It Just Gets Better and Better...

...And I don't mean that sarcastically. Read the following article for some major laughs at the expense of the apparently weather-altering Al Gore.

The Gore Effect strikes as the UN climate summit begins




The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) begins today in Copenhagen, Denmark and brings together politicians and scientists from across the globe to address manmade climate change. As if on cue, the Gore Effect has struck much of the United States with record setting cold and snow.

The Gore Effect was coined in recent years for the unseasonable weather that oftentimes accompanies appearances by former vice president and Nobel Laureate Al Gore or when a global warming event is held. Cold and snow have followed Al Gore and these events across the globe with amazing frequency since 2004.

See the list of events where the Gore Effect came into play below
In just the last week, the United States has been besieged by cold weather events from coast to coast with more on tap for this week. Is it the Gore Effect being felt as a result of the climate summit?

Last Friday, snow fell in Houston, the earliest it ever has and it marked the first time it has snowed in the Texas city in back to back years. Other cities across the Lone Star state and Louisiana reported similar records. Near the Great Lakes, Grand Rapids, Michigan had more snow on Friday than it had ever recorded on that date.

The weekend brought snow to Denver, Colorado and temperatures 30 degrees below normal. Baltimore, Maryland had snow on December 5th – the same date it has its first snowfall of the season for six out of the eight last years.

In all, over the three day span from Friday through Sunday, 370 new record low temperatures were set or tied across the United States according to the National Climatic Data Center. Similarly 333 new record low maximums were set or tied over the same period.

Plenty of folks also saw record rain and snow. Over 130 new snowfall records were reported during the period and more than 100 record rain reports were made.

Today, in Sacramento, the California city is expecting record cold temperatures and a chance at its first snow since 2002. In the Midwest, blizzard conditions are expected across Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois tomorrow.

Certainly it is most likely just coincidence but these types of events do seem to occur with a startling frequency at the most inopportune time for advocates of the manmade climate change theory.

Below is a partial list of various events over the last five years in which the Gore Effect was in full force:

January 15, 2004 – A global warming rally held in New York is subdued by one of the coldest days in New York City history. Gore tells the audience it was caused by global warming.
November, 2006 – Al Gore visits Australia two weeks before the start of summer. Ski resort operators are caught off guard by the snowfall.
February, 2007 – A hearing in the House of Representatives on global warming is cancelled after a snow and ice storm strike DC.
April, 2007 – Two feet of snow arrive on Itaca, NY in time for an Earth Day rally.
April, 2007 – A rally in Reno, Nevada held by the Northern Nevada Coalition for Climate Change is cut short by heavy rain and sleet.
March, 2007 – A media briefing on the Senate’s climate bill is cancelled due to a snowstorm.
December 5, 2007 – Washington DC receives its first snow of the season as the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee debates global warming legislation.
January, 2008 – A global warming rally in Baltimore, Maryland is held amidst falling snow.
October 22, 2008 – Al Gore appears at Harvard amidst temperatures that approached 125 year old low temperature records.
October 28, 2008 – The House of Commons debates a climate change bill as London gets its first October snow since 1922.
October 28, 2008 – John McCain and Barack Obama campaign in Pennsylvania. A wet, wintry mix causes McCain to cancel a rally while Obama goes forward. He teases people holding ‘stop global warming’ signs saying, "This is probably not the weather to hold up those signs. I'm not into global warming either but it's a little chilly today."
November, 2008 – The “People’s Power for the Climate” protest in Newcastle, Australia is canceled after one day due to rain and cold. Participants had been told to bring sunscreen and hats.
December, 2008 – The former vice president speaks to an audience in Milan, Italy about global warming. Outside it is snowing, a rare event in the area. Snow and freezing rain also strike Rome, Naples, Palermo and Sicily.
January 17, 2009 – President-elect Obama on his train tour to the capital stops in Philadelphia. He tells those gathered, “A planet that is warming from our unsustainable dependence on oil." Temperatures were 18 degrees with a wind chill below 10 degrees.
January 28, 2009 – Al Gore is set to testify to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about global warming. A winter storm arrives at the nation’s capital.
February 5, 2009 – Temperatures down to -6 degrees freeze a major global warming conference in Buffalo.
March 2, 2009 – A major global warming rally billed as “the nation’s largest act of civil disobedience” sees low turnout after a blizzard blanketed the nation’s capital with snow. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi cancels an appearance at the event after her flight was delayed due to the storm.
July, 2009 – Leading up to a visit from Al Gore to launch Safe Climate Australia, Melbourne suffers through temperatures approaching zero degrees.
October 9, 2009 – Al Gore is in Madison, Wisconsin for a convention of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Record cold temperatures arrive with him.

