I’m not going to say a lot about the rescue of the Chilean miners other that it was the answer to a lot of prayers and it was wonderful.  My two favorite articles on the rescue came from Hot Air yesterday and the Washington Post yesterday.  The article at Hot Air talked about the shift supervisor, Luis Urzua, who quietly assumed leadership early in the situtation and bears much of the credit for the fact that all of the men survived.  The Washington Post article deals with the role that the faith of the men played in their survival.

The Washington Post reports:

“The Seventh-day Adventists sent mini-bibles down to the crew, highlighting Psalm 40: “I waited patiently for the Lord; and he inclined to me, and heard my cry. He also brought me up out of a horrible pit … and set my feet upon a rock, and established my steps.””

As I listened to the news over the past two days, I was reminded of two other events when the world came together to pray for the safe return of people in danger.  The first was the flight of Apollo thirteen and the second was the rescue of Jessica McClure, an eighteen-month old child who fell into a well in Texas in 1987.  These are incidents that remind us that we are not in control.  I am grateful that God heard the prayers of those of us who were praying for the miners.

This story is based on an article posted at Human Events dealing with MTV’s claim that since President Obama’s telecast on MTV is not political, there is no need for the station to provide opposing opinions.  The article was followed by another article at Human Events about the audience and the questions being prepared for the show.

The first article states:

“The so-called “A Conversation with President Obama” will be live and commercial-free on six Viacom networks at 4 p.m. on Thursday. The networks will not give equal time to a Republican before the election, according to a spokeswoman.

“MTV denies that the Obama hour of TV is political, despite the timing, weeks before the midterm elections.”

The second article explains:

“The good news: President Obama is going to take questions from audience members at a live town hall event on Thursday, October 14. The bad news: You have absolutely no chance of being in the audience, and even if you did, your questions would be pre-screened and written for you.

“…The call for audience members spread online quickly last week. MTV was seeking “males & females, 18+” with “diverse interests and political views” to sit in the audience and possibly ask President Obama a question. Two of my colleagues were completely honest on their applications and listed themselves as “conservatives.” Unsurprisingly, they didn’t make the cut.”

I don’t know if this is standard politics or not.  I do know that I am bothered by it.  As I have gotten involved in local politics and have attended local political debates, I have learned that it is not unusual for the candidates to have their supporters ask suggested questions.  That really isn’t news–it’s just practical politics, but to totally control who will be in the audience and to give them scripted questions to ask does seem to be a bit extreme.

This is a quote from Jim McGovern at the debate when speaking of the fact that corporations can now donate to campaigns (as unions have been doing for years):

“We have a lousy Supreme Court decision that has opened the floodgates, and so we have to deal within the realm of constitutionality. And a lot of the campaign finance bills that we have passed have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I think the Constitution is  wrong. I don’t think that money is the same thing as human beings. I don’t think money equals free speech. I don’t think corporations should have the same equality as a regular voter in this district.”

That says it all for me.  At least corporations have stockholders that hold them accountable for the money they spend.  Who holds the unions accountable?  Every year when he takes office, Jim McGovern swears to defend the U. S. Constitution.  Why is he swearing to defend something he thinks is wrong?  My source for this quote is a website called The Other McCain. 

Tonight I attended the Candidates’ Forum for representative in Congress – 3rd District, Massachusetts, put on by The League of Women’s Voters of Shrewsbury and Worcester.  All three candidates took part in the forum — Pat Barron, the Independent candidate, Marty Lamb, the Republican Candidate, and Jim McGovern, the Democrat candidate.

There were about two hundred people at the event.  The Moderator for the event was Stefani Traina of the League of Women Voters of Andover – North Andover.  First of all, there was no American flag at this event.  Second of all, when one of the candidates brought up the voting record of Congressman McGovern, the moderator stopped him, calling that a personal attack.  When the audience responded loudly, a discussion of the candidate’s voting record was permitted. 

This was not really a debate.  The candidates were not allowed direct exchanges and there were many things said that I personally knew were not true, but there was no provision in the format the challenge the statements made.

The one thing that became obvious at the forum was that there is a clear choice in this race.  Congressman McGovern made no apologies for his record.  He claimed that he has brought many jobs into the district, despite the fact that the U. S. Chamber of Congress gives him a 35 per cent rating.  It was also mentioned that one of the businesses in the district that received government grants also made large contributors to Jim McGovern’s campaign.  Congressman McGovern made no apology for healthcare reform or the method in which it was passed.  He also claimed to be a protector of the well being of senior citizens.  This is an amazing statement since the healthcare bill he voted for in the dead of night includes $455 billion reduction in Medicare spending from 2010 to 2019 and has just resulted in 22,000 senior citizens in Massachusetts and two other New England states losing their Medicare Advantage plans.

