WHAT HAPPENED TO SHIRLEY?

Apparently SHIRLEY SHERROD live is no longer interesting to the media or the Liberals. Where in the World is Shirley Sherrod? asks and answers the question of why this lack of interest. Simply put Shirley is a liability to the Liberal Media, Democrats like Howard Dean and the Obama Administration. A liability because she is not quite so innocent as she was painted.

Recall that she was ousted by the Obama Administration for her now infamous speech at a NAACP event in Georgia where she admits, back in the day, that she “didn’t give the full force” of her resources as a state USDA official to a white farmer because, well, he was white. But then she saw the light and came to realize that it’s not only about white and black (her words), but it’s also about rich and poor. So she helped the guy out.

On the surface, Shirley is a great story of an Innocent Victim. But below this facade, Shirley makes the Liberals, Democrats and Liberal Media look bad. The NAACP reacted without checking facts, even though the NAACP had a FULL copy of the tape. Tom Vilsack and The Obama Administration reacted without checking facts, and without allowing Ms. Sherrod to explain. Howard Dean, DNC chairman, falsely accused Fox News of being raciest. The Liberal Media, who continue to accuse the Conservative Movement in America of racism also looks like a bunch of hypocrites.

After Andrew Breitbart released the video of her remarks, the left’s media race-baiters went into all-out attack mode. From CNN to Newsweek, from CBS to CNBC, those outlets helped to saint Sherrod, claiming that Breitbart was a ‘nut job’ (Ed Shultz from MSNBC said that gem), a “bully” (CNN’s Anderson Cooper) and that Breitbart was engaged in, along with Fox News, a “smear campaign” (Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter). This all before we even heard Mrs. Sherrod’s side of the story.

Up to this point it's great copy for all with a Liberal agenda including the Obama Administration. It's another story to show all Conservatives as racist.

But then Shirley speaks.

Then, she stepped to the podium and confirmed to America what Breitbart’s video conveyed: Shirley Sherrod is a rambling race-hustler. Speaking with Anderson Cooper, she said that Andrew Breitbart would like to “get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again.” Uh. What? How can she even come out and imply that this is how Andrew Breitbart feels when she doesn’t even know him and all she does know about him is of a videotape that he released of her own words?

Oops Shirley is beginning to sound very racist herself.

Then, Shirley took her anger out on—who else?—Fox News. Speaking with the Washington Post, Sherrod said she wouldn’t go on Fox because she felt that they considered her a “pawn” and that the network wanted to go “back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”

Suddenly Shirley is no longer news. She has become a liability.

Since Sherrod’s incoherent and racial media blitz, she hasn’t popped up anywhere. Where’s the media’s canonized darling? “Reporters” have been quieter than a church mouse on the whole incident. Granted, our propagandist press probably realized that they fabricated Fox’s and Breitbart’s involvement in Sherrod’s firing (even Jon Stewart acknowledged this!)

So here is the answer to the question "What Happened to Shirley?"

Shirley Sherrod went on a racially tinged rant, this time in the safe confines of the leftist media, and was never heard from since. They’ve given her a pass. Sherrod is now harder to find than Waldo. I don’t blame her. She’s demonstrated that her world view is deeply shaped by race and gender.

Apparently Shirley is no longer useful to the Left.

UPDATE: Here is a link (Race on the Brain) to another race related story. Consider how the Obama Administration uses Race Politics to further the Obama Agenda.

The Obama administration’s race absorption apparently has a shelf life of about three years. Consider the list: Reverend Wright, “typical white person,” the Pennsylvania clingers, Michelle’s campaign editorializing about the U.S., “cowards,” the Professor Gates mess, “wise Latina,” the president’s race-based DNC video, the suing of Arizona, the comments made before the law was read, the sudden characterization of al-Qaeda as racist, the disturbing stories coming out of the Justice Department that some decisions are now race-based — and on and on. Each outburst in isolation is a sort of Macaca moment, a brief news item; in their totality, they have now more or less cemented in the minds of most Americans that Obama and his appointees see race as a sort of wedge issue by which to further an agenda.

