nuke free world! Rather like a big thumbing of the proverbial nose, eh? Saying, "North Korea broke the rules" is hardly going to make the North Korean's quake in their boots!

What is he going to do as a threat? Talk them to death? He reminds me of my elderly neighbor in Milwaukee who used to scold her dog for incessant barking. "Now Charlie, stop barking," she would say and then wouldn't do anything to remedy the situation. Pathetic.

Look back to the Cuban Missile Crisis; it wasn't our rhetoric that saved the day, it was our technology. We had The Ace in the Hole a.k.a. the Minuteman Missile. And President Obama wants to cut new development of offensive and defensive weapons? Our president's naivete' is stunning and scary.

Some suggest the US should put greater pressure on China to keep North Korea in line. But we are hardly in any position to lay down the law with China, since they hold so much of our debt.

It is ironic that one of the primary purposes of even having a federal government is national security, and this is an area the President proposes cutting? That's "both breathtakingly naive and incredibly dangerous to our national security."

More reading:

US Offers to Cut Nuclear Arms

...The administration is also working to develop an international nuclear-fuel bank, potentially hosted by Kazakhstan, that fledgling nuclear-power states could tap, according to a senior Obama administration official.

And the Rockets' Red Glare

In Prague on Sunday, President Obama pledged an effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons, calling them "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War."

Well, we won that war in part because of our possession of those weapons and in part to the commitment by President Ronald Reagan to build a missile defense against them.

Obama's Unreality Tour

Barack Obama vowed to turn to the U.N. Security Council for strong action following North Korea's weekend missile launch. He would have done better by turning to Dr. Phil.

So, as the good doctor likes to say: Get real. Get real about North Korea. Get real about the U.N. Get real, also, about NATO, arms control, Russia, the global financial system, and every other item headlining the president's unreality tour through the capitals of Europe.

The military will eventually suffer combat readiness problems as it did under Democratic presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who both inflicted deep wounds in defense spending.

With a rocket, Obama's hope is shot back down to earth 

History may one day record it as a stark irony - and let us hope an amusing one rather than the tragic kind - that on the very day that Barack Obama was sketching out to an adoring throng in Prague his vision of a post-nuclear world, North Korea launched a rocket that may one day give it the capacity to fire a nuclear warhead as far as 3,700 miles. This means, to get down to brass tacks, that it could hit Alaska.

Palin Attacks Obama's Anti-Missile Cuts

Responding to North Korea's missile test, Gov. Sarah Palin reaffirmed Alaska's commitment to protecting America from rogue nation missile attacks, according to a statement her office released Monday.

 

"I am deeply concerned with North Korea's development and testing program which has clear potential of impacting Alaska, a sovereign state of the United States, with a potentially nuclear armed warhead," Palin said.

 

"I can't emphasize enough how important it is that we continue to develop and perfect the global missile defense network. Alaska's strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation."

Links: 

In case you missed this little tidbit, amidst the important news of Rush Limbaugh ;-) or Obama's earmark reform announcement that doesn't keep him from signing the current "Imperfect" spending bill--loaded with 1,000s of earmarks!...Here is some news that affects us all.

I was shocked over the weekend to hear President Obama say he was going to reach out to the moderate Taliban. I can't say I think much Obama's diplomatic talents so far: Snub our best ally; reach out to moderate terrorists.  Moderate? What makes a Taliban a moderate? Does he just use dynamite instead of C4?

One of Obama's first actions in office was signing the executive order to close Guantanamo prison, but he had not worked out yet what to do with the prisoners. One thing for sure is that releasing them is not a good idea. President Bush faced the same problem. He contended that prisoners at Guantanamo were treated well,

Bush said the U.S. military is making sure to follow accepted rules for treating prisoners, but it would be unwise to release prisoners for the sake of public relations.

 

Release has proved to be a BAD idea. In the news today, Officials: Afghanistan Taliban leader was at Gitmo: (My emphasis) 

The Taliban's new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan had been a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the latest example of a freed detainee who took a militant leadership role and a potential complication for the Obama administration's efforts to close the prison. U.S. authorities handed over the detainee to the Afghan government, which in turn released him, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.

 

Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, formerly Guantanamo prisoner No. 008, was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to the Afghan government in December 2007. Rasoul is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir, a nom de guerre that Pentagon and intelligence officials say is used by a Taliban leader who is in charge of operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan.

 

The officials, who spoke anonymously because they are not authorized to release the information, said Rasoul has joined a growing faction of former Guantanamo prisoners who have rejoined militant groups and taken action against U.S. interests. Pentagon officials have said that as many as 60 former detainees have resurfaced on foreign battlefields.

 

...According to the Pentagon, at least 18 former Guantanamo detainees have "returned to the fight" and 43 others are suspected of resuming terrorist activities. The Pentagon has declined to provide a complete list of the former prisoners they suspect are now on the battlefield.

 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, BetterBrookfield, Vicki McKenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Randy Melchert, Mark Levin, The Heritage Foundation, CNS News

Ever notice how you can never totally kill a bad idea? No matter how many people contact their representatives requesting a NO vote, and the measure is defeated, the bad idea never goes away. It may lie dormant for awhile, but almost always it comes back.

Well, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is one of those bad ideas set to make a comeback. Do you remember it? It was a U.N. measure seemingly designed to protect children. In reality, it took children out of the jurisdiction of their parents and constitution of their home country and put them under the authority of the United Nations! Because of the outpouring of negative calls to our Senators, the measure failed to pass back in 1989.

This [UNCRC, also called CRC] poses a serious threat both to parental rights and to U.S. sovereignty, as the UNCRC dictates not only that the federal government must intrude into the family sphere to an unprecedented degree, but also how the federal government is to monitor and govern the actions of our families. Parental rights would be replaced by "the best interests of the child" as defined, ultimately, by an international committee of 18 people in Switzerland.

The Convention was adopted by the UN in 1989. It has since been signed or ratified by 193 countries in the WORLD and every member of the United Nations, EXCEPT the United States and Somalia. Treaties or Conventions are ratified by the Senate. A 2/3 majority is required for passage. Senator Barbara Boxer is now pushing for the UNCRC to be ratified. (FoxNews, Feb. 25, 2009)

U.N. Treaty Might Weaken Families

Due to the recent election, however, there are rumblings from Capitol Hill that there will be an effort to seek ratification of the CRC during the next congressional cycle. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty, and as secretary of state, would have direct control over the submission of treaties to the Senate.

Why should passage of the CRC be of concern? It likely would have a negative impact on domestic law and practice in the United States. Article VI of our Constitution makes treaties—and remember, conventions are viewed as treaties—“the supreme law of the land.” The CRC would be treated as superior to laws in every state regarding the parent-child relationship. This would include issues regarding education, health care, family discipline, the child’s role in family decision-making, and a host of other subjects.

What can you do? ParentalRights.org is urging the adoption of a Parental Rights Amendment: "The only solution to the attack on the child-parent relationship is the Parental Rights Amendment -- securing the rights of parents to raise their children."

So you can sign the petiton.

ParentalRights.org is also urging that we keep the issue in the public eye. They are asking that concerned Americans email conservative talk show host Glenn Beck and ask he talk about the UNCRC. Email him at me@glennbeck.com and request that he cover the Parental Rights Amendment, talk about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and invite Michel Farris on his show. (Michael Farris is both the President of Parental Rights and Chairman of HSLDA, a homeschool legal defense organization.)