Why I Like the Discovery Channel

Given the choice between my three favorite channels, History, National Geographic, and Discovery, I would pick Discovery hands-down. Why? For a lot of reasons.

Reason #1: Bigger variety.
The Discovery channel has a far larger variety of subjects than the other two, from Dirty Jobs to Survivor Man.

Reason #2: Reliably good programs.
With Discovery, you know what to expect. From Mythbusters and Timewarp, you know you'll get lots of explosions and more than likely laughs. From Man vs Wild and Survivor Man, you can expect good information and a lot of "Gross, did he actually eat that?!" It's very consistent.

Reason #3: You actually learn something.
I'm not kidding. You finish an episode of, say, Mythbusters, and you feel like you just watched a really good comedy. You then realize, "Hey, I didn't know that before!"

Reason #4: They're not shoving a freaking agenda down your throat every other show.
This is one of the biggest reasons. On NatGeo or History, nearly every show is throwing an agenda of some kind in your face. The agenda ranges from environmental fanaticism to big-government propoganda to Darwinist lies. With Discovery, of course there's a bias, but it's far harder to detect. They mention evolution a lot, but they don't shove it in your face like National Geographic. There's also pretty much no anti-human lean like on the others. Instead of promoting an agenda, it appears dedicated to proving what they state in one of their commercials: "The world is just awesome." No government propoganda here, folks!

This Man is INSANE.

Yes, National Geographic has inspired yet another post. I was reading an article on some hunter-gatherer tribe in Africa, and came across quite possibly the most idiotic, stupid, loony, and utterly insane idea ever to disgrace the pages of that magazine. The idea was taken from the INSANE man mentioned earlier, Jared Diamond. He is the producer of the poorly-researched Guns, Germs, and Steel, which attributes medieval to Victorian Europe's success solely to those three things. His INSANE idea, however, is far crazier than his claims about Europe. He says-prepare yourself-that agriculture is the worst mistake mankind has ever made. Yes, you read that right. Apparently, Mr. Diamond would not mind not having a sure food supply, effective medicine, modern technology, and an insanely high standard of living, none of which are possible without agriculture. He blames agriculture for warfare, class stratification, disease epidemics, and major famines. Okaaayyy... You gotta wonder about the mental health of goons who claim things like that, but I'll address his claims one by one.

Class stratification: The problem with this claim is that it's so stinking vague. If he means loosely defined "classes" as in, upper, middle, and lower class in terms of income, too bad. It's a fact of life. Some people are rich, others are poor. I believe several countries tried to eliminate classes. What were they...? Oh, yeah, I remember! Soviet Russia, China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, and a bunch of others. That worked nicely, didn't it?
If he means special treatment for the rich and permanent class seperation, I have no clue where he's getting it. In a capitalistic society(another benefit of that "mistake"), you can go from poor to rich with a little luck and a lot of skill. Permanent and semipermanent stratification last occured back in medieval times, and I'm not really sure if that counts.

Disease epidemics: Mr. Diamond is obviously ignorant of one benefit of agriculture that counters this. Most people refer to it as "medicine." We now have cures for almost all infectious diseases, and medicine that helps counter almost everything else. Not possible without agriculture.

Famines: Again, he is obviously clueless to the fact that there has not been a major famine in developed areas for hundreds of years. I think we can all agree that agriculture prevents starvation rather than increases it.

Warfare: I sincerely hope that he's kidding with this one. Indians, people. When European settlers first arrived, the majority of Indian tribes were hunter-gatherers. Funny thing, they still killed each other. I am amazed that anyone can take this guy seriously.

This is spooky...

Prophetic.

Pakistan Preemptively attacked by the US

I knew we were after Iran, but this is horrible.

Hey, Obama Supporters!