Here is another related Link (Left Admits: Racism Charges Against Tea Parties a Tactic, Not a Truth)

Washington, D.C. – Members of the Project 21 black leadership group are condemning the left's false use of the accusation "racist" as a political tactic, saying they recognize the strategy from the teaching of left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky.

Former U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chairman Mary Frances Berry, a long-time prominent liberal activist, has admitted in an interview with Politico that the left is trying to smear the tea party movement as "racist" for strategic reasons, not out of genuine concern that the movement is itself racist.

Berry called the tactic an "effective strategy" and chose not to denounce it.

Race relations will not get better as long as comments like the following are allowed to go unchallenged by the Left.

Berry, now the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and History at the University of Pennsylvania, was asked, "will branding the tea party 'racist' work?"

Berry replied:

Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one's opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.

President Obama, The first Black President, has become a Race Polarizing President.

DoD CAN ACCOUNT FOR $400,000 - MIA $8.7 BILLION

The Department of Defense says not following regulations makes it impossible to account for $8.7 Million of the $9.1 Billion in Development Funds for IRAQ. SIGIR: Defense can't account for $8.7 billion because...

"This situation occurred because most DoD organizations receiving DFI (Development Fund for Iraq) funds did not establish the required Department of the Treasury accounts and no DoD organization was designated as the executive agent for managing the use of DFI funds," the report states.

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) finds that only one Defense organization actually set up the accounts required by the Treasury.

The fact that $400,000 could be accounted for is only because one Defense organization followed Treasury requirements is unacceptable. Where did the money go? Unfortunately, we will probably never know.

OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE

On July 7th of this year, President Obama made several recess appointments. One of those was Dr. Donald Berwick who will head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Recess appointments usually cause grumblings from the opposite political party. In this case Republicans. But also in this case the complaints came for some Democrats. Obama Uses Recess Appointment To Install Berwick As Head Of Medicare, Medicaid from Kaiser Health has a summary of comments from the media.

One of the Democrats is Max Baucus of Montana. Senator Baucus is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As such Senator Baucus is the one who would schedule the hearings for Dr. Berwick's nomination. Senator Baucus had not scheduled any hearings as yet, so this is one nomination which cannot be blamed on the Republicans.

[Sen. Max Baucus] "said he was 'troubled' that Obama chose to install Berwick without a formal confirmation process. 'Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered"

There is a very real possibility that Dr. Berwick's confirmation both in committee and before the full Senate, might not happen because of his Health Care Views.

Dr. Berwick does not believe waste in Medicine. But waste to him appears to mean something different than what most Americans call waste. It means Health Care rationing to Dr. Berwick.

Dr. Berwick has championed the interests of patients and consumers. At the same time, he has spoken of the need to ration health care and cap spending, has supported efforts to 'reduce the total supply of high-technology medical and surgical care' and has expressed great admiration for the British health care system. [Emphasis Mine]

In a interview with Katherine T. Adams, senior editor of Biotechnology Healthcare, published in June 2009, Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research, Dr. Berwick states ...

The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. [Emphasis Mine]

That's what Dr. Berwick means by waste. He wants to measure the care of each patient, each procedure as to whether it is COST EFFECTIVE.

As mentioned earlier, Dr. Berwick "...has expressed great admiration for the British health care system". Here is a look at the present state of British Health Care. Axe falls on NHS services is an Investigative Report form the UK's "Sunday Telegraph".

Patients’ groups have described the measures as “astonishingly brutal”.

How brutal. Here is what the investigation found.

The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include:

* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.

* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.

* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.

* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.

* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.

* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.

* Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

Many laughed when Sarah Palin talked about Death Panels. In light of the above, can anyone seriously say these cuts will not cut short the quality of care and possibly result in premature death for some of the patients covered under British Health Care? The same kind of Health Care System favored by Dr. Berwick? The same kind of Health Care System which is the result of ObamaCare? And now ObamaCare under Dr. Berwick?

BUSH TAX CUTS

President Bush requested and Congress approved what are now known as the Bush Tax Cuts. Those cuts are due to expire on December 31, 2010 (less than 6 months from now). What happens then. Here is the analysis from the Heritage Foundation. (Make the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent)

If the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are allowed to expire, millions of working families will see their economic prospects dim, their job opportunities diminish, and economic uncertainty rise.