You could also contact our Senators Herb Kohl (202) 224-5653 and Russ Feingold (202) 224-5323. I know, I get tired of calling and contacting too, but the alternative is too unthinkable for me to just sit back and let things fly under the radar to passage.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki McKenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, The Heritage Foundation, CNS News

Conservatives were not pleased with President Bush's spending habits. Liberals criticized Bush for expanding the deficit too. So why is it, now that the Democrats are in charge of everything, they are making Bush look like a penny pincher? Why is it that these proposed unprecedented deficits are winked at as not having devastating consequences for us, our children, grand children, and great grandchildren?

The Heritage Foundation, one of the few, truly conservative voices left, posted an excellent piece today: Morning Bell: The Borrowing Bailout Parade Must End. (My emphasis added)

Before President Bush took office, the federal government took in $2 trillion in revenue in 2000. As Bush leaves office, the federal government is expected to take in $2.4 trillion in 2009. In other words, after eight years under President bush, the federal government is taking in $400 billion more a year in revenue. So why did Congressional Budget Office project a $1.4 trillion deficit for the 2009 budget? Massive spending increases. In 2000, the federal government spent just $1.8 trillion. Now the CBO estimates that the feds will spend almost double that, $3.5 trillion, in 2009. Oh, and by the way, these figures do not include the nearly $1 trillion in new deficit spending that President-elect Barack Obama wants to throw at our struggling economy.

Yesterday House Democrats unveiled their first economic stimulus package bid. Current price tag: $825 billion. Everybody in Washington expects that total will go up quickly when the Senate adds its wish list sometime next week. But Democrats in the House are already making it clear that even this soon to be trillion dollar package is just a down payment. The Hill reports: “House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said the massive bill ‘may undershoot the mark’ and suggested Congress may have to spend more money to stimulate the economy.”

As a nation, we cannot borrow and spend our way to prosperity any more than individuals can create personal prosperity by maxing out their several credit cards. Spending beyond one's means never works. Not for individuals, America, or any other nation...ever.

So adding in the $160 billion stimulus package President Bush signed this spring, the federal government has already pumped $510 billion into the economy and now wants to add another, at minimum, $1.2 trillion. Is any of this working? Is there any science or history that suggests it will? No. As Heritage Senior Policy Analyst Bian Riedl points out: (My emphasis)

Policymakers are basing the “stimulus” bill on economic models that wrongly assume every $1 of government spending increases the economy by approximately $1.60. Is it really that simple? By that logic, debt-ridden, big-government countries like Italy, France and Germany should be wealthier than America. And why stop at $800 billion? Such logic suggests unlimited prosperity could be guaranteed by the government borrowing and spending $800 trillion. Should America be basing such costly decisions on these types of economic models?

The economy sank because people over-borrowed for houses they couldn’t afford, and financial institutions over-borrowed for investments they badly misjudged. Washington’s solution is to borrow $800 billion that it cannot afford. How will adding $800 billion to the national debt solve a recession created by imprudent borrowing? There is an alternative. Long term tax cuts coupled with long term spending cuts. The borrowing bailout parade is what got us into this mess. It is time for a new direction.

Government is on a spending spree bender. It is time to sober up! Bush's billions in deficit are fast becoming Obama's trillions. Where is the alarm and criticism now?

Contacts: Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner,  House Appropriations Chairman Congressman Dave Obey, Senator Herb Kohl, 800-247-5645 or 414-297-4451, Senator_kohl@knol.senate.gov , Senator Russ Feingold, 414-276-7282, Russ_Feingold@feingold.senate.gov , The President, comments@whitehouse.gov or president@whitehouse.gov

P.S. Fairly Conservative posted this link to a petition against the stimulus plan if you care to let the Congress know.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

All actions have consequences. Consumers living beyond their means, taking out loans for homes they couldn't possibly afford, resulted in the sub-prime crisis, Fanny and Freddie mess, and meltdown of the US economy.

The TARP bailout for $700-some billion has opened the door to every Tom, Dick and Harry industry standing in line for a bailout handout: the auto industry, rental car companies, ethanol industry, and credit card companies to name a few. States such as California and even Wisconsin might put their hands out as well. President elect Obama is talking about another bigger and better stimulus package too, asap.  

Our government acts like they can give out billions of bailout and stimulus money with no consequences.

But history tells us no economy can thrive by printing up and passing out dollars. It did not work for Germany, where you practically needed a wheelbarrow to hold your Marks to buy a loaf of bread. "In 1914 one egg cost less than one mark. Nine years later an egg was 80,000,000,000 (eighty billion marks)."*

To finance the new spending during Carter years, the joke was, Hey, Jimmy, just print up another roll of $20s! We know how well that worked.

So why do we think we can do what no other government could do in the past, by printing up new money to finance and shore up failing industries with no consequences? Arrogance maybe?

Money Morning sounded another warning today: With Billions in Bailout Funds Flowing, the "Peso-fication" of the Dollar Continues:  

The plethora of bank and corporate bailouts, stimulus plans and interest-rate cuts that the U.S. government has produced over the last three months can only lead to one outcome: The U.S. dollar has to decline.

During the crisis so far, the dollar in general, and U.S. Treasury bonds in particular, have been regarded as a “safe haven,” making the dollar strong and pushing long-term U.S. Treasury rates downward. In the New Year, however, this is likely to change – the weight of the added supply of dollars in circulation will be too great for the greenback to shrug off.

Much of that report makes my head spin, but I do understand the basic principle that you cannot increase the money supply so dramatically without inflationary consequences. The amount of deficit spending we have committed to so far is unprecedented.

Usually I check the stock market every day and look at how the dollar is trading too. Today, the US dollar was down in all trading: against the Canadian dollar - $1.23 vs $1.28 a few days ago, against the Euro, the dollar had fallen 4 cents to .76.  

If this trend continues, the dollar loses value, therefore, you need more of them to pay for purchases. Hence, the wheelbarrow will be needed to carry your cash to the store! On second thought, people will just use a credit card instead of cash, so no need for the wheelbarrows.

What we need is to tighten our belts and live within our means, be it at the local, state, or federal level of government. It is time to act like grownups and say NO to frivolous spending and bailouts. If we don't, the Carter years will look like the good old days for the dollar and us.

Did you contact Senators Kohl and Feingold about the auto bailout? Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold (202) 224-5323)

*From Richard Maybury's Whatever Happened to Penny Candy, Wallpaper, Wheelbarrows, and Recession, pp 52. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

There is a lot at stake for former Vice President Al Gore with the Global Warming* issue. Without the threat of Global Warming, he is rather out of a job. Who would hire Al Gore to come speak about the threat of normal weather? Without Global Warming, who would ever buy a carbon credit from the corporation he is affiliated with? Without Global Warming, Al Gore just becomes another washed up Vice President who did not make it to the ultimate status prize of the presidency.

I can understand why Al Gore keeps insisting that Global Warming is a serious threat to the planet.  All of Al Gore's current prestige and status and livelihood are tied to this fabricated crisis.

President elect Barack Obama's buy-in is more difficult to understand, but buy-in he did. Obama meets Gore, urges urgent action on global warming:  (My emphasis throughout)

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday reiterated the need to address global warming as he discussed the problem with former Vice President Al Gore. Flanked by Gore and Vice President-elect Joe Biden, Obama told reporters in Chicago, ‘‘All three of us, I think, are in agreement that the time for delay is over, the time for denial is over.’’

‘‘We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now: that this is a matter of urgency and national security, and it has to be dealt within a serious way,’’ he said. ‘‘That’s what I intend my administration to do.’’

Obama met with Gore ‘‘to listen and learn from Vice President Al Gore on the extraordinary work that he has done around the issue of climate change,’’ for which the former vice president won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

Obama is still bent on his environmentally friendly energy program, his green jobs plan--even though they won't solve our energy problems or help our economy.