So, you voted for Obama because you wanted Change? This is directed mostly at you who voted for him based on his position on the Iraq war. Look what you got. The Iraq war continues. He plans to begin focusing on Afghanistan. Wow. Talk about "change." He hasn't "changed" anything. He's just continued what our past Communist-in-Chief Bush was doing. Not saying McCain would be any better. The government wouldn't have messed with the economy quite as much, but we'd probably be at war with Iran by now. Besides, if you wanted to end the Iraq war, you should have voted Ron Paul. He has been a Congressman for how long? He has voted consistently the whole time. Yes, I am rubbing it in your face. Next time you vote, look at how consistent each candidate is in his/her voting record, and look at their other ideas as well.

Thank you for taking the time to read this rant.

Another National Geographic Inspired Post

So I'm reading the September issue of NatGeo, and I see an article about solar power. The genius who wrote the article kept talking about how great solar was. No emissions! They show lots of neat pictures of solar plants, but those pictures are what reminded me of solar's greatest weakness. They take up lots of room, and are not effecient. The following picture is of two of the plants shown in NatGeo. Not the same picture, but it has the same effect:



A single nuclear power plant would produce far more energy than these two solars put together, ZERO emissions for you environmentalists, and would take up the same amount of space as one of the central buildings in the above photo. Remind me why we don't just switch to nuclear?

Great News!!!

Ron Paul's new book, End the Fed, is #4 on the Amazon nonfiction bestseller list. Be afraid, Bernanke. Be very afraid.

The Libertarian Theater presents "The Government Can!!!"

This is great!

Paul Krugman (BIG liberal) is in favor of socialized health care. This video is priceless.

Chicken pictures

Okay, the chickens are still alive after 2 nights, so that's a good sign. Anyway, here's the chickens.

CHICKENS!!!

That's right, we got our new chickens on Wednesday. Unfortunately, our dog broke in sometime the next morning. When I saw her sitting in the coop, I ran outside only to find two chickens missing, one whole dead chicken, and one 3/4 of a chicken. That same day, while I was at a friend's house, my dad bought new METAL wire and installed that over our other wire, AND bought four new Rhode Island Red chickens. The coop survived two hours with Hannah (the insane dog), and she has learned not to bother the coop... I hope. The chickens are still alive as I type this, and I'm pretty sure that Hannah is sleeping. The little birds are funny. They refuse to do things alone, and always stay in a group, usually looking like a little cheeping mass of fuzz. If all goes well, we will be getting eggs in just a few months. Will post pics as soon as possible.

Freedom Watch

This is scary

Just watch, and you'll see what I mean.

Coop pictures

Coop complete!

Okay, I should have posted this earlier, but I was busy as a Roman guard at the vacation Bible school. Anyway, we finally finished our chicken coop, and we didn't use the original design at all. We basically built it from pictures that I got from a chicken forum (yes, those exist). I'll post pictures as soon as possible. All we need are a feeder, waterer, and chickens.

Is it just me, or does the Obama administration have really bad timing?

Guess what? The minimum wage goes up this Friday to around $7, right in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Depression. Now, of all times, they decide to make it more expensive to hire people. What's next? Energy taxes? Oh wait, they're trying to pass that already. When will it end?!?!?!?! Now all we need is a gigantic program with a fancy title along the lines of the New Deal. It seems like the government is bent on ruining the economy. Again.

New Freedom Watch

Okay, sorry I haven't posted Freedom Watch in a while, but here you go!

NOOOOOOOO!!!

I can't believe this. I feel like screaming. Dangerous carbon emissions?! Just read the terrifying article below to see plenty more stupid phrases

Hours after the House passed landmark legislation meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to show courage and follow suit.

The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate, and Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to ratchet up pressure on the 100-seat chamber.

"My call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this," he said. "We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don't believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth."

Obama said the bill would create jobs, make renewable energy profitable and decrease America's dependence on foreign oil.

"It will spur the development of low-carbon sources of energy _ everything from wind, solar and geothermal power to safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal," he said.

House Democratic leaders said the bill helped accomplish one of Obama's campaign promises and would make the U.S. a leader in international efforts to address climate change when negotiations take place in Copenhagen later this year.

"We passed transformational legislation, which will take us into the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., after the 219-212 vote.

"For some it was a very difficult vote because the entrenched agents of the status quo were out there full force, jamming the lines in their districts and here, and they withstood that," Pelosi said.