Marty Lamb stated that he felt that the healthcare reform bill needed to be defunded, repealed,and replaced.  He stated that there were some good ideas in the plan, but that other good ideas needed to be included.  He commented that the hiring of 16,000 additional IRS agents as part of Obamacare was not one of the good parts of the plan.

Pat Barron generally stated that Washington is broken, both political parties are broken, and the only answer is to elect independent candidates who are not part of the ‘system.’

When the subject of term limits came up, Congressman McGovern said that he trusted the voters to implement term limits by way of elections.  In other words, when the people of Massachusetts vote him out, that will be the end of his term.  Marty Lamb expressed the idea that the Founding Fathers embraced the idea of the ‘citizen legislature’ that would serve in Congress for a few turns then return to the private sector.  Mr. Lamb stated that he was not interested in making a career out of politics.

Another difference was on the subject of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Congressman McGovern’s stand was that it should be repealed, and he supported the court decision to repeal it.  Marty Lamb stated that he would not comment on the issue until the Pentagon released its evaluation.  He felt that Congress (and the Courts) should listen to the opinions of the currently serving military leaders when dealing with the issue.

The choice is rather clear.  Congressman McGovern votes with Nancy Pelosi.  He follows the party line and has a very liberal voting record.  If you support higher taxes and more government regulation, he is your man.  If Marty Lamb is elected, he has pledged to look for ways to cut government spending and government bureaucracy.  His positions on illegal immigration, spending and other issues can be found at his website, MartyforCongress.com.  One of things that impresses me about Marty Lamb as a candidate is his willingness to take stands on issues and make specific recommendations. 

As I said–when you go to the polls in November, you have a clear choice.

In July of 2010 the cost of a barrel of oil was about $73 per barrel.  Today the cost is approximately $83 dollars a barrel.  President Obama said yesterday that he was lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  This story is based on information in the Daily Caller today and a story posted yesterday in the Washington Times yesterday.

The drilling moratorium was supposed to be lifted in November, but it was announced yesterday that it would be lifted early.  However, as usual, things are not always what they seem to be. 

The Washington Times reported:

“Mrs. Landrieu (Senator – Louisiana Democrat) said the announcement does not go far enough for her to release her legislative hold on Jacob Lew, President Obama’s nominee to be the new White House budget director. Likewise, Gulf State Republicans warned the new rules could create a bureaucratic bottleneck by being too onerous for drilling operators to comply with, saying it could be several months before their new applications are approved.

“”It’s clear that President Obama is going to preside over a continuing de facto moratorium for months or years, with new drilling held back to a fraction of previous levels,” Louisiana’s other senator, David Vitter, said.”

These are the people who understand what the moratorium has done to the Louisiana economy and the impact of the new rules.  You will notice that they represent both political parties.  They need to be listened to.

The Daily Caller concludes:

“The irony of the moratorium’s premature, but much needed end, is that it may compund negative reaction to the president by placing the drilling ban’s impact front and center on the national state.  Additionally, critics are deeply concerned that new safety regulations being pushed by the administraiton in the wake of the ban’s conclusion may result in many more months of a “de facto moratorium.”

“The case against the government for continually thrusting its untrained hand into private industry is reaching its peak, and as the Tea Party has been emphasizing for nearly two years now, the midterms will most certainly be a referendum on the scope of government.”

Again, Louisiana has a better idea of how to deal with offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico than Washington.  One other note–the cost of a barrel of oil has risen approximately $10 a barrel since July.  Meanwhile, it will take a while to get our domestic drilling back on line.  The $10 a barrel increase is going to impact senior citizens who were just told that there is no inflation and that they will not be receiving a Social Security payment increase for the second straight year in a row. 

Please consider these things when you vote next month.

Today Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line about the peace negotiations going on between Israel and the Palestinians.  Mr. Mirengoff cites a recent exchange between administration spokesman P.J. Crowley and members of the press as reported by Rick Richman:

QUESTION: P.J., do you recognize Israel as a Jewish state and will you try to convince the Palestinians to recognize it?

MR. CROWLEY: We will continue our discussions with the parties. I would expect, following up on the Arab League meetings of late last week that George Mitchell will go to the region at some point. I’m not announcing anything, but I — it would be logical for us to follow up directly with the parties, see where they are. . . .