When people realize what his energy plan will cost, both in Cap and Trade costs and increased utility costs, they might HOPE things will CHANGE back to cheaper un-green energy. From geophysicist David Deming:

"Let the politicians take note. People will not like what you have in mind. California is arguably the most liberal state. Yet last month they defeated, by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, a law that would have forced California utilities to obtain half their electric power from renewable sources. What the Obama administration proposes is much more radical. Their cap-and-trade proposal will dramatically increase the energy costs of the average consumer and likely drive our crippled economy into a severe depression.

Why a president, facing the economic crisis our country seems to be headed toward, would embrace such expensive, inefficient green energy and crippling cap and trade proposals is beyond me. It is beyond geophysicist Deming too, who stated in his commentary, Global warming freeze:

This is an absurd spectacle. Our advanced civilization is being systematically mismanaged by technologically illiterate lawyers responding to political pressures from irrational fanatics. Would someone please tell these people it is impossible to overturn the laws of thermodynamics?

We cannot improve our economy by artificially forcing people to use expensive, unreliable and inefficient energy sources.

As Deming concludes, "To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over." Now we just have to get the politicians to look at the facts, because I cannot afford to pay triple WE energies bill charges!

*The term Global Warming is morphing into the term Climate Change because world temperatures have not cooperated over the past 10 years. Many examples cited in Global warming freeze? point out that current data shows warming "is now officially over."

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember when Sen. Joe Biden predicted an international crisis if Obama was elected? "Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy" (Actually, Kennedy's test came 22 months after taking office.)

Although the idea that an Obama presidency would generate an "international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy" is troubling, yet the comparison of Obama being like John F. Kennedy is flattering. Unfortunately, there is no comparison.

Yes, both men were young, but that is pretty much where the similarity ends.

JFK was a war veteran. He was squarely behind defending liberty throughout the world. From his Inaugural Address:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

JFK did not spurn the use of technology to keep the world safe as Obama has. In fact, the technological breakthrough of the solid rocket fueled Minuteman missiles served as a deterrent to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We learned about the Minuteman deterrent when we visited an actual Minuteman II Missile Site while on vacation 2 years ago. (Photo is of huge bank style vault door)

The National Park Service preserved this last remaining facility for its historic significance, and we were privileged to have Kerry Davis, a former Minuteman employee, as our tour guide.

Ranger Davis (pictured, but my family is photoshopped out) used to work in a Minuteman II facility just like this one. We were far below the surface of the earth in this vault-like bunker command station. Davis told us how he belted himself into the red rolling chair on tracks during his shift. They did this so in case of nuclear attack, he could still launch our missiles, God forbid, if needed.

He also told us why the Minuteman was nicknamed the Ace in the hole during the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy knew he could launch in 5 minutes, if needed. Presumably Khrushchev and Castro knew it too.

No longer did our offensive nuclear missiles require time consuming fueling before take off. Prior to the Minuteman, the fueling process took so long that missiles from Russia would already be blasting America before our liquid-fuel rockets could get off the ground. The Minuteman was a solid rocket system--always at the ready in 5 minutes, hence the name Minuteman.

If you look at the Minuteman Missile History, you see that Minuteman I became operational just 8 days after the crisis began...

and 1 DAY before we went to DEFCON 2.

(My emphasis throughout) 

LGM-30A/B Minuteman I:  In the late 1950s advances in solid-fuel propellants enabled the Air Force to develop its first solid-fuel ICBM, the Minuteman I (LGM-30A/B). Formal development began in September 1958, and after an extraordinarily rapid development program, the Air Force put its first ten Minuteman ICBMs on operational alert at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, in October 1962. Deployment proceeded at an equally furious pace, and within 5 years 1,000 of the solid-fuel missiles stood poised in their silos.

... On October 22, 1962, SAC placed its first flight of ten Minuteman missiles on operational alert.

On the night of October 23, the Joint Chiefs of Staff instructed Strategic Air Command to go to DEFCON 2, for the only time in history. The message, and the response, were deliberately transmitted uncoded, (unencrypted), in order to allow Soviet intelligence to capture them.^[3] Operation Falling Leaves quickly set up three radar bases to watch for missile launches from Cuba.^[clarify] The radars were experimental models ahead of their time. Each base was connected with a hotline to NORAD control.

NORAD was the central control for the 10 new Minuteman I stations. America played a gut-wrenching game of chicken with the Soviets and Cuba. By the grace of God, the crisis passed.

 ...After much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey on the border of the Soviet Union in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba.

If America did not possess the capability to launch before Russia or Cuba could, or if we had not developed new weaponry, would the Cuban Missile Crisis have resolved peacefully?

I doubt it.

Countries that were weak militarily in Europe were taken over by the Soviet Union.

I believe it was only Providence that caused the Soviets to believe America was a force to be reckoned with, that the situation resolved as well as it did.

Now contrast Kennedy's attitude toward military technology with Obama's on military spending and technology:

...I will cut 10s of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investment in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slop our development of future combat systems...

I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on production of fissial material and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMS off hair trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

Obama's naivete' on military technology and preparedness is frightening. Where would we be today if President Eisenhower and Kennedy had not embraced military technology? Maybe part of the Soviet Union?

President Kennedy might have been young and tested just 22 months into his presidency. At least he was realistic about the importance of new technology. Obama is not. 

After our tour of the Minuteman command bunker, the Ranger took us to an actual missile silo. We were told about how many warheads have been dismantled since the end of the Cold War and how the military was doing a soft standing down of Cheyenne Mountain/NORAD command center--they felt they didn't really need it anymore. Since North Korea had just fired a test long-range missile, I was not so sure a soft standing down was wise. Are there other Minutemen missiles I asked? Yes, the Minuteman IIIs are in service. I felt a little better. (Photo is of missile in glass topped silo)

The world is a much more dangerous place since our visit 2 years ago. North Korea and Iran continue to work on developing nuclear weapons. Russia is becoming more aggressive. Can we afford to "slow our development of future combat systems?" or "cut investment in unproven missile defense systems?" or "take our ICBMs off hair trigger," as Obama promotes? I would say, no, not in today's dangerous world. At least not if America wishes to remain a superpower.

P.S.--A serendipitous find: We stumbled on the ATK Corporation, out in the middle of nowhere in Utah. The T stands for Thiokol Chemical Corporation, the maker of solid rockets. Their entire front lawn held a collection of solid rocket history. Very interesting.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember the song, Raindrops keep falling on my head? I'm thinking we need a new version: ACORNs keep falling on my head! (Sing along to the original song's last refrain.)

ACORNs keep falling on my head,

And just like the guy who keeps reg-i-st'ring the dead,

No one seems to care,

'Cause, we're never gonna stop the fraud by complainin'

Because they're free-e-e,

No one's checkin' their ID 

I'm sure we could come up with alternative lyrics to the whole song with a different theme for each stanza: multiple registration, fictitious name, underage, felon, non-citizen registrations--you name it, but you get the idea. 

Here are just a few newsworthy rotten ACORNs. 

Missouri officials suspect fake voter registration:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Officials in Missouri, a hard-fought jewel in the presidential race, are sifting through possibly hundreds of questionable or duplicate voter-registration forms submitted by an advocacy group that has been accused of election fraud in other states.

Charlene Davis, co-director of the election board in Jackson County, where Kansas City is, said the fraudulent registration forms came from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. She said they were bogging down work Wednesday, the final day Missourians could register to vote.

1 VOTER, 72 REGISTRATIONS: 'ACORN PAID ME IN CASH & CIGS': 

CLEVELAND - A man at the center of a voter-registration scandal told The Post yesterday he was given cash and cigarettes by aggressive ACORN activists in exchange for registering an astonishing 72 times, in apparent violation of Ohio laws.