By the way this study was published on January 5, 2006, but nothing has changed these findings.

Taking a look at what Taxes were cut, will reveal how your Taxes will change.

• Tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points; [4.5%]
• Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate; [50% increase]
• Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return;
• Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;
• taxes on dividends will increase beginning on January 1, 2009;
• taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on January 1, 2009; and
• Federal death taxes will come back to life in 2011, after fading down to nothing in 2010.

[Note: the dividends and capital gains items were extended by further tax cuts in 2006. The correct date for increased taxes on dividends and capital gains is now also January 1, 2011]

What if the Bush Tax Cuts are made permanent? These are the economic benefits starting in 2011.

• Total employment will rise by 1,087,000 jobs per year, on average;
• Annual GDP will be over $111 billion higher, after inflation;
• Personal savings will grow by $163 billion per year, on average, after inflation; and
• After-tax household income will grow by an annual average of $274 billion per year, after inflation.

However, these benefits become economic losses if Congress fails to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. What is the cost of failing to act? Over one million lost jobs each year between 2011 and 2014; over a hundred billion dollars less in economic output per year; slower wage and salary growth; slower savings growth; and so on.

The argument on the Liberal side of the aisle is that we cannot afford the loss of income extending the tax cuts will cause. Further any tax cut should not benefit the wealthy. Therefore Liberals/Democrats in Congress will only allow those tax cuts to expire on those making $250,000 or more (the wealthy).

Conservative/Republicans in Congress disagree. The fact remains that taxing the wealthy increases the share of Tax Revenue the rich pay. But, if tax increases take more of the Wealthy Classes money, the economy will suffer, unemployment will grow and Tax Revenue will actually decrease. It is a never ending spiral to bankruptcy.

Why can this claim be made? The reason is simple. Those who have wealth, are the ones who invest and expand capacity in business. Investment and expansion of capacity creates jobs. Those who have jobs, pay taxes. The more who pay something, the more tax revenue increases. It is true that as a by-product of the investment/expansion the rich get more too. But the benefits accumulate more for the not so rich. They have jobs. They can spend money. They pay taxes. It is the American dream that anyone can become wealthy. But they need a job 1st to start the creation of wealth process.

Think about this. If Tax Increases are good, why stop at a rate of 39.5%? Why not make it 50%, 75% or even 100%? The reason is also obvious. Ask yourself, who creates jobs? The more we take from the wealthy, the less they have to create jobs. The wealthy also have less incentive to earn more. If the wealthy earn less, Tax Revenues also decrease. It is not a never ending bucket to be dipped into at will

However, to end here is not enough. We must also cut spending. The Government is not really much different than your household. Government, like you, cannot continue to spend more than Income without collapsing in Bankruptcy.

We have gotten away from the principle of a budget which we must live within. We have gotten away from the reason Income and other Taxes are necessary. Taxes are necessary to fund our Government Spending. They should be tied together. We must cut spending with the Tax Cuts. Tax Cuts by the way are not the same as additional spending. They do not increase the National Debt. Spending does that. Tax Cuts will, as history has shown, increase Tax Revenue and bring Economic Health to the USA.

Tax Cuts in the short term, reduce income, but we are here for the long term. We all want something better for our children and grandchildren. Tax Cuts, along with Budget Cuts, are the two things that will insure we do leave them something better.

ILLINOIS POLITICS HAVE GONE NATIONAL

Another writer has decided that what President Obama learned in Chicago he has taken to the White House. PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY writes in Investors Business Daily (IBD) Illinois Failures Go Nationwide Under Obama that President Obama has taken the failure of the financial policies to a National Level.

'Unsustainable" is a scary word that recently entered political discourse, coming authoritatively from Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf. Unsustainability is the operative moniker for Barack Obama's massive deficit spending, which Elmendorf said "cannot be solved through minor tinkering."

Massive Deficit Spending, in other words spending much more than income over a period of time. How much is illustrated by this statement.

The CBO predicts an increase in our public debt from $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion at the end of 2020 if Obama's fiscal 2011 budget is implemented. As a percentage of gross domestic product, the debt will rise to 90% from 53%.

