Plasma Televisions Cause Global Warming
A gas used in the making of flat screen televisions, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is being blamed for damaging the atmosphere and accelerating global warming.
Almost half of the televisions sold around the globe so far this year have been plasma or LCD TVs.
But this boom could be coming at a huge environmental cost.
The gas, widely used in the manufacture of flat screen TVs, is estimated to be 17,000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide.
That quote is from this article. Do you need any more proof that the global warming hoax is nothing but a means to secure the subjugation of the actions and behaviors of the American people? I know how paranoid that thought sounds, but think about it. Every “solution” to this scam involves Americans changing their behaviors and paying more taxes and fees. So on top of all of the behaviors that are voluntarily going to be given up there are the freedoms that Americans will be forced to give up because they won’t be able to afford them with all of the new taxes they are paying. The government will get you coming and going.
Just read on:
“We don’t know what’s emitted, but what they’re producing every year dwarfs these giant coal-fired power plants that are like the biggest in the world,” he said.
“And it dwarfs two of the Kyoto gases. So the real question we don’t know is how much is escaping and getting out.”
Plasma televisions are worse for the environment than the largest coal fired power plant in the world? Give me a fucking break. I am so tired of these people and their self righteous, I am so much smarter than you, I care about the environment and you don’t attitudes I could just scream. AAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
In this article we learn that Chris Dodd isn’t the only prominent Democrat to receive preferential treatment from the mortgage industry. Barack Obama also received a sweetheart deal with a mortgage broker.
This is the same industry that these Democrats believe is so corrupt that they have introduced a bill, which has now passed that would require people in the mortgage industry to register with a national fingerprint registry.
They have no problem however when it comes to them receiving what some are calling illegal gifts in the form of sweetheart mortgage deals.
The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a “super super jumbo.” Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.
Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama’s rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.
Driving the recent debate is concern that public officials, knowingly or unknowingly, may receive special treatment from lenders and that the discounts could constitute gifts that are prohibited by law.
“The real question is: Were congressmen getting unique treatment that others weren’t getting?” associate law professor Adam Levitin, a credit specialist at Georgetown University Law Center, said about the Countrywide loans. “Do they do business like that for people who are not congressmen? If they don’t, that’s a problem.”
While Barack Obama supports the mortgage bailout bill, along with the national fingerprint registry, he also supports receiving a special deal from the same industry that he condemns. Perhaps if he and other senators like him weren’t getting these sweetheart deals the mortgage industry wouldn’t have to make back the money they are losing on the senators by fucking over the “little people.”
Barack Obama isn’t the answer to the mortgage crisis, he is part of the problem. I laugh every time I hear any of these people complain that they got tax break, they claim they don’t need a tax break. It is a publicity stunt. They know it plays well to some Americans. The truth is they love to get breaks. If they truly believed that they should pay more taxes, than shouldn’t they at least pay the same mortgage rate as every other American?
We don’t hear them complaining about the preferential treatment they got on their mortgages, do we? No, because they can’t blame George W Bush for that, they can only blame themselves. And now Barack Obama is in the same category, he is no better of different than the rest.
Massachusetts legislators really, really wanted to increase the cigarette tax and they wanted to do it as soon as possible. So much so that stores began to charge the extra $1.00 a pack before it was even signed into law.
A legislative snafu threw the state’s cigarette tax hike into chaos yesterday, leaving some smokers fuming that they had to pay the extra buck a pack even before the plan was signed into law.
Revenue-desperate lawmakers planned for the tax bump to go into effect at midnight Monday, but Gov. Deval Patrick didn’t sign it until late yesterday afternoon. Some stores quickly started charging the extra fee anyway,
Revenue desperate lawmakers? Why are they revenue desperate? Because they spend money they don’t have and when the bill comes do, it is time for the tax collector to come a-knocking.
Lawmakers in Massachusetts fast tracked this bill through because they were so anxious to screw the taxpaying politically incorrect smokers out of even more money. They fast tracked it so much so that even the tax and spend governor couldn’t sign the tax increase fast enough. Knowing Deval Patrick, he was probably out of state trying to secure his cabinet position once Barack Obama is elected president and couldn’t get back to fuck over the smokers quick enough.