Local 2 Investigates Dead Voters: (And Texas has a voter ID law!)

Texas Watchdog compared Harris County's voter registration roll with the Social Security death index and found more than 4,000 matches -- registered voters that, it appears, are already dead.

...Auditors identified 49,049 registered voters state-wide who may have been ineligible to vote. Approximately 23,576 may have been deceased and another 23,114 were possible felons. And they found more than 2,359 duplicate records.

Many convicted felons remain on voter rolls, according to Sun Sentinel investigation. The video clip interviewed one convicted felon who was registered by the Democratic party. (ACORN was not mentioned in this case.)

Since January 2006, more than 1.6 million new voters have registered in Florida. FDLE [Florida Department of Law Enforcement] identified more than 124,000 possible felons.

...Elections workers are now reviewing more than 3,800 possible felon voters but have more than 108,000 others still to be checked. "We've not touched those records yet," Browning said.

Yesterday, the 3rd person [was] charged with election fraud in Wisc.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A third person in Milwaukee faces charges of election fraud after prosecutors say he turned in 54 fake registrations, including one for a man who died 16 years ago.

Frank Walton, 29, submitted the inaccurate voter forms to the city Election Commission, according to a criminal complaint, with errors that also included fake driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers.

Walton faces one count of falsely procuring voter registration and faces up to 3 1/2 years in prison and $10,000 in fines if he's convicted.

And, let's not forget that even Mickey Mouse Tries to Register to Vote, The cartoon character's application, which included a stamped logo of ACORN, was rejected by Florida elections officials over summer. 

Florida elections officials rejected Mickey's application this summer. It is unclear whether Mickey tried to register as a Democrat or a Republican. But the application included a stamped logo of ACORN, the community organizing group that is facing accusations of voter registration fraud.

At least Mickey is a Florida resident! 

There are so many incidents of ACORN and other fraudulent voter registration stories, that it is difficult to keep up with them. There is little that can be done at this point because we have not accurately maintained our voter registration rolls and Democrats are unwilling to help remedy the situation. (Remember how the Wisconsin Democrat Senators wouldn't bring Voter ID to a vote last spring? My Senator, Jim Sullivan*, cast a key vote in keeping that measure from the floor.)

Sickening.

*I will help the next conservative Republican State Senate candidate's campaign. How about you? 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I know I just cautioned you about purchasing products that are ingested or applied to the skin from China, but here comes another Made in China cautionary tale. This time it is a chair that can cause chemical burns to the skin--just from sitting on it!  French retailer in hot seat over Chinese chairs,

One customer, Caroline Morin, said Friday she was stunned to learn the chair she bought last December appears to have caused the skin problems she says she suffered for months.

"You sit comfortably on something and in fact you have a bomb under your butt," she said.

... 

A rash of cases have cropped up in Britain, too. British attorney Christian Shotton said his law firm, Russell, Jones & Walker, is representing 1,300 people who bought Linkwise recliners and sofas from British retailers and who are suing for compensation. He said there have been other cases in Sweden and Finland.

"Some of the children, some of the babies, are covered head to toe," in burns, rashes and infections, Shotton said.

The Chinese as a culture doesn't seem to have any prohibitions to stealing intellectual property or producing products that are not what they are supposed to be--as in the baby formula and dog food.

This chair problem was more of an "innocent" mistake--one made out of ignorance. The burns and rashes were a reaction to a mold retardant. The manufacturer made an error in judgment in that if a little mold retardant is good, more must be better.

Normally, just one sachet of the anti-mold chemical is meant to be inserted into the chairs, but some contained as many as 10, said a Conforama spokeswoman, Stephanie Mathieu.

She said the Chinese firm told Conforama that "as it was the monsoon season they decided that they needed to put more sachets in." 

Need another reason to buy only from legitimate manufacturers from more developed countries? How about this latest one?

The toxic chemical, melamine, has showed up in White Rabbit, a taffy type candy sold in China and other countries, including United States. The article said that tiny amounts of melamine would not be enough to be lethal as it was in the infant formula or pet foods, but it still should not be there. It could cause kidney stones or other health problems.

I am afraid to ask this, but what next?

UPDATE: I didn't even get the above posted and the food warning expands. This group, like the White Rabbit candy, included anything creamy, such as chocolate. Melamine again is the culprit.

"We have to think about any processed food with milk or protein in it," said James Rice, a food industry veteran who is now China country manager for Tyson Foods Inc. (TSN), the world's largest meat processor.

None of these products seems to have hit the mainstream American markets, but Kraft Foods was mentioned in the article.

When rumors of melamine-related recalls of Oreos and other sweets spread by phone text messages and on the Internet earlier this week, Kraft Foods Inc. (KFT) hastened to reassure customers that none of its Oreo-brand products contain milk powder from China.

Oreo fillings contain no milk, while Oreo cookies with icing on them use milk powder from Australia, it said. "Regardless of where they are produced, Kraft products are always held to the highest quality and safety standards," the company said.

Who knew their Oreo wasn't 100% made in the USA? 

We are not big Oreo fans, but I can see I am going to have to really start reading that fine print on product wrappers. Ah, the joys of a global market.

UPDATE: There is more...Cadbury pulls Made in China chocolate. (Not US) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

We knew something was up late this afternoon. The news helicopters were hovering to the east of us for about a half an hour it seemed.

I was doing yard work and had the radio on, but there was no mention of any bad accident on I-94 (just a block north). What could it be?

Maybe its a cave in over on Robinwood where they are doing a sewer project? We sure hoped that was not the case.

Ah, I will look on Brookfieldnow!

Sure enough, the Community Watch informed me there was a gas leak over near the sewer project on Robinwood.

My photo is of Webster and Robinwood, the street just east of Harvey and Robinwood Street where the 4 inch gas line was cut accidentally. 

The helicopters are now quiet. I just checked with someone I know who lives over there. They are back, safe and sound, thank God. This could have been very bad.

My friend said the firemen went door to door and made the residents evacuate. They then had to walk 2 blocks to the south or north of Robinwood, depending on which side of the street they lived on. The gas has been shut off to all the homes. Later, WE energies will go around to turn on and relight pilot lights.

News crews from channel 10 and 12 were interviewing residents. Film at 10PM? 

It's been a rough few weeks for this neighborhood. First the flooding and now this. Let's hope things settle down soon.

More on the sewer project tomorrow. 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here just reached the 1 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

Ah, the joys of rental property. Most people's perception is that you just sit back and collect the rent. Maybe that is what our Mayor Jeff Speaker thought when he ventured into the landlord business? I don't think he is thinking that now. From the article:

Asked why he bought the Milwaukee apartment building instead of one in Brookfield, Speaker said he couldn’t afford one in Brookfield.

“It’s an investment, and they can be fairly lucrative if you have a good tenant mix,” Speaker said of Milwaukee rental properties.

He said he would like to get tenants who are on rent assistance “because you’re guaranteed your money.” But he said he couldn’t do that until he made more repairs.

“I’m trying to make a difference down there,” he said...

...He wants to hold annual barbecues there.

My husband and I were landlords for a brief time in our younger days. We bought the tiny Polish flat my husband lived in during his college days from his landlady. It was divided into 3 units and we lived in the upper front after we were married. A few years later, we purchases a second property from our former landlady. Hey, no money down, what did we have to lose except a lot of sweat equity.

People teased us a lot about being the land barons, knowing how we were working our tails off and operating on a shoestring. We repaired the numerous code violations and painted, refinished floors, and transformed them into rental units that decent people were happy to rent for a reasonable price. 