QUESTION: And do you recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

MR. CROWLEY: We recognize the aspiration of the people of Israel. It has — it’s a democracy. In that democracy, there’s a guarantee of freedom and liberties to all of its citizens. But as the Secretary has said, we understand that — the special character of the state of Israel.

QUESTION: Is that a yes or no?

QUESTION: P.J., it’s — do you want to answer his question or –

QUESTION: Did you say yes or no to that question from Michel?

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: Michel’s question was a yes or no sort of question. I was wondering whether that was a yes or no.

MR. CROWLEY: We recognize that Israel is a – as it says itself, is a Jewish state, yes.

As to the other part of the original question — whether the administration will attempt to persuade the PA to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, the exchange continued as follows:

QUESTION: … Does the U.S. want the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

MR. CROWLEY: Look, I will be happy to go back over and offer some — I’m trying — I’m not making any news here. We have recognized the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people. It is a state for other citizens of other faiths as well. But this is the aspiration of the — what Prime Minister Netanyahu said yesterday is, in essence, the — a core demand of the Israeli Government, which we support, is a recognition that Israel is a part of the region, acceptance by the region of the existence of the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and that is what they want to see through this negotiation. We understand this aspiration and the prime minister was talking yesterday about the fact that just as they aspire to a state for the Jewish people in the Middle East, they understand the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own.

This is political gobbledygook.  How in the world can we be honest brokers of a peace process if its like pulling teeth for us to even recognize the statehood of one of the participants?   The peace talks broke down because Israel agreed to continue its moratorium on settlements if the Palestinian Authority (PA) would recognize Israel as a Jewish state.  The PA denounced the idea as ‘racist.’  I think that tells us all we need to know about why the peace process failed.

It’s time for a new Congress.  Let’s elect one in November.

Yesterday there was a parade and celebration of Southboro Massachusetts Heritage Day.  During the festivities I had a chance to meet two of the outstanding candidates running for office in Massachusetts–one running for a state office, one running on a more local level.

Jim McKenna is running for Massachusetts Attorney General against incumbent Martha Coakley.  Jim McKenna was a write-in candidate in the Republican primary on September 14th, where he received more than 25,000 votes.  That number is historic in write-in campaigns.  Jim McKenna has 10 years experience as a prosecutor.  He prosecuted public corruption and organized crime in Boston for three years while serving as an Assistant District Attorney in the Organized Crime Division of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office.

Jim also served for six years as an Assistant District Attorney in the Worcester County District Attorney’s office, which work included two years as supervisor of the Grand Jury Unit. He began his work as a prosecutor by serving in the Civil Division of the Franklin County [Ohio] Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.

In addition, for the last 17 years, Jim has taught courses on law and ethics as an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the part-time MBA program at Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s Department of Management. Last year, BusinessWeek ranked that program 9th nationally. This year, BusinessWeek ranked that program 1st – with UCLA, UC (Berkeley), Nebraska and Michigan rounding out the top five. 

For the last 5 years, Jim has served on the Board of Trustees of Quinsigamond Community College.

His platform includes restoring trust in government by prosecuting wrongdoing, enforcing illegal immigration laws, and bringing honesty and integrity to the office of State Attorney General.  He definitely has my vote. 

Lew Evangelidis is running for Sheriff in Worcester County.  Lew Evangelidis graduated from the University of Massachusetts with a degree in Economics.  He later graduated from Temple University School of Law.  He has worked as an Assistant State Prosecutor in Miani-Dade County in Florida.  Later Lew returned to Massachusetts where he was an Assistant District Attorney in Suffolk County.  He then returned to the private sector.

Lew Evangelidis is committed to reducing the number of repeat offenders to save taxpayers’ money.  He will create programs to develop crime, drug, and cyber bullying prevention programs for public schools.  His goals are simple–keeping people safe, ending patronage, saving taxpayers’ money and being a community partner and educator.  Lew Evangelidis is not part of the Worcester County political machine and will bring a breath of fresh air to the office of Sheriff.  I don’t get to vote for Lew Evangelidis–I don’t live in his district, but he is an example of the kind of qualified, knowledgeable candidate running for office in Massachusetts this year.  If you live in Massachusetts and are tired of the ‘old-boy network’ running things, this is the year your vote could change things.

These are some pictures from Southborough Heritage Day yesterday.

Today’s New York Daily News is reporting that state Board of Elections last week informed the Department of Defense that officials in New York City, Westchester, Putnam, Erie and Niagara Counties had failed to send out military ballots to soldiers serving overseas by the October 1st deadline.  The deadline was originally September 17th, but had been moved forward because of the September 14th primary election.

