MCCAIN'S TOP 20 VP LIST!
by Ed Moore
Includes Tom Coburn...read more at:
Friday, June 13, 2008
Homosexuality takes Congress by storm!
by Jeff Johnson- OneNewsNow-6/13/08
The two openly homosexual members of the U.S. House of Representatives have recruited 50 of their colleagues(including two Republicans?) to officially join them in promoting the homosexual agenda in Congress...... Read more at:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=134506
Thursday, June 12, 2008
PREPARE FOR DISAPPOINTMENT IVAN!
Ivan Holmes, the State Chairman of the Dems responded to the Oklahoman's editorial today with the dribble below. Ivan says if the Dems got control of the State House and treated "R"s like they have been treated in the past 4 years, he would be THE MOST DISAPPOINTED DEMOCRAT IN OKLAHOMA. Ivan concedes that Democrats in the past treated "R"s like they have been treated since the Republican took control of the House. Welcome to politics Ivan- if you are in the majority, your agenda and your issues take precedence over the minority's issues and agenda. The Dems controlled our state government for almost 100 years and their lack of leadership got us to 47th in the country in per capita income. One of the reasons the Dems lost control of the state house was their unwillingness to deal with the issues and agenda the "R"s had proposed for years. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Ivan says WE HAVE CHANGED- WE WANT TO WORK TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF OUR STATE. FAT CHANCE! Democrats just want to be back in power. If Ivan believes the Dems have changed he is a hoot- drunker than a hoot owl smoking a cigar! Steve
In the Tuesday, June 10th editorial in the Daily Oklahoman titled, "Ivan the Funny" it stated the "Democrat party boss is a hoot."
I might agree with you that I am "a hoot." However, I don't believe I am a hoot because I believe there has been a lack of democracy in the House leadership on hearing bills during the current session.
The editorial said that the Democratic campaign theme that our party will run on this year will be the lack of democracy in the Republican controlled House. The editorial said I "didn't like Democrats having done to them what Democrats did to Republicans when the GOP was the minority party."
Gary Jones, Oklahoma Republican Party Chair, has said on numerous occasions that similar complaints were made when Democrats controlled the House.
It is my opinion that two wrongs don't make a right. I cannot go along with the philosophy that because Democrats did something wrong in the past it is alright for Republicans to do something THEY KNOW IS WRONG now. So Ivan concedes that in the past Dems treated "R"s bad?
This "pay back" philosophy has caused Oklahoma voters to lose faith in our political system.
Last week I met with a number of the Democratic House leaders and during the meeting I told them that if we are able to take back the House leadership in November I hoped they would not do to the Republicans what the current Republican leadership has done to them for the last two years. They assured me that they will open up the House to include Republican input if Democrats re-gain control of the House. Their word means nothing. They promised to hear right-to-work for years but stonewalled it and never got it to the floor.
If Democrats do take back the House in November and don't allow Republicans to have the right to hear and debate their bills I will be the most disappointed Democrat in Oklahoma. Prepare for disappointment Ivan- you will lose at least 3 seats in the State House and control of the State Senate for the very reason you cite above- Democrats are unwilling to work with "R"s on issues that matter. You had the first 100 years- we'll take the next 100.
Ivan Holmes
I might agree with you that I am "a hoot." However, I don't believe I am a hoot because I believe there has been a lack of democracy in the House leadership on hearing bills during the current session.
The editorial said that the Democratic campaign theme that our party will run on this year will be the lack of democracy in the Republican controlled House. The editorial said I "didn't like Democrats having done to them what Democrats did to Republicans when the GOP was the minority party."
Gary Jones, Oklahoma Republican Party Chair, has said on numerous occasions that similar complaints were made when Democrats controlled the House.
It is my opinion that two wrongs don't make a right. I cannot go along with the philosophy that because Democrats did something wrong in the past it is alright for Republicans to do something THEY KNOW IS WRONG now. So Ivan concedes that in the past Dems treated "R"s bad?
This "pay back" philosophy has caused Oklahoma voters to lose faith in our political system.