I had to smile when the article about Speaker's rental property violations mentioned that he planned a barbecue when it was all finished, because that is what we did! It was in celebration of our white trash tenants moving out. (We inherited them with the purchase--they were on welfare by the way--our landlady must have liked the rent assistance angle too?) 

The neighbors and other tenants were jubilant when the two families moved out.

Now the JS Editorial: Keeping Promises  compares Brookfield standards with the City of Milwaukee. (H/T Fairly Conservative) Ouch.

Later the article speaks to the heart of the landlord business when purchasing on the cheap:

“We recognize it’s difficult to bring it out of a crappy condition into a compliant condition,” Todd Weiler, spokesman for the city’s Department of Neighborhood Services, told Sink.

...But Weiler made another good point about buying a building in bad condition: “You should know that when you buy it and have hammer and nail ready,” he said. “It’s time. The proof will be in the pudding. We’ll see what happens to his promises.”

Truer words were never spoken. Both properties we purchased had been neglected for quite some time. Our Riverwest Polish flat was not so bad. The landlady left us alone in exchange for cheap rent, and so, we had fixed up our interior before we purchased. Once it was ours, the "hammer and nail" were always with us and we brought it back from the grave. Although it never was a great Milwaukee style flat, it did have a certain curb appeal when we finished it.

The second property, the huge flat and cottage, really needed work (1st photo). The neighbor lady was so anxious to get rid of our bad tenants there, she offered to help us fix up their units if we could get rid of them. She was faithful to her word.

I would like to say that I never have seen such neglect since our Milwaukee Landlord days, but the fixer upper we purchased in Brookfield in 1986 was just about as bad if not worse! Lots more sweat equity here on Kinsey Park Drive. Maybe that is why I'm still so tired? 

I suspect that with rental property, like boat ownership, the happiest 2 days are the day you purchase and the day you sell. At least it was for us.

As for making a "fairly lucrative" investment? I suggest a really solid mutual fund! 

Related Posts: This was the Polish flat I referred to in Remembering the BIG CHILLS the flat pictured was before my dad helped us paint. 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related news (updated every day).

Drill Here just reached the 1 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions.

Links:

It has been a while since we had a rain like this morning's. Guess I won't be gardening today. But that is OK, we needed the rain.

If you have ever been on a private well, rainy days don't always get you down. Remember the drought of 1988? (I remember the year because I was pregnant.) It did not rain all summer it seemed. Because we were worried about our well going dry, no one had to tell us to conserve water. We did not go on our usual summer camping trip but delayed until Sept. Often we joke we were the drought busters that summer because while camping, it rained so hard it collapsed our tent! (Oh, that was fun.) But the drought was over and we all breathed a sigh of relief.

The rain this morning got me to thinking about how too little rain isn't good for people on wells, but too much rain isn't good either.  We used to be on a septic system when we moved here in 1986. Sometime between moving in and getting sewer, there was a year that was too rainy. We did laundry, dishes, showers, and even flushing sparingly. Again, conservation was the key to surviving our too high water level. No one had to tell us to do that--it was in our best interest to do it.

As I thought about the too little/too much rain and how both prompted water conservation in our household, I started thinking about how the more conveniences and services we have, the more wasteful we become.

Think about all the food we waste in our culture. One of my in-laws says she never takes home or saves leftovers. I must have looked rather shocked when she said that. She explained she never eats them and just throws them away anyway, so why save them?

That would never happen if a person had to grow and preserve their own food. When you do that, you are invested! It takes a lot of time and effort to grow and can, dry, or freeze your bounty. In my early married years I did this. Trust me, you don't waste a thing!

What about heating and lighting? Back when people chopped their own wood and dipped their own candles, nobody had to tell them to turn their thermostats down! You heated only to the necessary point. Often people went to bed shortly after dark. (I don't want to go back to that era.) 

It is just human nature. The more we have--the easier it is, the more we don't appreciate it and the more we waste. This concept applies to other things too.

How about health care? This is an issue in the presidential campaign. Should we provide Government health care to all that covers everything or look at ways to increase market forces and personal accountability? 

What about providing a college education? Would a student be more diligent and careful about class selection if they were paying themselves or if the government was paying? 

The more we have done for us, the less accountable we become.

Well, that is enough early morning musing for one day.

Links:

Sunday we returned from a few days in Dearborn Michigan touring the Henry Ford Museum, Greenfield Village, and The Rouge Ford Factory. The Rouge Factory Tour was new to us. There was Bill Ford, the great grandson of Henry, up on the BIG screen telling us how Ford created this new Rouge factory to be friendly to the environment.

Much like our proposed Fountain Brook Crossing, The Rouge Ford Factory* has Gone Green. The roof is a garden roof, planted with sedum plants to absorb the rain water. They are increasing plantings wherever possible on the grounds; nets are strung up on the factory exterior for climbing vines.

Even their parking lots are water permeable. No more run-off. The paving material looks like asphalt but is a porous material that has sand and gravel below. The guide said that the water that runs through the pavement is filtered and very clean. It requires vacuuming twice a year to keep pores open and calcium chloride must be used instead of sodium chloride in winter.  The porous pavement is more expensive to install and maintain but lasts twice as long as conventional asphalt. Plus, no detention pond is needed...and it's good for the environment.

It seemed everything about The Rouge Factory was good for the environment or good for the employees. You could watch some of the assembly line in action. The workers were poetry in motion each doing their specific little jobs. While they are always under the time constraint of the moving line, it did not seem any were really hustling to keep up the pace. Some workers were on the cell phone, playing a hand held game, or even had newspapers there to catch a snippet of an article.

I asked a tour guide how much money these people made. She did not know specifically but said from what she read in the paper, it was around $20.00 per hour for new hires. Workers with more seniority were higher.

Another guide told us that Ford recently closed 2 other factories in other states, I believe, and now consolidated all of the work here at The Rouge. That sounded efficient. The Rouge's specialty was trucks**. Wonder where the other cars are made?

Monday's Investor's Business Daily answered part of that question: Movin' To Mexico!:  (My emphasis)

Ford's investment of $3 billion in two auto plants near Mexico City is the largest foreign company investment ever in Mexico. As oil prices soar and new climate-change rules are readied in Washington, Ford must shift from its reliance on trucks and SUVs to lighter, more energy-efficient vehicles.

This should be something that workers in Michigan and other Midwestern states with decades of automaking experience should excel at doing. Instead, Ford and other automakers are pushing more and more investment abroad — especially to Mexico.

The editorial cites reasons for an auto sales slump and the US losing jobs--mainly the UAW forcing higher wages and benefits--but increasing climate change rules and higher oil prices aren't helping the industry.

Like a coyote caught in a trap, U.S. automakers have been desperately gnawing off a leg to escape certain death. They're closing plants and slashing jobs in Michigan, Ohio and other U.S. union havens, in favor of non-union, foreign places. Like Mexico and China.

Meanwhile, foreign companies have no problem making cars here. They do it in the non-union South, where the UAW is weak.

So foreign companies can get around our high wages by being non-union, but even they and their products are subject to U.S. emission standards for factories and cars.

You would think that with our ailing auto industry our government would be doing all it could to help encourage instead of hinder. Yet Washington continues to hamper oil exploration and increase auto emission standards (i.e. new diesel emissions will be cleaner than intake air.) 

Add to automakers woes, both U.S. and foreign made here, the latest millstone around the neck: Cap-and-Trade, and I think we have the recipe for outsourcing more industry of all kinds.

Ford may have greened up its Dearborn plant and created an ideal work environment, but if more industry follows suit in exporting jobs to countries that don't care about workers or the environment, what good paying jobs will be left in America?