According to the article:

“Senator Charles Schumer said that sending ballots via regular mail can take up to 13 days, so he urged election officials to send them using overnight delivery to ensure that military votes are counted.

“Put these ballots on the next plane to Afghanistan,” Schumer said. “There is absolutely no excuse for failing to get this done.”

“The state board of elections did not immediately return a call. A spokeswoman for the city Board of Elections had no immediate comment.”

According to the law, absentee votes are counted until 13 days after election day.  There really is no excuse for this.  Our soldiers are fighting for people overseas to have the right to vote.  They should not be denied that right due to the inefficiency of government workers here!

Today’s New York Daily News reported that New York City police found several blocks of C-4 explosives Monday in an East Village cemetery.  No blasting caps were found, but six to eight blocks of the plastic explosives were found in a black plastic garbage bag just inside Marble Cemetery, on East Second Street, between First and Second Avenues.

The article reminds us that:

“Last year, four men were arrested in an alleged plot to bomb two synagogues in Riverdale and shoot down military planes at a Air National Guard Base in Newburgh.

“The suspects were busted in a sting operation after planting what they believed to be 37-pound C-4 bombs in cars outside the houses of worship.”

As of now, what the explosives were doing in the cemetery is unclear.  However, this does serve to remind us that the war on terror is still very much part of our everyday lives and we all need to pay attention to what is happening around us.

The above statement is attributed to Josef Stalin.  It has applied to elections worldwide at various times.  Unfortunately, it has applied to American elections at various times in the past and may apply in November.

Last week, Big Government posted an article detailing the threats to the integrity of the mid-term election in November.  The article connects the various ‘dots’ that are already in place to undermine the concept of ‘one man, one vote.’ 

• First Dot: The SOS Project
• Second Dot: The SEIU’s Shenanigans
• Third Dot: 11 Million Illegal Immigrants
• Fourth Dot: The Fake ID Industry & Meg Whitman
• Fifth Dot: Voter Registration
• Sixth Dot: Union GOTV Strategies
• Seventh Dot: Early Voting
• Connecting the Dots

The SOS Project is the Secretary of State Project (or SOS) founded by George Soros “to provide an easy-to-use, low-cost vehicle for online donations to reform-minded Secretary of State candidates and incumbents in key battleground states.”

The article reminds us:

“In the last five years of its existence, the SOS Project has been successful in getting nine out of 11 “progressive” secretaries of state elected. This includes Minnesota’s Mark Ritchie who oversaw the 2008-09 ballot recount* between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman. [Here are the races Soros’ SOS Project is active in for November.]

* In July 2010, an 18-month study by Minnesota Majority determined that at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally.  Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes. Claims that Franken, Soros and Ritchie stole the election have been ignored.”

The Second dot is the SEIU’s shenanigans.  These are well documented and include false voter registrations, fake signatures on petitions, and other activities.

The Third dot is illegal immigraiton.  The article reports:

“It is widely known that Big Labor bosses (most notably the SEIU, but most others as well) are fighting to get “immigration reform” legislation passed so that 1) they can unionize many of these workers and 2) they can turn them into “progressive voters.””

The Fourth dot is listed as the fake ID industry and Meg Whitman.  The timing of the charges against Meg Whitman were brought out at this time for the sole purpose of taking votes from Ms. Whitman in the California election.

The Fifth dot is voter registration.  Unfortunately almost anyone can register to vote.  The Department of Justice as yet has not been willing to enforce the portion of the motor-voter law that requires states to purge their voting roles periodically of people who are no long eligible to vote in the states in which they are registered either because they have died or are in prison.

The Sixth dot is Union GOTV stategies.  The article reports:

“At a news conference in Los Angeles’ historic Placita Olvera last week, Eliseo Medina, International Executive Vice President of SEIU and David Sanchez, President of the California Teachers Association announced that they will embark on the 9- city “Por Nuestras Familias – Todos a Votar!” bus tour beginning August 14, with the goal of reinvigorating Latino voter participation and empowering those who do not regularly cast their ballot on election day. The campaign will provide non-registered Latino voters the tools they need to vote and generate motivation among all Latino constituents through a permanent absentee application drive.”

The Seventh dot is early voting.  The article explains how this works:

“A couple of days ago, we received an anonymous tip from someone who had visited an SEIU office in Arizona and discovered that the union had allegedly registered more than 20,000 voters and was planning ‘early voting rallies.’

“In fact, according to the SEIU-backed group One Arizona’s FaceBook page, their first “early voting rally” is on October 7th, the first day early voting begins.