But that didn’t stop many stores from charging the tax before the tax became law. But it wasn’t really the store’s fault, they were told that it didn’t matter when the bill was signed, the tax was to go in effect on July 1st.
We were told that it was effective this morning,” Fitzgibbons said. “We were told that it doesn’t matter if (Patrick) signs it next week; the law is July 1. We did what we were told.
A retroactive tax. It is just a technicality in Massachusetts when the bill gets signed, but if it is going to get signed, why wait until it is signed? Especially when it involves fleecing the people out of more money.
Governor Patrick cleared up the whole mess (not) today by saying that the government will take the extra dollar that some stores charged but will not punish those that did not charge the extra tax.
So yes, the tax did go into effect whether the governor signed the bill or not, but in typical Deval Patrick style if you didn’t obey the law there are no consequences.
Read more here.
Massachusetts Raises Cigarette Tax $1.00 a Pack
As you can read here Massachusetts’ Governor Deval Patrick has signed a bill that will increase the tax on cigarettes by $1.00 a pack to a total of $2.51 a pack. Once again a tax is being imposed on a group of politically incorrect people to help to pay for the government’s penchant for overspending.
The mostly absent, vying for a cabinet position in a Barack Obama presidency governor of Massachusetts had no problem getting into town to pass more taxes onto the people who were foolish enough to vote for him.
The part about the cigarette tax that irks me the most (and I am a non-smoker) isn’t just that this tax unfairly targets a small percentage of the people, it isn’t even the fact that this tax is imposed on this group of people while all the other lesser taxed people benefit from it, it is the fact that this tax hurts the poor much more than anybody else.
Let’s face it, the less fortunate are hit harder by this tax than anyone else, plus they are addicted so it makes them easy targets. The government knows that they can keep on raising the tobacco tax because the people that use the product can’t stop using the product. The fact that Democrats claim that they care about the poor and less fortunate while evil Republicans only care about themselves is what really ticks me off about this.
This tax increase went into effect , and in some cases before the bill was even signed (more on that in my next post), because the Massachusetts government was so eager to increase revenues before the start of the new fiscal year.
The Massachusetts government doesn’t care about the residents, it only cares about how much of the resident’s money can it steal. And they are doing a great job at stealing money.
If this were the 1700’s the tobacco would find it’s way to the bottom of the fucking harbor.
SSHHH. Don’t tell anyone. It’s a secret. The Iraq war has slinked off into a dark corner of the American mind and is hiding. There is one reason and one reason only for this. There isn’t enough bad news to report, so there is no report. Without the media harping on the war day and night the American people have let it slip from their minds.
Not only is there not enough bad news to report but there is actually some good news (good news is a relative term when writing about war, let’s just establish this point now so I don’t get the usual “there is no good news during war” comment that I surely would get) coming out of Iraq. Of the 18 benchmarks that were set to show improvement in Iraq 15 of them have made satisfactory improvement. This is an improvement from last year when only half as many benchmarks were deemed satisfactory.
Congratulations are in order for the brave men and women who are over there fighting and teaching, and helping, and nurturing. These people do not get enough praise when it is deserved and they get more than their fair share of grief during the harder times.
Naturally Democrats are proclaiming that this is just propaganda released by the Bush administration as they don’t think our troops could possibly do anything worthwhile. Instead of praising our troops for their hard work and dedication in the face of unimaginable danger and uncertainty they choose to diminish their accomplishments by calling what they have achieved nothing more than political rhetoric.
Democrats and the Bill of Rights
The reaction by liberals to last week’s Supreme Court ruling that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms has had me thinking about where they stand when it comes to the constitution. To me the Supreme Court ruling was a no-brainer:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no room for interpretation to that sentence other that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. But if you look at a couple of Democrat legislators and their reactions you will see that they do not care at all about the PEOPLE’S right to keep and bear arms:
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J):
Today, President Bush’s radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future.
The Supreme Court upheld the second amendment and it was greeted with contempt by many on the left, just peruse the liberal blogs and comments left on articles written about this ruling on various websites. You would think a constitutional right was taken away, not affirmed.