The vote marked the first time either house of Congress has passed legislation to curb global warming gases. The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by mid-century.

Success will be tougher in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to take up the legislation by the fall. Sixty 60 votes will be needed to overcome any Republican filibuster.

The "razor-thin vote in the House spells doom in the Senate," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the top Republican on the Senate's environment panel.

Reid, D-Nev., was more optimistic.

"The bill is not perfect, but it is a good product for the Senate," Reid said. "Working with the president and his team, I am hopeful that the Senate will be able to debate and pass bipartisan and comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall."

Supporters and opponents agreed that the legislation would lead to higher energy costs. But they disagreed on the impact on consumers.

Democrats pointed to two reports _ one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency _ that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year. But Republicans and industry groups say the real figure would much higher.

The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of green jobs as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles _ and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill's support.

Republicans saw it differently.

This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

In the Republicans' weekly radio and Internet address, House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio said, "By imposing a tax on every American who drives a car or flips on a light switch, this plan will drive up the prices for food, gasoline and electricity."

But Obama said the measure would cost the average American about the price of a postage stamp per day.

"It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions," the president said. "It provides assistance to businesses and families as they make the gradual transition to clean energy technologies."

In California alone, Obama said, 3,000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1,000 permanent jobs.

Update on the home garden

In my post about riding out the economic crisis and having a good time as well, I mentioned that we planned to have three 3 by 8 garden beds for vegetables. Well, that has been changed to three 4 by 12 beds, along with two others along our fence which will be used as a sort of trellis for things like peas, green beans, cucumbers, possibly watermelons, and various other climbing plants. Also, we've decided on a coop design and figured out what kind of chickens we're going to get. Oh, yeah, and we've already built one of the garden beds and our compost pile is, er, composting well. Our tomato plant already has six tomatoes on it, and one will be ready to eat soon. My dad also pointed out that we have a wild blackberry patch growing behind our fence. Yum! Our pepper plant is making progress as well. So I guess you could say we're off to a good start.

Interesting fact, aside from actually constructing the beds, the gardening we're doing is virtually no work, so anybody can do it. With the economy tanking, I would advise doing it, even if you have limited space. Just do a little research and you'll be fine! In another post, I'll put up a list of good books on the subject.

FDR was a FASCIST!

What a surprise. The following is an actual quote from our former fascist of a president:

"Are we going to take the hands of the federal government completely off any effort to adjust the growing of national crops, and go right straight back to the old principle that every farmer is a lord of his own farm and can do anything he wants, raise anything, any old time, in any quantity, and sell any time he wants?"
FDR after his idiotic agricultural program was shut down by the Supreme Court.

For more information FDR, read "FDR's Folly."

By the way, fascism is basically another word for socialism or communism. I'm not trying to imply that FDR was as bad as Hitler.

Obama Saves the day!!!

This video is awesome.

New Freedom Watch episode

Freedom Watch #17

Freedom Watch #16

Preparing for the economic crisis and having a good time as well

I didn't know this was possible until recently. My family has been talking about starting a vegetable garden for some time now, but it was just talk. With the economy in trouble, however, we've actually gotten a small start. Okay, REALLY small. Right now it's just a tomato plant and a pepper plant in a square formed out of cinder blocks. Next year, though, we're going to plant three 3-by-8 foot beds, which will most likely contain corn, green peas, onions, etc. At least, that's the plan. Something like that will save a lot of money, since we won't need to buy near as much from the store. Not only that, but it'll give us something to do during the summer and finally put the wasps to some use killing caterpillars. Another thing that we'll be doing that will not wait for next year is raising chickens. It's odd, but just a couple of days ago that idea would have been really weird. We live in a neighborhood, and have a fenced-in back yard with a dog, so you can imagine why I thought it was wishful thinking only. However, after hearing the idea and doing a little research, we discovered that having backyard chickens is well within the realm of possibiliy. Chickens are actually quite easy to care for, and pay for themselves and their coop in a matter of months. They also make entertaining pets, as we've seen with some of our friends. The great thing about doing all this is that even if the economy doesn't collapse, we still benefit by having fresh produce, fresh eggs, fewer expenses, something to do when we're bored, and amusing pets.

Memorial Day: Just who are we honoring?