“Then, on October 16th, the group has planned a big ‘early voting rally‘ called ¡AYER MARCHAMOS – AHORA VOTAMOS! (or YESTERDAY WE MARCHED – TODAY WE VOTE!)

“The group’s object in holding this rally is apparently to have pro-immigration reform Latinos bring their ballots to mark them ‘together.’

“The tactic itself is an old union tactic when mail-in ballots are conducted during union organizing campaigns and the purpose is very simple: To get the voters to vote the right way by doing it together.  In this case, however, there appears to be more than meets the eye, especially if some of the attendees are in the U.S. unlawfully, but are still encouraged to vote.”

There is a video of this process in action if you follow the link to the Big Government article. 

In 2004, Hugh Hewitt wrote a book entitled, If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat.  We need to be aware of that concept as we go into this election in November.  Obviously I am supporting Republican candidates, but more importantly I would like to see an honest election.

On Wednesday, Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about the trial of a Tanzanian man accused in a plot to bomb two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998.  A federal judge barred prosecutors from using a key witness because the witness’s identity was discovered through questionable interrogation techniques used in secret CIA custody.  At a hearing last week, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Farbiarz said Mr. Abebe was a “giant” witness for the government and directly linked Mr. Ghailani to the explosives used in the attack.  The move by the federal judge will delay the trial for a week. 

This is only one of thes problem in conducting trials of terrorists in civilian courts.  There are also serious national security concerns about showing evidence to terrorists and having them share it with their lawyers (who might then choose to share it with terrorist organizations). 

The article points out:

“The danger here isn’t just to the case, either.  The DoJ will now go to an appeals court in order to carve out exceptions to Miranda and interrogation limits, which won’t just apply to AQ terrorists captured outside of the country.  Those exceptions will apply to everyone in the federal system.  The entire point of this vanity trial in federal court is for Obama to claim that (a) Bush was wrong when he pushed for military commissions (even though Obama plans to use them in other cases) and (b) that American civil courts can handle any kind of case from any jurisdiction, using the same laws that apply to US citizens.  If they go to the appellate court and argue for special treatment of Ghailani and others in his circumstance, it’s an explicit admission that those laws don’t work in these situations, and that the court was the wrong venue from the beginning.”

We are at war with people who murder innocent civilians in the name of Islam.  When we capture one of these people, we need to realize that he is a terrorist and try him in a military tribunal, where secrets can be kept and justice can be served.  We need to remember how we handled spies and saboteurs during World War II and follow our own example.

The previous article dealt with the resignation of Harold Lewis from the American Physical Society due to the Society’s support of the false science involved in global warming.  Not everyone has the intellectual honesty to admit that man-made global warming is not proven science.

Reuters reported yesterday that the European Union has reached a deal with the airlines that will allow the EU to charge the airlines an emissions fee. 

According to the article:

“The EU agreed in 2008 that airlines should be included in its emissions trading scheme (ETS), which forces industry to pay for permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit into the atmosphere.

“The ETS is the EU’s main tool for combating climate change and it wants to see the system adopted worldwide. Aviation is responsible for some 2 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.

“Some U.S. airlines had challenged the EU’s right to include their flights into and out of Europe within the ETS.

Does anyone believe that putting a tax (that’s what this is) on airllines is going to combat global warming?  Is is time to get out my business card that allows people to pay me $5 for not taking a shower on one day?  Man-made global warming is not science.  It is a scheme to transfer money from successful businesses into the hands of a few powerful people who have set up carbon transfer companies.  If you want to see how this works, look at the stockholders of the American carbon exchange companies and see how many Congressmen you find who are supporting ‘cap and trade’ legislation (that will make them richer!).  All this charge is going to do is make airplane tickets more expensive for the consumer.  It will have very little impact on anything else!

I apologize for the length of this article, but all of it is important.  The story comes from yesterday,s U. K. Telegraph.  I am quoting the article directly.  There is nothing I can add to the story.

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence–it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind–simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article entitled, A national call to action:  One citizen, one vote.  What a great idea! 

According to an article out this week in a left leaning news source:

“”Minnesota Majority, the North Star Tea Party Patriots and Minnesota Voters Alliance plan to spy on your voting this Election Day….

“Are volunteers going to approach voters in line outside schools and fire stations and scare them into showing their papers?

“DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez smells a rat: Election Integrity Watch is trying to dissuade minorities and seniors from voting. ‘There’s a possibility that they will keep people from turning out to the polls,’ he told MPR.””