By the end of 2020 our current fiscal policy will almost double the National Debt in 11 years. By 2020 we will be spending 9 cents for every 10 cents of National Gross Product. This is the path of Greece. And it is ludicrous to think that the richest country in the world will be financially unable to sustain itself by 2020.

So what will be necessary to avoid this fate?

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., sharpened the focus by asking the CBO director: "What's going to be necessary (is) either a 25% increase in taxes or a 20% reduction in spending, or some combination thereof. Is that correct?" Elmendorf replied "yes."

A 25% increase in TAXES is one choice. Think you are paying too much in Taxes now? Consider what a 25% increase would do to your family.

There is another problem with a tax increase. Once Congress gets its hands on more revenue, they find another way to spend it. Politicians don't like to give up money. On the other hand, this madness of Spend, Spend, Spend and let someone else pay for it has to stop. It must stop before we are bankrupt.

For an example of where we are headed, lets look at where Obama came from.

Illinois was the stomping ground for years for Obama, his top advisers Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, and his appointees such as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. After they promoted themselves to Washington to run the country, other Obama associates who didn't make the cut continued to run Illinois into the ground, as the Illinois unemployment rate jumped from less than 5% to nearly 11%.

Illinois is now projected to be in a worse financial condition than California. Want proof?

Under years of Democratic leadership, Illinois has refused to honor its obligations, cut spending or trim its shockingly large deficit, which at $12 billion per year approaches nearly half its budget. As a result, Illinois' credit rating has been downgraded and it pays a massive amount in interest on its loans.

Unemployment is nearly 10% at present. Actually it is much higher. The only reason the "Official Unemployment Figure" is 9.5% is the Government has stopped counting those who have given up looking for a job. Business owners are not hiring because of the cost of doing business is uncertain. Taxes are going up. Health Insurance Tax, Business Taxes, Estate Taxes and Income Taxes are going up, but nobody knows how much. In this unsettling financial climate, employers cannot afford to hire new people.

The challenge for all of us who vote is to elect the people who will create jobs. The jobs will be created by balancing the budget and reducing the size of Government.

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS BEING DISINGENUOUS

Obama to GOP: Restore Jobless Benefits contains a video link and some of the text of President Obama's address today. It is rather shameful that he is playing partisan politics and name calling.

On Monday, he sought to cast his Republican opponents as hypocritical for having voted for extensions of unemployment benefits when his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush, was in the White House, but not now. He accused Republican leaders of subscribing to what he called a misguided notion that providing unemployment aid to people lowers their incentive to look hard for a job.

However, the following quote is the most disingenuous, misleading, misrepresentation of the facts.

"That attitude, I think, reflects a lack of faith in the American people," Obama said. [Emphasis Mine]

Our President should be a positive influence, not practicing what can only be called highly partisan remarks. Obama knows and Harry Reid knows that an alternative Republican proposal is on the table which would allow passage of extended Unemployment Benefits. The only question is how do we pay for the $34 cost of the extension.

Update:
Offshore drilling moratorium affects everyone to the tune of 12,046 Jobs lost. That's directly due to President Obama's Moratorium on Offshore Drilling in The Gulf of Mexico.

TARP Audit Questions Rush to Close Auto Dealers shows that when the Obama Administration chose to cancel the contract of GM and Chrysler dealerships this move cost 10s of thousands of jobs.

WE CANNOT AFFORD IT

The Senate Liberals and President Obama want to extend Unemployment Benefits. Senate Conservatives want to extend Unemployment Benefits. $34 Billion is the cost to extend these benefits. The question is simple. Can we afford to add $34 Billion to the National Debt? Senate Liberals say sure. Senate Conservatives say no.

The current National Debt is slightly over $13 Trillion. However, we have another unseen component of our true National Debt. The $13 Trillion does not include unfunded obligations for Social Security and Medicare Parts A, B and D. Financial analyst Ricardo Smith says our Unfunded Debt is slightly over $100 Trillion. (Details here What is the Total Unfunded Liability of the US Government?) Therefore the true measure of our debt is the sum of the parts. This totals a whopping $100 Trillion, plus the $13 Trillion. In short our National Credit card bill is a little over $113 Trillion.

Can we afford to continue to spend and promise more than we have? Sure, but the bottom line is the same for the Federal Government as it would be for you. Bankruptcy.