This was written before Tuesday's post Kohl, Feingold, and Doyle's reaction to GM closing Janesville plant

Related articles: Toyota workers in Kentucky plant made more than UAW members last year

More handwriting on the wall, GM closing Janesville assembly plant by 2010 

*The Rouge Factory was named for the Rouge River in Dearborn. The banks of the river were red clay, hence the name Rouge (French for red). 

**A guide told us this was the last year they would be making Mercury trucks. 

Links:

The big news today is that GM will be closing the Janesville plant that makes SUVs.  This is not a huge surprise considering gas prices as they are. It does seem drastic considering some SUVs get fairly good gas mileage. Plus some businesses and individuals need a truck or SUV for towing or hauling purposes.

What is surprising to me is Senators Kohl and Feingold and Governor Doyle acting like they bear absolutely no responsibility in creating an economic climate unfavorable to manufacturing and large vehicles.

 Update: GM plant closing stuns pols

"It's a tragedy that General Motors plans to close its plant in Janesville, leaving behind thousands of skilled and dedicated employees," said U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis.

"The community of Janesville depends on these jobs, and I will do everything in my power to convince General Motors to reconsider their decision or help their employees find new work."

AND

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) said the people of Janesville "poured their heart and soul into General Motors."

Feingold said all will be done by local, state and U.S. officials to try to support "a continuing GM presence" in Janesville.

"The people of Janesville have worked too hard for too long to deserve anything less," Feingold said.

Hmm, Kohl says, "I will do everything in my power to convince General Motors to reconsider their decision" and Feingold says, "all will be done by ...U.S. officials to try to support 'a continuing GM presence' ."

GM should change their mind about the closing, but what about both of our Senators voting against the Cap-and-Trade Lieberman/Warner bill? Or voting to approve drilling in Anwr, Montana/North Dakota, and off our shores? Or reversing the ethanol mandates so people could get better gas mileage?

In GM closing Janesville assembly plant by 2010 Doyle compared the news to a death in the family. "It was just a kick in the gut," Doyle said.

Gov. Doyle issued the statement that "It should've been clear that GM wasn't focused on the future...Now we stand here, carrying the burden of those bad corporate decisions..."

Considering all the bad decisions Wisconsin government has made in blatantly increasing taxes and making Wisconsin a very unfriendly state to do business in, I have to wonder who else is not focused on the future!

Unless we change our ways in Washington and in Wisconsin, I think we can expect more and more manufacturer closings. Many bad decisions by General Motors and our state and federal government have brought us to this point. The death of this SUV manufacturer could be thought of as the canary in the mine--a warning of coming troubles.

Will our elected officials heed the warning? 

Please contact Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) about S. 2191 Lieberman/Warner Cap-and-Trade bill

Read Fairly Conservative Cindy Kilkenny's slant on GM's closing of the Janesville plant

Links:

Last night I heard Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on the Mark Levin Show.  They were discussing S. 2191, the Senate "Lieberman/Warner Global Warming Bill and the disastrous effect this would have not on just the country as a whole, but the individual." (My emphasis throughout post.)

Wall Street Journal referred to Cap-and-Trade as Cap and Spend

As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.

The Washington Post said, Just Call It "Cap-and-Tax" 

"...One of the bad ways [to control greenhouse gas] is cap-and-trade. Unfortunately, it's the darling of environmental groups and their political allies.

The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade -- a complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases -- is its complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways. Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity, but it's promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever abstract advantages the system has.

...Call this "environmental pork," and it would just be a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. Think of today's farm programs -- and multiply by 10.

After listening to Senator Inhofe, I think we could also refer to it as Cap-and-Raid! If it passes, it will raid every worker in America's wallet!

Senator Inhofe said, Senator Barbara Boxer insists this is not a tax bill. But if you have looked into the bill itself and at the linked articles, it is difficult to understand how this could not be considered a tax bill.

Inhofe then quickly listed some points to ponder. He mentioned the Wall Street Journal referring to it as the most extensive reorganization since the 1930s. He called it worse than the Kyoto Treaty for the economy. Cap-and-Trade will need 45 more Big Government Bureaucracies to enforce the standards.

Using Boxer's figures, Inhofe pointed out that Cap-and-Trade would collect $6.7 Trillion dollars from industry (those costs will be passed onto us!). The maximum rebate to customers is $2.5 Trillion dollars. Do the math: That means $4.2 Trillion goes where?

That sounds like a tax to me!

He went on to remind us that the Democrats have killed every domestic drilling bill. The US relies on coal for 53% of all of its electricity production. Cap-and-Trade will tax coal fired electricity production. Consider that China "cranks out a new coal electric plant" every 3 days (?). (I think he said 3 days, which fits with this - certainly between India and China it would be true.)

Manufacturing jobs will go where there is (cheap) energy/power, Inhofe said. This is also what Congressman Sensenbrenner talked about at his Town Hall Meeting when he called Cap-and-Trade "Catastrophic for Wisconsin". I would add that manufacturing jobs will also go where environmental regulations are more lax.

Senator Inhofe suggested people take a look at Liberman-Warner Opposition Resource Center; Impacts of Costly Climate Bill Exposed  It is chock full of quotes, links and articles.

The Senate is debating this bill this week. While some say the bill will not pass, as you know, once the foot is in the door, the issue will not go away.  Considering all 3 Presidential candidates support the concept of Global Warming, I would just say, the bill probably won't pass...yet.

Our Senators' response to my emails: Not much hope of a NO vote here--unless they feel the heat from constituents.

This is important! Please contact them both: Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links:

Question: Who is the number 1 oil producer? Number 2? Number 3?

Do we have the right to sue any of the top 3 for not producing more or setting prices? 

If you said yes, that would include suing the United States. We are the number 3 oil producer in the world*.

"Congress' latest answer to rising gasoline prices: Sue OPEC .(LA Times)"  -What about counter suit? What if OPEC sues the U.S. for not pumping all of the oil deposits in our own country? Isn't it ridiculous that we don't pump the oil off of our shores for environmental reasons, yet Mexico just to our south does?

What about an OPEC lash back? Do we really want to poke a stick in the eye of our major oil suppliers? (One of my nicknames is Cautious Kyle.) The President must think so too, "The White House warned that the measure could invite retaliatory action by the oil cartel, which supplies about 6 million barrels of crude to the United States every day."

Just imagine what our economy might look like if we were pumping from all of our own known deposits and kept our oil dollars home? Or on the darker side, just imagine what what our economy would look like if OPEC decides to sell elsewhere? From the L.A.Times:

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) scoffed at the measure, arguing it was "long on psychic compensation" but unlikely to bring down gas prices. He assailed Democrats for blocking efforts to increase domestic oil drilling, complaining that the bill "doesn't outlaw the congressional cartel that has blocked our energy production in this country."

"Even if this bill gets vetoed, which I believe it will, we're sending a message over to the OPEC countries that we want to litigate," King said, warning of possible reprisals.

OPEC could speed the flow of oil to the market, King said. "Or they might just decide, a little bit out of spite, to turn the spigot down a little bit to say, 'We'll show you.' "

Maybe we should sue Congress for blocking US drilling attempts? 

*Top 10 oil producers: Saudi Arabia, Russia, US (first 3 each produce almost 2X or more than the following), Iran, China, Mexico, Norway, Canada, Venezuela, United Arab Emirates.

Past Post: Can We Just Start Drilling Now? 

Don't forget the Music Concert to Benefit Chinese Quake Victims, Saturday, May 31st, 10AM - 1PM, Brookfield Civic Plaza

Links:

Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" is quoted a lot these days in regard to ethanol and rising food prices. There are many interpretations as to what she meant by it--some debate whether she said it at all.