If it's only the soldiers who truly fought for freedom, then I guess we're just celebrating the patriots in the War for Independence, possibly the War of 1812, and the Confederate soldiers. Now, I have nothing against the soldiers themselves, but look back at all the wars we have fought (and are fighting) and ask yourself "Are/were our freedoms threatened?" Looking back, aside from the wars mentioned above, the answer is no. In fact, wars are more of a threat to our freedoms than any country around today. Most wars have been a means to gain more government power by scaring the daylights out of citizens. I'm not saying we shouldn't honor the soldiers who have died, but it should be in memory of those killed by the government who were essentially tricked into believing they were fighting for freedom. Memorial Day should give everyone a feeling of anger toward the government and its pointless wars and power grabs.

Freedom Watch #15

Okay, folks, I'm going to begin posting episodes of Freedom Watch. The show is hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano, and deals with issues affecting your freedoms and rights. Regular guests are congressman Ron Paul, Mises Institute chairman Lew Rockwell, and Thomas Woods, author of the bestseller "Meltdown." Follow the links after the video is over to begin the next segment. Enjoy!

Absurd Conclusions About the Secession of Texas

It's really weird. It seems like almost any liberal talking about the possibility of Texas seceding reaches the conclusion that it will be taken over by Mexico. Huh? If Mexico would take over Texas, why don't they also take over Ecuador, El Salvador, any of those little countries in Central America? They'd be easier than Texas.

Obama Teleprompter Mutiny!!!

This is to funny. You'll have trouble bringing yourself to watch this video if you get embarassed for the person (like I do), but after watching, you'll want to see it again and again and share it with the world.

Just why is everyone so scared of the Arctic melting?

I'm serious. Even if every last bit of Arctic ice melted, it wouldn't affect sea levels to any noticeable degree. I'm including Greenland's ice in this. The floating ice at the arctic would have approximately 0 effect due to the fact that it's ALREADY IN THE WATER. When ice melts in a cup of water it has no effect. This is because the ice is parially sunk in the water, which forces the water level up. When the ice melts, it stops forcing the water up but provides more water from itself, which keeps the water level at the same height. As for Greenland's ice, it would turn into a giant lake due to the topography of the area (specifically, it's in a giant bowl created by its own weight). Now of course there is other ice in the area that could affect sea level, but only to a minimal extent. As for Antarctica, it's getting colder. In other words, the worst we have to fear is new shipping lanes, a rise of a few inches, and easier oil drilling. Shudder.

One of the Most Absurd Claims I've Ever Heard

Last Friday, I was at Barnes & Noble (the book store) wandering in the history section. I picked up a book titled "Lies My Teacher Told Me," and flipped to a section about the War Between the States. Of course, they referred to it as the "Civil War." After reading for roughly 2 seconds, I gave up all hope of a politically incorrect book. Below are the claims the author makes, and my responses.

Insane Claim #1: Textbooks are slanted toward the Confederacy. Yes, the author actually made this claim.

Response: Yeah, that explains why the public is generally convinced that Lincoln was a saint, the Confederates were racist Nazis, and that Gen. Grant was a hero. This applies, pathetically enough, to Southerners as well.

Insane Claim #2: South Carolina seceded almost completely because of slavery and tried to control the actions of other states.

Response: No, they didn't, and no, they didn't. Granted, the author backs up the first subclaim, which is better than what I see from most liberals, but it's still highly inaccurate. Of course slavery was one of the reasons, but the author claims that the tarriff was only a minor issue and fails to mention the cultural/religious differences, which gave secession a boost. The tariff was in fact a huge issue. The way it worked was this: The government raised large import/export taxes, which delivered three blows at once. It hurt the cotton industry, which relied on Europe to buy most of its cotton. It made it expensive for the South to buy goods from Europe and forced them to rely more on Northern goods, which were more expensive and often lower quality. Last, all the tax money was spent on projects in the North, and not a penny went to the South. Lincoln also promised higher tarriffs. Now, as for trying to control other states' actions, the author cites South Carolina's complaint about some Yankee states discouraging officers from enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law. That's not an attempt at control, that's just a complaint! Sure, it may have INFLUENCED those states, but that's not control. Oh, yeah, and if good old South Carolina seceded over slavery, why did the C.S.A. Constitution ban the slave trade?