It is amazing to see the left accuse conservatives of voter intimidation.  Aside from the obvious example of the New Black Panters in Philadelphia, I was informed of a similar incident in one of our western states.  It was handled well.  There is a difference culture in the west than in the east.  The person the intimidation was directed at informed her intimidators that she was voting with her two friends–Smith and Wesson.  That ended the intimidation.

This is the call to action in the article:

“Inspired by the first ever Beverly Hills Tea Party, the situation is that as Americans we need boots on the ground across the nation at the polls, not only to vote but ready with cameras and video recorders. This is a national call for citizen journalists!! If you are a volunteer working the polls and you see something happen please document and record. Resolute Media Group, Emerging Corruption and other New Media outlets will use social media (i.e. Face-book and twitter) integration to get the stories out that the liberal media will not cover accurately if at all. Text “Patriot” to 90210.”

The article points out:

“When America was founded, ordinary citizens used the media to spread ideas and even those who lacked funding were able to find ways of disseminating information. As citizen journalist our role is not to interact or intimidate, but to observe and report. The left should look at this as protecting the rights of everyone and they are welcome to participate.”

Please follow the link above to the original article to find out more.  We need an honest election!

I am not a lawyer, so there is a lot of what I am about to write that I totally do not understand.  However, I will try to understand it and get it across.

Yesterday the The Daily Caller posted an article stating that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.  The timing of this article is interesting as in Michican on Thursday Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit said the mandate to get insurance by 2014 and the financial penalty for skipping coverage are legal. He said Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation.

David Kopel at The Daily Caller has a different perspective.  He states that:

“The Obama administration’s stategy has been to try to delay the legal cases as long as possible.  In order to bring a case in federal court, a plaintiff must have “standing”–a personal, concrete legal interest, as opposed to a generalized grievance.  The Obama Administration asserted that no individual could have standing to challenge the mandate until 2014.”

Judges in Virginia and Florida have already rejected the Obama argument on standing, as did the judge in Detroit. 

The article states that the matter of whether Obamacare is constitutional is headed for the Supreme Court.  The article then concludes:

“The Supreme Court might choose to invent an “economic decisions” doctrine, and thereby stretch the Constitution beyond its breaking point.  Or the Court might decide to keep the Constitution as it exists, with congressional powers over interstate commerce that are very broad, but not unlimited.  The Thomas More case makes it clear that the Obamacare mandate to buy something you don’t want is constitutional only if the Supreme Court chooses to change the Constitution.”

As I said earlier, I don’t totally understand the legal issues of Obamacare.  I do know that the Massachusetts healthcare reform program that Obamacare was supposedly modeled after has been a disaster for consumers, health insurance providers, and medical care providers.  It would nice to see Obamacare stopped before it can do the kind of damage that Massachusetts healthcare reform has done.

John Hinderaker at Power Line reported yesterday on the resignation of Marine General Jim Jones as President Obama’s National Security Adviser and his replacement by political operative Tom Donilon.  This is not a good choice.  General Jones was respected by the military and was a Marine who took his job as National Security Adviser seriously.  Tom Donilon’s experience is that of a political operative.  Nothing qualifies him for the job he has been appointed to.

Power LIne quotes Andy McCarthy on the appointment:

“Andy McCarthy, meanwhile, skewers the New York Times’ characterization of Donilon as a “non-ideological pragmatist.” Of course, to the Times, Paul Krugman is a non-ideological pragmatist. Andy notes that Donilon’s boss, General Jones, like Gates, has reservations about him:

“Jones echoed criticisms that Donilon lacked critical national security experience and existed in a lawyer’s bunker, his power stemming from his status as a Democratic fixer who has the president’s ear — an ear Donilon routinely fills with “snap judgments” and “absolute declarations” about places he’s never been to, foreign officials he’s never met, and a military with which he has no credibility.”

The article describes Mr. Donilon as a totally political animal.  Please follow the link above to the article to read further details of Mr. Donilon’s work experience.  This is not the person we want in charge of our national security–he will do his best to keep the Democrat Party secure and nothing to keep the nation secure.

The Democrats face some serious challenges in the mid-term elections next month.  The economy has not responded in the way that they had hoped, and the Tea Party has energized a mushy Republican party.  What are they supposed to do?  Well, when in doubt, confuse the issue.

This story is based on two stories–an Associated Press story in the Long Island Press on October 8th and a story by Scott Johnson posted at Power Line on October 9th.  Both stories deal with a supposed Tea Party candidate running in New Jersey’s Third Congressional District. 

According to the article at Power LIne:

“Desperate times call for desperate measures. South Jersey’s Courier-Post newspaper now reports that the Adler campaign recruited a fake third-party candidate (Peter DeStefano) to draw votes from Jon Runyan, the Republican candidate opposing Adler.”  