There you have their stance on the second amendment, they are against it. But what about the first amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Prohibiting the free exercise thereof, that is part of the first amendment in regards to the freedom of religion that has been conveniently discarded in today’s America. Just try to put up a Nativity scene on the public common and see what happens. Can you say ACLU? The free exercise of religion has been taken away from Christians, the word “God” is practically the eighth dirty word that you can’t say on television (my little tribute to George Carlin there), and any mention of God in public is likely to draw dirty looks from the easily offended, or from those afraid to offend the easily offended.
The first amendment then goes on to say; or abridging the freedom of speech. Where to start here? I guess I will start with liberal Republican and presumed presidential nominee John McCain. (And Democrat Russ Feingold).
It is no longer acceptable to run a campaign ad before an election because of these two liberals. The freedom of speech has been restricted before an election. This campaign finance reform law that was authored by McCain and Feingold has been dubbed the incumbent re-election law because it virtually guarantees that the incumbent will be re-elected. It is now illegal to “speak” out against a candidate just before an election.
But the attack on the freedom of speech is just beginning, right Nancy Pelosi? Democrats are looking to re-institute the fairness doctrine.
Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.
“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation
The “Fairness Doctrine” is anything but fair. It is nothing but an attempt to destroy free speech on the radio. It is an attempt to kill conservative talk on the radio. It is an assault on the first amendment. It is an attempt by Democrats to silence people who disagree with their positions. Not only is this an attack on free speech, it also violates this section of the first amendment; or of the press.
So Democrats appear to be against the freedom of speech, religion, and press, as well as the right to keep and bear arms. All of which appear in the bill of rights. So what rights DO the Democrat believe in?
Recently the Supreme Court made the horrible decision that alien enemy combatants captured on the battlefield were entitled to the right to have their case tried in American courts as if they were citizens and the constitution actually applied to them. They aren’t and it doesn’t. This right was given to people who have no “right” to it.
The Supreme Court gave the “right” to a woman to decide whether or not she wanted to kill her unborn baby under the guise of the “right” to privacy. The “right” to choose has been written into the constitution, and it is heralded by the left.
Neither of these issues are in the bill of rights yet they have been written into the bill of rights and the left has embraced these issues as if they were constitutional rights. The freedom of speech, press, and religion as well as the right to keep and bear arms are under attack by these same people. It makes you wonder where these people are coming from and how they view the constitution.
They consider the constitution a living document and they are trying to mold it into their belief system. They see rights that don’t exist and they ignore ones that do.
John McCain Says Immigration Reform is his Top Priority
Last year John McCain worked with Ted Kennedy and wrote the comprehensive immigration reform bill that President Bush wanted. Bloggers and talk shows and the American people rose up and let it be known in no uncertain terms that we were firmly against this disastrous legislation. The bill was eventually killed by politicians after they heard from angry constituents. While many times it seems as though the voice of the people is ignored, this was one time where it wasn’t.
Until now.
Republican voters with short memories have nominated one of the authors of this bill and now we have two candidates who will pass this bullshit legislation and sell hard working Americans down the river to common criminals who broke the law just by being here.
Today John McCain said that comprehensive immigration reform is a top priority of his if he is elected president. This should come as no surprise seeing how this is the issue that I thought was the death knell in McCain’s candidacy before the ignorant voters of New Hampshire breathed new life into his campaign.
McCain has said that he has learned from his past failure on this issue that Americans want the border secured first and he is now willing to secure the border. While he is right that we want the border secured he still believes amnesty is the answer. IT’S NOT! Americans do not want to reward illegal activity by granting illegals the right to citizenship. There are no jobs that Americans won’t do! God, that statement pisses me off! Remove the illegals, end welfare, and see how quickly Americans run to those jobs that they won’t do. Plus the jobs will pay more if illegals aren’t doing them.
Now Obama is trying to out-McCain McCain by claiming he is the candidate that will best sell hard working Americans down the river to illegal immigrants. This is the state of affairs that we now find ourselves in. It is sad.
There is no way we are going to be able to stop this bill again. With a president in favor of this legislation and with more conservatives being voted out of office this bill will pass and be signed into law. Hard working Americans, already struggling with a downturn in the economy and high gas prices will now be fighting with people who have no right here for a job. Amnesty will be given to those who don’t deserve it and Americans will suffer. But we deserve it. We nominated these two candidates.
I can understand it on the Democrat side, but Republicans? The memory of the Republican voters was too short, at least on this issue, and New Hampshire voters rejuvenated John McCain and now we have to live with the consequences.