Last week I met with a number of the Democratic House leaders and during the meeting I told them that if we are able to take back the House leadership in November I hoped they would not do to the Republicans what the current Republican leadership has done to them for the last two years. They assured me that they will open up the House to include Republican input if Democrats re-gain control of the House. Their word means nothing. They promised to hear right-to-work for years but stonewalled it and never got it to the floor.
If Democrats do take back the House in November and don't allow Republicans to have the right to hear and debate their bills I will be the most disappointed Democrat in Oklahoma. Prepare for disappointment Ivan- you will lose at least 3 seats in the State House and control of the State Senate for the very reason you cite above- Democrats are unwilling to work with "R"s on issues that matter. You had the first 100 years- we'll take the next 100.
Ivan Holmes
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
George Porter is a fellow columnist at The Duncan Banner.
This well written column desires wide distribution.
Global warming and fiscal reality
by George Porter
by George Porter
The Senate was to take up a cap-and-trade greenhouse gasses reduction bill last week, but gas prices around $4 a gallon helped defeat the measure before it got started. Only 48 senators voted to bring the issue up for a vote – 12 shy of the 60 needed. The Lieberman-Warner bill had no chance of being passed this year, and President Bush had promised to veto any cap-and-trade bill that might reach his desk. But backers had hoped to elevate carbon dioxide reduction as a major campaign issue and for the passage of a bill in 2009 under an Obama or McCain administration.
Both McCain and Obama have endorsed cap-and-trade greenhouse gas reduction legislation, but their proposals differ widely and this difference needs far greater publicity than the media has so far provided.
Under cap-and-trade, the government sets emission standards and issues permits at no charge to companies that produce greenhouse gas emissions. Those companies that are able to produce less greenhouse gasses than they have permits for may sell the permits to companies that would otherwise exceed the government imposed limits. This is how western European nations have operated under the Kyoto treaty.
The McCain plan essentially copies the European system. Obama proposes to auction these permits to the highest bidder, which would bring in an estimated $7 trillion to the U.S. treasury by 2050. That $7 trillion is a tax on business that would have to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report stated: “Most of the cost of meeting the cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. These prices would be regressive in that poorer households would have a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households.”
Senator Jim Inhofe in an op/ed in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) commented we don’t need a climate tax on the poor, citing that while most Americans spend about 4 percent of their incomes on heating their homes or other energy needs, the poorest fifth of Americans spend 19 percent.
How to spend this $7 trillion of new tax revenue is the new game for Washington politicians, and this would be the largest redistribution system since the adoption of the income tax in 1913.
Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Clinton, had a novel recommendation in the June 4 WSJ – to return all the new revenue to every adult citizen in the form of a check from the U.S. Treasury. If in the first year the revenue were $150 billion, each of the 150 million adult citizens would receive a check for $1,000. If that revenue were 300 billion, the check would be for $2,000. An IRS that pays you annually, based solely on what companies have paid the government for greenhouse gas emission permits!
Problem is, more and more scientists are speaking out – there is no scientific basis to believe changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming. Other non man-made factors determine the earth’s warming and cooler patterns.
Further, most of the recent growth in CO2 emissions comes from rapidly expanding economies in China, India and Brazil. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lieberman-Warner would reduce world levels of CO2 by 2050 by only 1.4 percent if the U.S. were to act alone.
A June 7 WSJ column reported on the recently concluded Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Conference, where about 50 leading world economists including five Nobel laureates ranked about forty of the world’s problems that could be fixed with an “extra” $75 billion spread over four years. Supplements of vitamin A and zinc for the world’s undernourished children ranked first – with an annual cost of $60 million yielding benefits in health and cognitive development of over $1 billion.
The entire rankings are receiving world media coverage. It is irritating to some that global warming as a world problem came in dead last on this list. The report of the Copenhagen Conference 2008 concludes the cost is astronomical for an insignificant reduction in temperature.
Inhofe is a leading opponent of the global warming alarmists, and concluded his WSJ column “Tomorrow’s energy mix must include more natural gas, wind and geothermal, but it must also include more oil, coal and nuclear power – which is the world’s largest source of emission-free energy. Developing and expanding domestic energy sources will translate into energy security and ensure stable supplies and well-paying jobs for Americans.”