“…Roh’s work is deserving of something like a Pulitzer Prize, but I doubt that it will get anything like the publicity it deserves. Roh helpfully quotes one Democratic operative providing the explanation for what has transpired: “The goal was to take 5 percent of Runyan’s vote.” The AP covers the story here.”

The Long Island Press reports:

“The operatives told the Courier-Post the plan was shared with members of the South Jersey Young Democrats, and some in that group gathered signatures for DeStefano – while others didn’t because they thought the plan was unethical.

“Republicans started raising suspicions about DeStefano months ago when they found many of the signatures on his nominating petitions were from Democrats, including a former Adler campaign staffer.”

There are other instances of this throughout the country.  There are some real questions about a third-party Senate candidate in Nevada and also some questions about a third-party candidate running for Governor of Massachusetts.  The idea is to split the Republican vote and allow the Democrats to win.  It’s probably not illegal to run as a third party candidate in order to split the vote, but it is another reason for voters to pay strict attention in this election season and vote carefully.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reported that the Social Security Administration sent about 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each to dead and incarcerated people.  The good news is that about 41,000 of the payments were returned. 

The article reports:

“The downside:  The SSA says that the stimulus package didn’t include a provision allowing it to try to retrieve funds  that were mistakenly sent out, so it can’t try to retrieve the rest of the money. Money transferred electronically may be sitting untouched in bank accounts of dead people.

“The combined total of the mistaken payments is $22.3 million.  About $12 million hasn’t been returned.”

Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma summed up the situation rather well when he said, “This report highlights the broader problems with the Recovery Act itself.  At a time like now, when nearly $350 billion in waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government annually has been reported and our national debt closing in on $13.5 trillion, these findings represent the epitome of congressional stupidity and a total disregard for accountability.”

The American government is a very large organization that does not have to make a profit.  There is no incentive to deal with waste, duplication of responsibility, or overspending.  These are not the people that we want to put in charge of our healthcare, which currently works–not perfectly–but reasonably well.  The government is not equipped to provide quality healthcare (or health insurance) to the entire population of America.  To ask them to do that with their proven record of inefficiency is foolish at best.  Vote Republican in November–that is a vote for defund, repeal and replace the healthcare bill!

Boston.com posted an article today about the latest intrigue in the Massachusetts gubernatorial election.  In case you haven’t been following the story, Paul Loscocco was the running mate of independent candidate Tim Cahill.  On October 2, 2010, Mr. Loscocco resigned from that campaign and endorsed Republican candidate Charles Baker.  Mr. Loscocco left the Republican party a year ago to run with Tim Cahill.  At the time of the resignation from the Cahill ticket, no specific reason was given for the decision.

Today, Mr. Loscocco released a statement stating that “Cahill, a former Democrat, admitted that one of his top political advisers, Neil Morrison, was coordinating with the top strategist for Democratic Governor Deval Patrick’s reelection campaign, Doug Rubin, about ad strategy against Baker.” 

According to the article:

“Loscocco said Cahill had committed to him that “we would at all times be in the race solely to win and that the campaign would never become party to any efforts to re-elect Governor Patrick. Unfortunately, in my opinion he did not live up to those commitments and is not now running a campaign fit for the highest office in the Commonwealth.”” 

The Cahill campaign has had problems since the spring of this year.  There have been charges and counter charges since then.  On Thursday, Tim Cahill filed a lawsuit “accusing his former strategists and aides of conspiring to sabotage his candidacy by orchestrating Loscocco’s defection and giving information to Baker’s team and the RGA (Republican Governors Association).”

I can honestly say I have no idea of what is going on here.  I would like to point out that Tim Cahill has been the Massachusetts State Treasurer since 2003.  He was a Democrat until he left the party in 2009 to run for governor as an independent.  Was he a candidate put there by the Democrat party to take votes away from a Republican?  Will his candidacy take votes away from Charles Baker?  At the rate his campaign is falling apart, will he take votes away from anyone?

Stay tuned and get out the popcorn!

On Wednesday, Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article about recent charges by the Democrats that the United States Chamber of Commerce was using foreign money to fund Republican election campaigns.  Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of the charge (some us remember Al Gore at the Buddhist temple, Charlie Trie, and Johnny Chung), there is absolutely no evidence to back up the accusation. 