The most interesting explanation I ever heard came from a UWM theater department teacher. She said that "cake" was the term for a gasket made from dough strips used to seal oven doors. When the baking was finished, the very over-baked, virtually inedible dough gaskets were scraped off and discarded. The poor would dig these out of the garbage and attempt to eat them. In other words, the bakers used food for a purpose other than human or animal consumption, and the insensitive Marie said the starving could always eat the gaskets.

I think that explanation fits in rather well with today's food for fuel fiasco. But I am adding to the travesty of diverting food into ethanol production, the misuse and abuse of water used for producing biofuel. Hence my version of Marie's statement, Let them eat and drink ethanol!

People are waking up to the fact that ethanol is not the answer to energy independence. Even Former President Clinton, at a campaign stop for his wife in Pennsylvania, said, "Corn is the single most inefficient way to produce ethanol because it uses a lot of energy and because it drives up the price of food."

Some people are aware that food-to-fuel mandates have increased demand on water resources. Corn in particular requires irrigation in most areas. We noted this on our last few trips out west--hundreds of acres of corn fields all being irrigated. Water is becoming a rare resource in some areas. (If you live west of the sub-continental divide on Sunnyslope Road, you have probably been paying attention to water rights issues.)

But what most people don't realize is that ethanol production causes water pollution too--both in the growing of corn and in the production of ethanol itself--regardless of the plant source. 

Corn is a nitrogen needy plant and is very soil depleting. (Remember how the Native Americans taught the Pilgrims to put a fish in each hill of corn?) Well today's farmers rely heavily on nitrogen rich fertilizers. The Washington Post stated, "Increased agricultural production also means increased fertilizer use. The National Academy of Sciences reported last month that meeting the congressional food-to-fuel mandate by 2022 would lead to a 10 to 19 percent increase in the size of the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone" -- an area so polluted by fertilizer runoff that no aquatic life can survive there."

Polluting farmland runoff is not the worst of it. Ethanol factories also exude an alarming amount of polluted water. I have heard it described as a glycerin type effluent that causes fish die off.

Water Use and Pollution Syrup, batches of bad ethanol, and sewage are dumped into streams, threatening fish and plants with chloride, copper and other wastes which deprive waters of oxygen when they decompose. A state inspector in Iowa reported that a creek next to the ethanol plant in Sioux Center was milky and smelled like sewage.

Water Supply Can't Meet Thirst For New Industry ...Nowhere is the growing clash between economic development and water conservation more evident than in the push to build ethanol plants that typically guzzle 3½ to 6 gallons of water for every gallon of fuel produced. Minnesota's 15 ethanol plants together consume about 2 billion gallons of water per year.

Drunk on Ethanol MTBE pollutes ground and surface water, but so does ethanol. With each gallon of ethanol you get 12 gallons of sewagelike effluent produced by the fermentation/distillation process.

So, let's see... biofuel production causes local and world wide food prices to rise, food shortages, water shortages due to irrigation, pollution from fertilizer runoff, and pollution to waterways from ethanol production. (Don't forget air pollution from burning ethanol.)

And most politicians are still chanting the ethanol mantra in order to save the planet from supposed CO2 pollution? (Explanation: The corn grower / ethanol lobby is very influential.) 

Let's hope these increasingly anti-ethanol articles and news stories about world food shortages and pollution will embarrass our Federal and State legislators into voting against or better yet repealing global warming and ethanol mandates. Otherwise, I am afraid we won't have much choice but to eat and drink ethanol! 

Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket

Ethanol's Failed Promise

Let Them Eat Cake

Hunger fuels food riots in Haiti 

Go, Jim and Jeff, Go! Repeal Those Ethanol Mandates (links to legislators included)

Links: Don't forget, Free Pass To Movie Preview of "The Enemy God" Saturday at 3pm

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to listen to part of the President's Press Conference on Rush Limbaugh. (I had a lot of ironing to do!) He began by stating it was "a tough time for our economy." Then he listed a few areas that affect our wallets, "from gas and food prices to mortgage and tuition bills." Those concerns mentioned don't affect every American, but the first two do--and they are related. I am going to focus on gas prices today.

The best news to come out of that conference was President Bush urging drilling in ANWR. Finally. At last. What took so long?

Oh, I know he has asked to drill before, but it fell on deaf ears. (There is plenty of blame for both sides of the isle here.) Maybe it will finally happen since the world wide shortage of oil is becoming harder to ignore. The President said: (My emphasis)

I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these [energy price] problems. Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them. One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand. Members of Congress have been vocal about foreign governments increasing their oil production; yet Congress has been just as vocal in opposition to efforts to expand our production here at home.

They repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR. The Department of Energy estimates that ANWR could allow America to produce about a million additional barrels of oil every day, which translates to about 27 millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel every day. That would be about a 20-percent increase of oil -- crude oil production over U.S. levels, and it would likely mean lower gas prices. And yet such efforts to explore in ANWR have been consistently blocked.

Another reason for high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity. It's been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery. Yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries. ...

Congress is considering bills to raise taxes on domestic energy production, impose new and costly mandates on producers, and demand dramatic emissions cuts that would shut down coal plants, and increase reliance on expensive natural gas. That would drive up prices even further. The cost of these actions would be passed on to consumers in the form of even higher prices at the pump and even bigger electric bills.

Instead of increasing costs and increasing new roadblocks to domestic energy production, Congress needs to clear away obstacles to more affordable, more reliable energy here at home.

The first question asked dealt with increased prices, consumer confidence being down and a moratorium on federal gas tax.

The President responded with what I think were practical solutions: (My emphasis)

...And we'll look at any idea in terms of energy, except I will tell you this, that if Congress is truly interested in solving the problem, they can send the right signal by saying we're going to explore for oil and gas in the U.S. territories, starting with ANWR. We can do so in an environmentally friendly way. They ought to say, why don't we -- I proposed, you might remember, taking some abandoned military bases and providing regulatory relief so we can build new refineries. I mean, if we're generally interested in moving forward with an energy policy that sends a signal to the world that we're not -- we're going to try to become less reliant upon foreign oil, we can explore at home, as well as continue on with an alternative fuels program.

In a later question he said:

...we can explore in environmentally friendly ways. New technologies enables for -- to be able to drill like we've never been able to do so before -- slant hole technologies and the capacity to use a drill site, a single drill site, to be able to explore a field in a way that doesn't damage the environment. And yet this is a litmus test issue for many in Congress. Somehow if you mention ANWR it means you don't care about the environment. Well, I'm hoping now people, when they say [preserving] "ANWR," means you don't care about the gasoline prices that people are paying.

As for the moratorium on the Federal 18.5 cent gas tax for the summer drive season, the President said they would take a look at it.

The moratorium on the gas tax would help a little, emphasis on little. (It would only save me $4.50/mo.)  Rush stated that  Chuck Schumer thought oil companies should pay the tax for us!  What gives Schumer the right to say that? Maybe I could suggest, since Congress has prevented any exploration here at home, the Congress should tithe their salaries to help Americans pay for gas?

Schumer was reported to say that drilling in ANWR would not do anything to help gas prices--it would be 10 years before we would get any oil from ANWR (or anywhere else) and that ANWR would only reduce prices by 1 cent a gallon in 20 years. *To that I would say, so what are we waiting for? (*Clarification: If we had been drilling all along in the U.S. as new oil sources were discovered, we would at least be increasing the supply and keeping more U.S. dollars at home. Since we are told it takes about 8 - 10 years from drilling to producing, we don't have time to spare, hence, what are we waiting for?)