Insane claim #3: Sherman never burned Columbia, it was because the Confederates burned cotton and bridges, which started the fire. See why I call these claims absurd?

Response: Fortunately, the author never denied Sherman's burning of Atlanta (to my knowledge, at least). As for this claim, everyone knows that Sherman's men burned a whole lot of small, unimportant towns as well as some major ones, and we're expected to believe that he never touched the capitol of the first state to secede! The author completely neglected to mention the eyewitness accounts of drunken Yankee soldiers running around with torches. Of course, those eyewitnesses were biased, so we can't trust them! However, we can trust whatever Mr. Sherman says, because he wasn't biased! I don't believe a word of it.

And now, on a lighter and yet still Lincoln-related note

This has to be the best commercial ever.

It just keeps getting worse and worse...

After watching the following videos, you will feel like running up to D.C. and screaming your head off. You will also probably get an intense hatred for our brilliant government.

Proof that we need to GET OUT.

I found this horrifying article on my dad's blog, The New Mrs. Gunderson. If you don't think we're at the point that secession is a necessity, think again. This is nothing short of communism. This is EXACTLY what the Soviets did. It DOESN'T WORK.


U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy
By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.

The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.

The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.

Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.

The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.

Geithner plans to lay out the administration's broader strategy for overhauling financial regulation at another hearing on Thursday.

The authority to seize non-bank financial firms has emerged as a priority for the administration after the failure of investment house Lehman Brothers, which was not a traditional bank, and the troubled rescue of AIG.

"We're very late in doing this, but we've got to move quickly to try and do this because, again, it's a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they're systemic," Geithner said last night at a forum held by the Wall Street Journal.

The powers would parallel the government's existing authority over banks, which are exercised by banking regulatory agencies in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Geithner has cited that structure as the model for the government's plans.

Proof that secession is legal

Now, despite the video, probably not everyone who reads this takes secession seriously. Well, I have one thing to say in response:
Nothing. But the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and various highly respected people sure do!!

Quote #1: The Union "was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right to do so." Alexis de Tocqueville, author of the book Democracy in America, written not to long after the US' founding.

Quote #2: "We should be determined... to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government... in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness." Thomas Jefferson.

Quote #3: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment, United States Constitution.

Quote #4: "The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the RIGHT but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint." John Quincy Adams.

The last quote means, in short, "Secession wouldn't be good, but it would be a heck of a lot better than being forced to stay together."


I hope I've convinced the rest of you.

In your face, Lincoln!!!

Now I think you should start taking me seriously if you haven't yet.

Benefits of Secession

You probably saw my older post suggesting secession, and you probably thought I was crazy. This post, however, should show you that, although I'm still a nut, secession is a good idea. The best part of it would be just getting out of current troubles, and starting all over. A clean start is exactly what we need. We could look at all the mistakes the US has made and in the new country's Constitution make it as difficult as possible to repeat those. Think about it: seeing on the news "major US bailout about to take place" and not having to worry about it at all. Or seeing the crazy-high US inflation rates and knowing that you won't have to worry since your country's economy is solidly on the gold standard. And imagine being freed from the incredibly stupid Endangered Species Act. Or even sending DDT over to the poor countries that are plagued with malaria, something the US isn't allowed to do, since after getting rid of malaria here, the government banned it. Not to mention, no UN!!! Oil drilling!!! Nuclear power plants!!! I for one would be happy with just half of those benefits.

Various Interesting Facts Involving Abraham Lincoln and Secession

Fun Fact #1
Lincoln supported secession until it happened.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right-a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Abraham Lincoln, Jan. 12, 1848.

Fun Fact #2
West Virginia shouldn't exist.
"but no new States shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." Article IV, Section 3, U.S. Constitution.

Fun Fact #3
New Hampshire is trying to secede.
Apparently, libertarian orginizations are requesting libertarians to move there to get a powerful majority, the state already having a large libertarian base. They will then attempt to secede, and if successful, will hopefully convince my home state of North Carolina and my favorite state of South Carolina to do the same.