Paul Mirengoff notes:

“Journolist, or its functional equivalent, must be alive, well, and working overtime somewhere in cyberspace. At least that’s my explanation for how accusations of impropriety and illegality against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spread in about a day’s time, from the lefty Think Progress blog, to Huffington Post left-winger Sam Stein, to MSNBC, and then to editorial pages of the New York Times and, via funnyman Al Franken, to the U.S. Senate.”

Mr. Mirengoff makes three good points about the allegations:

• First, there is no evidence to support the charges.  The United States Chamber of Commerce has stated that it has a process in place to make sure foreign money is not spent on American elections.
• Second, “there is a serious tension between the claim of Think Progress and other leftists that the Chamber’s alleged conduct violates the law and the standard leftist talking point that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates to foreign spending in U.S. elections. In reality, as Think Progress’ allegations of illegality against the Chamber acknowledge, foreign spending in U.S. elections remains illegal.”
• Think Progess is saying that even if the Chamber of Commerce is not putting foreign money into American campaigns, foreign money has the effect of freeing up other money for campaign use.

This is an amazing statement from any Democrat operative.  The AFL-CIO has a robust foreign program.  The SEIU has a Canadian division. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has members not just in Canada but also in Panama and several Caribbean nations.  All of these unions collect dues.  Don’t their dues free up money for American election campaigns?

This is another example of an attempt to sidetrack voters.  It’s not good enough to qualify as an October surprise.  Mostly it just qualifies as a waste of everyone’s time and energy!

I attended a press conference this afternoon by Marty Lamb, candidate for the U. S. House of Representatives from the Third Congressional District of Massachusetts.  Mr. Lamb held the press conference to say that the cuts to Medicare included in the healthcare reform bill passed by the Obama Administration are unacceptable.

This is the press release from the press conference:

Today, Marty Lamb, Republican candidate for Congress in Massachusetts Third District, criticized Congressman James McGovern for saying Obamacare “is paid for.”

During an interview on April 1, 2010, with “On the Record, “Congressman McGovern claimed Obamacare is “paid for” and it is going to “reduce the deficit.”

“The incumbent is just plain wrong.  His statement is just more proof that he will say or do anything to push his partisan agenda,” said Lamb.  “I don’t think Medicare cuts for seniors are the way to pay this new government mandate.”

After the bill was passed, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the new healthcare law could potentially add another $115 billion over 10 years to government healthcare spending, pushing the 10 year cost of the overhaul to about $1 trillion.

Factcheck.org stated the following:

“Obama has also said he has “identified two-thirds of those costs to be paid for by tax dollars that are already being spent right now.” But “identified” is the operative word. These savings are estimates and whether around $650 billion (about two-thirds of the cost of health care over 10 years) can be saved remains to be seen. Most of the money would come from Medicare, but cuts in payments to insurers and practitioners aren’t popular measures that move easily through Congress.”

“Unfortunately, this bill robs Peter to pay Paul by cutting Medicare.  Adding another trillion in federal spending is not a sound decision for our country’s fiscal well being,” said Lamb.

Lamb fears that the new healthcare law will cost even more than $1 trillion.  “Here in Massachusetts we saw the predictions for costs grossly underestimated.  Worse yet, health insurance costs skyrocketed for the small business community.  We should not repeat these mistakes on a national basis,” said Lamb.

The final version of the President’s healthcare overhaul legislation contained $500 billion in cuts to Medicare.  These are some of the specifics:

• In a 3/20/10 Congressional Budget Office letter to Speaker Pelosi, the non-partisan office estimated that the reconciliation package would result in a $455 billion reduction in Medicare spending from 2010 to 2019.
• CNN.com’s Political Ticker reported, “The reform plan includes cutting the costs of Medicare, the government-run health plan for seniors, by about $500 billion”
• The Washington Post reported, “it would cut an additional 60 billion from Medicare, bringing total cuts to the program to more than $500 billion over the next ten years.

Obamacare is not even in full effect yet, and already there are major problems.  USA Today is reporting today that 30 companies have received exemptions from the provisions of Obamacare.  The Department of Health and Human Services said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn’t lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

According to the article:

“”The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they’ve got,” says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. “Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they’ve got.””

The article closes with this comment:

“The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says.”

Keep in mind that all this is happening before Obamacare even takes full effect.  We need to elect a Congress that will first defund this disaster, then repeal and replace it with legislation that includes tort reform, tax breaks for individuals buying their own health insurance, and portability of insurance across state lines.  Remember that in order to stay in business and provide the quality of healthcare all Americans have come to expect, health insurance companies and medical providers need to be profitable.  We need to remember that profit is not a crime.  A vote for any Democrat running for Congress is a vote for Obamacare to continue its destructive ways.