If it were not for Clinton's veto of drilling in ANWR in 1994, we could be using some of that oil now! Or how about the oil off of Florida's coast, California's coast or the huge North Dakota shale oil deposit?

World wide demand is growing. China and India have huge populations that are smitten with a love affair with automobiles and improving their standard of living--they have a right to live better too.

We cannot keep trying to solve our energy shortage problems solely by increasing miles per gallon standards on cars or imposing alternative fuel mandates. It is not enough.

Implementing wind and solar won't work either; those experimental energy sources are still not cost effective. Keep up the research in energy alternatives and improving efficiency, yes. But in the meantime, we must start drilling for the resources we have been blessed with.

If you agree, contact the President and your representatives.  

President: Comments@whitehouse.gov or 202-456-1111

Congressman Sensenbrenner Telephone: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101 

Senator  Kohl  Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653

Senator  Feingold  Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323

Links:

ANWR.org 

Interesting piece from Heritage Foundation: Correcting Mistakes of the 1990s Should Top the Energy Agenda for 2006

Don't forget, National Day of Prayer: Meet at City Hall, May 1, 12:20PM

Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

UPDATE: Two world-wise, twenty-something young women today and I were talking about the Miley picture. Their reaction surprised me because they did not seem all that conservative. They both thought the picture was in inappropriate. Good, I thought, there is hope for today's youth. They then went on to tell me of another picture from that shoot that they both deemed "creepy". It was of Billy Ray with Miley draped over his leg--hardly a father daughter pose. This photo will be harder for Billy Ray to claim, I would not have allowed that pose had I been there. Obviously, he was!

I had not seen the picture of Miley Cyrus until this morning, but I did hear plenty about it on the radio yesterday. The photo looks pretty much as I expected it to look. It was not the amount of skin--she could have been wearing a halter swim suit at the beach--it was the context.

Actually, I am glad the public is shocked to see "Hannah Montana" portrayed as a sexy woman. It shows at least some concern for the loss of innocence in our children. 

Possibly it was because of the juxtaposition of the squeaky clean Hannah image with the sultry photo of Miley Cyrus that the reaction has been so pronounced. Maybe it will serve as a wake up call to parents of girls in particular that allowing our little girls and minor teens to look like sex objects is sending the wrong signal.

Miley's parents, in my opinion, are ultimately responsible for this photo shoot.  A young girl is not going to tell a famous photographer no--especially since young girls are often anxious to look older than their years. The famous photographer Leibovtiz is only after taking another controversial picture featuring a lot of skin. I would have thought that Disney would have been more protective of Hannah's image though.

How could a parent sit by and watch this happen to their daughter? (A comment on Fairly Conservative stated that according to ET, the parents were not there for the actual shoot, but Mercury News indicated otherwise.) 

Whether dad was there or not, may I suggest that in the world of theater and dance, artists have a very casual attitude about their bodies. Modesty is pretty rare.  It is not unusual to see a stark naked actor or dancer sitting at their makeup table or even having a conversation with a wardrobe person as if nothing was odd. I don't know if this was the case with Miley, but she and her dad obviously did not seem to think draping her naked self in a satin sheet was odd.

Sometimes like the frog in the pot being desensitized to rising temperatures, we are desensitized to the increased sexing up of our children. It is only when caught in the stark light of public scrutiny that the Cyrus family seemed to realize how inappropriate this picture and image was.

But before we start pointing our fingers just at the Cyruses, I have seen lots of teen girls in public with their parents dressed in a very trampy way. Ads in the Sunday paper for teen clothing make many of them look like they are looking for night work. Parents often want to keep their girls from looking like that, but when met with resistance they just give in and say, what can we do about it?

It is up to parents to protect their children from losing their innocence. That means not allowing them to be vulnerable to inappropriate situations, not allowing just any PG-13 movie to be viewed--some are very inappropriate, not allowing unlimited access to the internet in remote areas of the home, not allowing access to any TV show, and not allowing the school district to decide what is appropriate information for your child to learn about Human Growth and Development.

Protecting our children's innocence is our responsibility. We must take the time to investigate, filter, and shield.  Hopefully Miley's photo will jolt parents to say, what is going on here?

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

Congressman Sensenbrenner brought up Senate bill S. 2191, the Lieberman/Warner "America's Climate Security Act of 2007" at his Town Hall meeting Sunday. He described it as a "disaster for Wisconsin."

Information on S. 2191 from Congressman Sensenbrenner's website:

“S. 2191 proposes a nationwide cap-and-trade program for the emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, an important component of the manufacturing industry.  By setting a limit and capping carbon dioxide emissions by businesses, the Lieberman/Warner bill would thrust a highly regulatory regime on our nation’s economy, making electricity more expensive for businesses and consumers.  In Wisconsin, which relies heavily on the use of coal for electricity, this bill would have a catastrophic effect as we would be especially hard hit.

“This point is underscored in a study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers to assess the potential impacts of S. 2191 on Wisconsin’s economy…and the results are scary.

The Congressman discussed that study at the meeting and on Charlie Sykes show. The predictions were "scary."

“According to the study, electricity rates in Wisconsin could increase by as much as 163% in 2030 - nearly tripling today’s costs - and gas prices could increase by as much as 176% in 2030, again, almost tripling today’s cost of natural gas.

Not only will we be paying more for utilities, a figure of a 145% increase in gasoline prices was also given on Charlie Sykes show Monday, April 28, Ready for $10 a gallon gas?

So not only do we get to pay for higher energy costs for our own use, but we will pay more for every item and service produced in Wisconsin too.  

Who would ever want to live in Wisconsin or locate their business here if that is the case?

The National Association of Manufacturers report estimated that by 2030, 74,000 jobs would leave Wisconsin and a whopping 4 million jobs would leave our nation, because businesses naturally seek the cheapest and easiest place to manufacture their products.

What exactly is a cap-and-trade and why does it have such a negative impact on Wisconsin? 

Cap-and-trade is another term for Carbon Credit (or indulgences). Congress or bureaucrats set a cap or maximum on greenhouse gases that can be emitted by a company--be it a corporation or a utility company. Companies that do not comply with the standard must then have to purchase carbon offsets from companies that do comply. It is like a type of stock market that deals in these special credits.

According to Congressman Sensenbrenner, since Wisconsin gets 2/3 of its electrical power from coal fired plants, but Illinois obtains 60% of its electric power from clean nuclear power plants that emit 0 CO2, we will have to purchase these carbon offsets from Illinois just to keep producing our needed electricity! Illinois in effect gets their energy costs subsidized by Wisconsin residents. Wisconsin ends up paying 176% more for our electricity. OUCH! (At present, only 20% of Wisconsin electric comes from nuclear plants.)

Think no one in their right mind would agree to a system like this? Think again. Europe has been doing this for nearly 3 years now. Europe's greenhouse gases continue to rise as do their electricity rates. It has done nothing to lower emissions according to a publication from Sensenbrenner's office. I believe Australia just signed on to a system of carbon credits too.

Since businesses will just relocate to third world countries to manufacture their goods, these carbon credits will do nothing to lower CO2 emissions worldwide. The pollution will just move to the far east.

The increase in costs due to cap-and-trade fees are estimated at $1,300 a year / household for Wisconsinites.

Please contact Senators Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill. 

Representative Zipperer informed the Town Hall meeting atendees that the Wisconsin Assembly recently passed legislation that lifted the moratorium on nuclear power plants last session. The Senate however did not. He said they would try again next time. 

Contact your state representative and senator about the moratorium.

State Representative Leah Vukmir, Republican, 14th District
Rep.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9180

Representative Rich Zipperer, Republican, 98th District
Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-5120

Congressman Sensenbrenner's contact info:Email  Telephone: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101  

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park