So the real questions should be, Can we afford Bankruptcy? Can we afford to spend our Children's and Grand-children's Inheritance? The answer to both questions should be a resounding NO!

Despite all the Political posturing by President Obama, Democrats in the Senate and the other Liberal talking heads, the Republican Conservatives in the Senate have offered a solution. Passage of extended unemployment benefits would be assured IF the Democrats in the Senate would agree to use unspent Stimulus Monies.

WHY CAN'T WE HAVE BOTH?

The Liberal members of Congress (mostly Democrats) and President Obama say the Conservatives members of Congress (mostly Republicans) are blocking passage of Legislation to extend Unemployment Benefits. Obama slams GOP for obstructing economic progress. In truth it is politics that is blocking this extension.

The Liberals want to extend the benefits at the expense of increasing the Federal Debt. The Conservatives want the extended benefits to be approved without increasing the Federal Debt. Conservatives say this can be done by using some of the unspent Stimulus Money. Liberals don't want to do that.

Again, each side is trying to paint the other as the bad guy. However, since the Stimulus is not working, why not put those funds to use? That way we can have both!

JEB BUSH IN 2012

Jeb Bush Biggest Threat to Obama in 2012 according to Top Democratic Strategist, Simon Rosenberg is Jeb Bush!

At a recent lunch at the headquarters of the New Democrat Network, a non-profit group founded by Rosenberg, the former Bill Clinton adviser said, "Jeb is married to a Latina, is fluent in Spanish, speaks on Univision as a commentator — his Spanish is that good.

Obama may have a hard time getting the Hispanic Vote if Jeb decides to run. At this time the Hispanic Vote appears to be what could decide the next Presidential Election.

Interesting, but 2012 is a long way off.

MEET THE NEW (LARGER) IRS

Along with admitting that the National Health Care Insurance is a TAX (see my previous post, Nat'l Health INS A TAX) , the IRS is now complaining that there are not enough IRS employees and not enough allocated monies for the required work the IRS must now do to comply with ObamaCare. Lost in Taxation is from the on-line version of the "Wall Street Journal".

[W]ith ObamaCare, the agency is now responsible for "the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history." And without "sufficient funding" it won't be able to discharge these new duties.

Nina Olson is the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate.

Ms. Olson also exposed a damaging provision that she estimates will hit some 30 million sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations, two million farms and one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations. Prior to ObamaCare, businesses only had to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase. But starting in 2013 they will also have to report the value of goods they buy from a single vendor that total more than $600 annually—including office supplies and the like.

.Not only will the size of the IRS and its Budget increase, the burdens placed on these 33 million business, farms and charities will be a job killer.

Ms. Olson says that the tracking costs for small businesses will be "disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvement in tax compliance."

With fewer dollars of profit due to additional expenses of compliance, fewer jobs will be created or saved.

If the unintended consequences of National Health Care are not already enough, here is another unintended consequence.

Meanwhile, the IRS will be inundated with useless information, because without a huge upgrade its information systems won't be able to manage and track the nanodetails.

Summary, National Health Care Insurance is a TAX. A TAX on everyone (not just the rich), which will cost more and kill jobs (except at the IRS).

NAT'L HEALTH INS A TAX!

Another campaign promise President Obama has broken. Details in this "New York Times" article Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax. The reason the Obama Justice Department has decided to admit National Health Care is a Tax is simple. Twenty states have challenged the right of the Government to require National Health Insurance under the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution, and they were going to loose. But calling it a Tax (which we all knew it was all along) makes for a stronger argument.

[I]n court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

So much for keeping Campaign promises. Here is the crux of the matter.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

Now this presents a real problem for the Democrats and especially for President Obama. Remember this statement by President Obama?

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

Congress took a large step with the language of the Health Care Bill to insure we would be convinced that this was not a tax. Look at the following language in the provisions of the legislation.

Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy.

Congress discounted the possibility and knew the public would not like a tax on anyone except the rich - those making over $250,000.00 per year. Now that the Obama Administration through the Justice Department have decided to defend National Health Care as a TAX (something Obama did not want to do), we all have confirmed what we knew in our hearts. National Health Care is a Tax on everyone, just like Cap and Trade will be if passed.