America, on behalf of the New Hampshire voters, I apologize. I didn’t realize my fellow New Hampshire voters were so foolish.
More on the Supreme Court Upholding the Second Amendment
This is an editorial that appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader and it sums up my exact feelings on the recent Supreme Court decision that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms, only it does so much better than I was able to accomplish.
Here are some excerpts followed by my comments:
FINALLY, we can put to rest the canard that the 2nd Amendment protects the government’s right to arm itself rather than the people’s right to defend themselves from, among other things, the government.
That opening paragraph really says all that needs to be said. The gun control advocates would have you believe that the second amendment applies to only the militia. An Army. A government army. They would have you believe that while all other rights in the bill of rights guarantees the rights of the people that for some reason the government would find it necessary to protect it’s own right to bear arms, and not the people’s. When you think about it that way the whole anti-gun crowd sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it?
Frighteningly, four members of the U.S. Supreme Court sided with this anti-gun spin.
That is the scary part of this whole ruling, the closeness of the vote. We were one vote away from losing the second amendment. The editorial continues:
Two Supreme Court justices who voted to nullify the 2nd Amendment — John Paul Stevens, age 88, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 75 — are almost certain to be replaced by the next President. Justice Anthony Kennedy turns 72 next month and Justice Stephen Breyer turns 70 in August.
The next President will replace at least one, probably two, and possibly four Supreme Court justices.
The editorial then goes on to claim that this is the reason to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama, and if this were any other Republican nominee I would agree. But because of McCain’s love for crossing the aisle I don’t trust him to actually nominate conservative judges. Even if he did he will be facing a huge minority in the house and senate and will have to do what he does best and compromise his principles. He will nominate judges that he knows will win approval of the Democrat majority in the house and senate. As will Barack Obama. There is no difference in the end game even on this issue from both of the candidates.
Barack Obama Supports the Domestic Spying Program
Recently I wrote about how Russ Feingold didn’t have the courage of his supposed convictions and will not filibuster what the Democrats have labeled the domestic spying program. This is because despite the rhetoric, Democrats know that this is a vital tool for protecting the country. The only calls that might be monitored are incoming calls that originate from states that harbor terrorists.
I was curious to see how Barack Obama would come down on this issue and now I have my answer, and I am surprised. I just assumed that Barack Obama would be against this issue, after all he is a Democrat and would never side with the president, would he? At least publicly. Privately Russ Feingold believes this is a vital program or he would fight it. Now we know that Barack Obama also knows that this is a vital program, as his statement shows us.
So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.
He supports domestic spying, only he says that he is much smarter and will use the program much better than the current president.
Barack Obama, you are a fraud and a hypocrite. You do not have the courage of your convictions, or at least your public convictions, you know even as you criticize President Bush that he is right but you must pander to your ubber-liberal base so you decry his policies even as you support them. You try to claim that you are not like the others, but you are.
We are supposed to believe that even though Barack Obama has stated he is against this program, that he supports it, he just disagrees with the way the president has run it. He is trying to change the argument, he thinks we are too stupid to realize what is going on here.
Barack Obama supports this program but in trying to play to the far left he has to pretend he doesn’t so he claims that if he were president he would run this program differently. But he would still run it. Interesting, considering he has publicly stated that this program infringes on the rights of the American people.
Which is is Obama? Is this program necessary to keep America safe, or does it infringe on our rights? If that phone does ring at three AM, Barack may be listening.
Today the supreme court ruled that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms, and that the second amendment didn’t just apply to militias. A big victory for the second amendment, gun owners, America, and the constitution. So how did Democrats react to the supreme court upholding the constitution and the citizens right to keep ans bear arms? I am glad you asked.
From Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.
What else would you expect? Typical liberal gibberish. Did Dianne Feinstein have a problem with the supreme court breaking precedence last week when the courts bestowed upon enemy combatants the right to a trial as if they were American citizens? I think not! Stop being two faced.
More Democrat reaction, this one from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J):
Today, President Bush’s radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future.
Upholding the constitution is radical? I suppose it is if you are on the left and you can’t implement your policies the proper way, through legislative process, and you are relying on the courts to force your positions on the American people.
Only Democrats could see the supreme court uphold the constitution and think it is a bad thing.