The debate on greenhouse gas emission will return to the Senate in 2009. It first came up when the Kyoto protocol was being drafted in the 1990’s, and the Senate voted 98 to 0 against considering the treaty. Last week they again voted not to consider. Next year may be the third straight loss for environmental alarmists as the world continues its’ present cooling trend.
George Porter is a retired insurance company executive and a Duncan Banner columnist. He may be reached at geo.porter@att.net
Both McCain and Obama have endorsed cap-and-trade greenhouse gas reduction legislation, but their proposals differ widely and this difference needs far greater publicity than the media has so far provided.
Under cap-and-trade, the government sets emission standards and issues permits at no charge to companies that produce greenhouse gas emissions. Those companies that are able to produce less greenhouse gasses than they have permits for may sell the permits to companies that would otherwise exceed the government imposed limits. This is how western European nations have operated under the Kyoto treaty.
The McCain plan essentially copies the European system. Obama proposes to auction these permits to the highest bidder, which would bring in an estimated $7 trillion to the U.S. treasury by 2050. That $7 trillion is a tax on business that would have to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report stated: “Most of the cost of meeting the cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. These prices would be regressive in that poorer households would have a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households.”
Senator Jim Inhofe in an op/ed in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) commented we don’t need a climate tax on the poor, citing that while most Americans spend about 4 percent of their incomes on heating their homes or other energy needs, the poorest fifth of Americans spend 19 percent.
How to spend this $7 trillion of new tax revenue is the new game for Washington politicians, and this would be the largest redistribution system since the adoption of the income tax in 1913.
Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Clinton, had a novel recommendation in the June 4 WSJ – to return all the new revenue to every adult citizen in the form of a check from the U.S. Treasury. If in the first year the revenue were $150 billion, each of the 150 million adult citizens would receive a check for $1,000. If that revenue were 300 billion, the check would be for $2,000. An IRS that pays you annually, based solely on what companies have paid the government for greenhouse gas emission permits!
Problem is, more and more scientists are speaking out – there is no scientific basis to believe changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming. Other non man-made factors determine the earth’s warming and cooler patterns.
Further, most of the recent growth in CO2 emissions comes from rapidly expanding economies in China, India and Brazil. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lieberman-Warner would reduce world levels of CO2 by 2050 by only 1.4 percent if the U.S. were to act alone.
A June 7 WSJ column reported on the recently concluded Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Conference, where about 50 leading world economists including five Nobel laureates ranked about forty of the world’s problems that could be fixed with an “extra” $75 billion spread over four years. Supplements of vitamin A and zinc for the world’s undernourished children ranked first – with an annual cost of $60 million yielding benefits in health and cognitive development of over $1 billion.
The entire rankings are receiving world media coverage. It is irritating to some that global warming as a world problem came in dead last on this list. The report of the Copenhagen Conference 2008 concludes the cost is astronomical for an insignificant reduction in temperature.
Inhofe is a leading opponent of the global warming alarmists, and concluded his WSJ column “Tomorrow’s energy mix must include more natural gas, wind and geothermal, but it must also include more oil, coal and nuclear power – which is the world’s largest source of emission-free energy. Developing and expanding domestic energy sources will translate into energy security and ensure stable supplies and well-paying jobs for Americans.”
The debate on greenhouse gas emission will return to the Senate in 2009. It first came up when the Kyoto protocol was being drafted in the 1990’s, and the Senate voted 98 to 0 against considering the treaty. Last week they again voted not to consider. Next year may be the third straight loss for environmental alarmists as the world continues its’ present cooling trend.
George Porter is a retired insurance company executive and a Duncan Banner columnist. He may be reached at geo.porter@att.net
Wallbuilders has an excellent article on this issue. Click on link to read: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/05/07/environmentalists_wild_predictions
Monday, June 9, 2008
I HEARD IT THRU-THE- GRAPEVINE!
Fellow blogger and former radio talk show host Georgia Williams has an interesting post about abstracting(real estate) from The Tulsa World. Read the entire post at:http://thruthegrapevine-grapevine.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