The Democrats, including President Obama, have been dishonest about what National Health Insurance is.

Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.

Mr. Obama "has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax." [Emphasis Mine]

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

OUT OF TOUCH WITH US

President Obama and Family (including Bo the family dog) are on vacation in Maine. Spending Tax Dollars while the Gulf Coast drowns in Oil. Everybody needs a vacation and the President is never really on vacation, but read this article from the Kennebec (Maine) Journal. First day full of sightseeing

Arriving in a small jet prior to the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.; and the president's personal aide Reggie Love, who chatted with [Karen] Baldacci (Gov. John Baldacci's wife).

Yes, that's correct First Dog Bo flew in his own plane separate from President Obama's Air Force One.

Earlier Friday, the Obama family was greeted by Gov. John Baldacci and U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, D-2nd District, when they arrived in Trenton at about 12:25 p.m.

The early-morning fog quickly burned off and the sky was bright blue for the arrival of Air Force One, which in this case was a G3 Gulf Stream.

Trenton Airport runways are too small for the normal 747 used as Air Force One. However, the entourage is described like this.

Air traffic at the small Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport in Trenton was shut down for the presidential arrival. A U.S. Coast Guard helicopter patrolled the air in anticipation of the first family's touchdown and a pair of local fire rescue trucks manned an otherwise empty tarmac at the private air hangar.

The Obamas then traveled onto Mount Desert Island in a motorcade of at least 16 vehicles. It was led by two Maine State Trooper cars and included five black Chevrolet Suburbans.

Well at least they used G(overnment) M(otors) Chevrolets.

After checking into their Hotel.

Continuing their aggressive agenda, the Obamas checked into their hotel around 4 p.m. and, about an hour later, boarded a National Park Service boat at the hotel pier for a brief tour of the harbor.

Surrounded and trailed by five smaller, faster Coast Guard boats as well as other crafts, the president cruised around Bar Island and Sheep Porcupine Island but turned around to head back into downtown Bar Harbor as a thick fog began to roll in.

I firmly believe that the President is entitled to vacation time, but this is the 3rd vacation since the Gulf Oil Leak began (he has also been Golfing 10 times). Would not Tax Payer Dollars have been better spent on a trip to the Gulf, rather than Maine?

IS THIS GOOD OR BAD?

World sizzles to record for the year courtesy of "USA Today" adds to the battle between Global Warming advocates and Global Climate Change skeptics. This like the proverbial "Is the glass half-full or half-empty".

The world is hotter than ever.

says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The co-founder of the Weather Channel and meteorologist, Joe D'Aleo, and Climate Depot website founder, Marc Morano disagree. Not about the world getting hotter, but rather that the warming is a problem which requires immediate attention and action.

Mr. Marano says

"...[government] is playing the climate fear card by hyping predictions and cherry-picking data."

while Mr. D'Aleo maintains the

"...oceans are entering a cooling cycle that will lower temperatures."

Mr. D'Aleo also claims

"...too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas."

and

"The only reliable data set right now is satellite."

So what does the satellite data show. According to Mr. D'Aleo:

NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.

There are few who deny that the Earth is getting warmer. But as this article indicates, there is still doubt about how this will effect the future of our planet. This matter is not settled yet. We need more data to make informed decisions. At this time there is no need to panic. It is a time to proceed cautiously. It is a time to do what is economically feasible to reduce Carbon emissions.

It is not a time to make rash political decisions. It is not time for Cap and Trade.

FINANCE BILL EXPLAINED

Read this article from "The Washington Times" Finance Bill Favors Interests of Unions, Activists

Besides all kinds of restrictive rules which will only result in higher cost to all or us, this bill expands the Government further by creating MORE THAN 20 new agencies.

Did you also notice the Finance Bill does little to reform the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac situation. Fannie and Freddie were at the heart of the Mortgage Crisis.

Now I suggest you also read this article Senate VIP Loans Mount from the Wall Street Journal. When banks are foreclosing on loans that should never have been made, it is disgusting to the sweetheart deals our elected Congressmen and their staffs were receiving.

Here is another link to information about the Dodd-Frank Bill Financial Reform, R.I.P. from Forbes.com.