My baloney detector exploded last night

Anyone who's read Philip E. Johnson's book "Defeating Darwinism" will understand what I'm talking about in the title. As you probably know, if you know me, a NOVA program on Intelligent Design was run on PBS (Propoganda Broadcasting Service is what it REALLY stands for). I am telling you, that thing was only a little more of a documentary than Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." The whole thing was completely biased, and was just one enormous, reeking smear on Intelligent Design. It was so thoroughly riddled with inaccuracies and thinly disguised smears that I did something I've never done before: I yelled at the TV. It constantly referred to Intelligent Design theory as "creationism," which it most certainly is NOT!!! It gave examples of Christians burning a mural showing the evolution of man and sending hate mail to the parents who filed a lawsuit against the Dover, Pensylvania high school. Yeah, and I'm quite sure that the evolutionists never did crap like that! The lawsuit was filed because the school required that a short statement be read that stated that Darwinism was just a theory and recommended students to a book about I.D. They did not cancel out Darwinism, so what was the big deal? Oh, wait, I forgot that I.D. was "religion," and therefore is unconstitutional to teach. Never mind that the First Amendment specifically states that it is limited to CONGRESS passing laws about religion! In fact, it was expected for the states to pass religious laws, and originally the states were mostly specific denominations. If a school wanted to ban Darwinism and teach Genesis instead, it's perfectly constitutional. Not necessarily right, but certainly constitutional. Then there were the arguments in the courtroom reenactment. Those from the evolution side were absolutely PATHETIC! Archeopterix (hope I spelled that right)! Wierd fish fossil! Mouse trap used as tie clip! Yes, that last one was a real argument against the mousetrap example of irreducible complexity. Those must have been the weakest arguments in favor of Darwinism I've ever seen. I've seen better from comments on Youtube for goodness' sake! Unfortunately, I didn't get to see how the trial ended, but I can probably guess. Oh yeah, and some of the ones that were against teaching "religion" and filed the freaking lawsuit supposedly lead a Bible school as well. It even showed a video of them singing hymns with some kids. Is it just me, or is that kinda contradictory? They file a lawsuit against teaching Intelligent Design, and yet lead a Bible study? That's not right.

Truly Disturbing

Would you like to know something incredibly twisted? Well, I'll tell you anyway. For my current events in school, I needed to find some articles on euthanasia, which is essentially a doctor purposefully giving a lethal dose of medecine, or something else, to a patient when they request it. This is usually reserved for terminally ill patients, and sometimes for patients in extreme pain, but it's really nothing more than assisted suicide, which is wrong. Anyway, I googled "euthanasia," and was greatly disturbed by what I found. As I looked at the lists, I found that waaaaay over half of the links were protesting animal euthanasia, while the remaining links were mostly in favor of human euthanasia. Now, this may just be me, but I think there's something really wrong with that picture. However, I did find several sites that protested it, so hope is not lost... yet.

My top books for politically incorrect info

#1: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism
It's an excellent book for people interested in the subject but who don't understand the scientific mumbo-jumbo.

#2: The Politically Incorrect guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Again, a great book for anyone interested but who don't want to bother with the advanced stuff.

#3: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science
Sort of a combination of the above two, it also discusses nuclear power and other scientific subjects while keeping it understandable.

#4: The War Between the States: America's Un-Civil War
This book is essentially a history of the war and Reconstruction from a Christian perspective. It's also my main source of Lincoln info.

#5: The Really Inconvenient Truths
A great book about environmentalism in general, it talks about the environmental catastrophes that environmentalists and liberals have caused.

#6: Liberal Fascism
This discusses liberalism's similarities to fascism, but without calling names at all. It also talks about liberal policies and beliefs.

Hooray! More Lincoln!

Like the picture? I edited it myself. Believe it or not, I've discovered more things with which to ruin Lincoln's reputation! Let's start with before the War itself. After most of the Confederacy had seceded, Lincoln suspected that the Maryland legislature would vote to secede. His solution was very effective: he simply arrested everyone he suspected, preventing the vote. After the Methodist Church sent a letter protesting Lincoln's tyrranical actions (including the War itself), he promptly confiscated all Methodist Church property in Maryland. Nice guy, talk about freedom of speech. One other story involves a senator who spoke out against Lincoln and was promptly jailed. When Lincoln saw that keeping him in prison was only making himself look bad, he exiled him to the Confederacy. Well, I guess I need to find a new president to bash, I'm nearly out of stuff about Lincoln.