The Obama administration has wasted $217 billion as of the end of November.

In Minnesota a liberal leaning theater, In the Heart of the Beast, named after commie Che Guevara received $100,000 for socially conscious puppet shows.

John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976 The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.

The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party, grow.

Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become ‘adverse parties’ of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform, or real hope in America . Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work.

Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.

Copenhagen is about to become the successor to Kyoto as the synonym for the U.N.’s plan to control climate change. The 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet in Copenhagen December 7-18. Until this meeting ends, expect to hear a growing number of climate-related horror stories, presented by a wide array of so-called environmentalists, at a rising decibel level that’s sure to drive the sane quite mad.

The UNFCCC was a voluntary treaty through which the United States agreed to voluntarily reduce carbon emissions in 1992. At the very first meeting of the COP in 1995, the delegates decided to add a “Protocol” to the treaty that would make specific emissions reduction targets set by the U.N. body legally binding on 34 developed nations. The U.S. Senate adopted a resolution instructing the Clinton administration to not participate in the Protocol unless it included all nations, or if it would have a negative impact on the U.S. economy.

At the third meeting of the COP in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, the U.S. delegation followed the Senate’s instruction and refused to agree to the terms set for the United States by the U.N. body, because the developing nations refused to accept any reduction in their carbon emissions. The impasse lasted well into the second week of the meeting.

Then, Prince Albert Gore made his entrance. In a private meeting in his hotel suite, Gore negotiated a deal that completely ignored the Senate resolution, and agreed to accept a legally binding emissions reduction equal to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012, while agreeing to impose absolutely no requirements on developing nations. The Senate was steamed, and Clinton knew better than to transmit the Kyoto Protocol for ratification.

One of the two really good things that George W. Bush did was to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol altogether. (The other good thing he did was to withdraw from the International Criminal Court).

The United Nations, Hollywood, environmental organizations, and most of the Democrats, squalled, bawled, cursed, and ridiculed “W” for his cavalier, go-it-alone, cowboy swagger. The Kyoto Protocol went into effect without the United States’ participation.

The Copenhagen meeting is supposed to produce the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012. This new agreement is supposed to set new emissions reductions targets, even more onerous than the Kyoto targets. The same arguments plague the negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen meeting that plagued negotiations in Kyoto: developing nations absolutely do not want any kind of reductions imposed upon them, while insisting that developed nations, especially the United States, be forced to drastically reduce carbon emissions.

Problem for Obama: he has as much as promised the world that the United States would rejoin the international climate change treaty regardless of the cost. Apparently, he thought his promise, and his teleprompter would be sufficient to persuade developing nations to join the party. So far, they haven’t. His ace-in-the-hole is his “Cap & Trade” bill that he wants signed before the Copenhagen meeting. If he gets his bill, he can tell the developing nations that the U.S. has already done its part, and that he will not sign the Copenhagen agreement unless the developing nations do. Of course, if he doesn’t get the Cap & Trade bill before Copenhagen, he may have to develop a new strategy.

Notice the absence of any discussion about the validity of climate change science, or the need to control it? Climate change has nothing to do with the negotiations or the meetings, or the treaties. It never has. Climate change is simply an excuse to construct a monstrous international bureaucracy that meets many times each year in exotic venues around the world. Billions of dollars flow into and out of the climate change industry. No one involved in the climate change business wants to hear anything other than a new horror story to put the fear of catastrophe into appropriators.

Dissent is worse than a dirty word at these U.N. meetings. The actual meetings where negotiations occur are closed. Mercy be unto anyone caught with a tape recorder or video camera in an area other than a lobby of cafeteria, or when accompanied by a U.N. staff member. Literature may not be distributed unless first approved by the U.N. staff. In fact, ordinary people cannot even get into one of these meetings. Only official delegates of a government, approved representatives of accredited NGOs, or approved press professionals can register.

Watch the momentum mount as the December meeting draws closer. Ice caps will melt faster, oceans will rise higher, droughts will be more severe, snow falls will be deeper, ice storms will be slicker, crops will fail more often, men will become impotent, and African pygmies will be recruited by the Boston Celtics all because of climate change with the only cure being enslavement by a new Copenhagen Protocol to the Climate Change Treaty.

Kevin Jennings isn’t a household name, but we’ve been watching his actions very closely. The reason is that Jennings poses a severe threat to our Nation’s school children, yet he is President Obama’s choice for “Safe Schools Czar”!

Let me be absolutely clear: Kevin Jennings is unfit to serve in ANY position related to our public schools.

Recently, over 50 Congressmen formally demanded that President Obama remove Jennings from his post. Here’s what motivated this unusually strong action…

The congressional letter states, “As the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Mr. Jennings has played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America’s schools-an agenda that runs counter to the values that many parents desire to instill in their children…

You can read the full letter here:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=22330&RID=22292111

“Safe Schools” will mean “Pro-Homosexual Schools”

Jennings’ intent is to use his platform as Safe Schools Czar to aggressively promote… and even celebrate — homosexuality in our schools. He is an outspoken proponent of a radical pro-homosexual curriculum — including so-called “diversity” training at the elementary school level!

This is deplorable. It is not to be tolerated!

On top of his unacceptable, strident stand on the homosexual agenda, Jennings has even admitted to the use of illicit drugs, showing no signs of remorse or repentance. This man is totally unqualified to serve as a policymaker and role model in the Department of Education!

Tell the President, your Senators and Representatives: “Jennings is unsafe! Dismiss him now!”

I’m asking you to stand with me on behalf of our Nation’s school children. Join me, along with many congressional leaders and tens of thousands of outraged citizens, in demanding that the President dismiss Kevin Jennings from his post at once.

We want to rally at least 25,000 signers in the next two weeks so we can send a very strong message in support of the growing call to remove Jennings. Go here to sign:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=22330&RID=22292111

Liberty Counsel fights in courtrooms across America to protect our faith and family values. Aappointments like that of Kevin Jennings only increase the attacks we must defend against.

And each day Kevin Jennings is in office, the platform for radical homosexual activism in our culture will expand.

We must take action now!

Your Comments Are Welcome

Michael

There has been a lot of media coverage lately about in fighting among conservative groups. This really needs to stop. If this isn’t happening in your organization please do everything you can to keep it that way. If your group is in the middle of this now, STOP IT!

Everyone needs to refocus on our goals. The 2010 elections are only 12 months away and the primaries only about 5 months away. The grassroots conservative movement is a great hope for conservatives and a cause of great concern to the liberals.

They know that we are awake and will be voting in large numbers next year. We have to make sure that we are not torn apart by people infiltrating our organizations and causing strife. If people in your organizations are not pushing ahead with the conservative agenda that needs to be put out to the public then they need to be gotten rid of. Simple as that.

Our country is in trouble! We can’t afford to lose sight of our goal…taking back the house AND the senate next year and in 2012 taking back the White House.

But this can and should only be done with true conservatives. NO RINO’s NO Moderates! CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES ONLY!

It can be done…we just have to keep our eyes on the prize and NEVER GIVE UP!

Your Comments Are Welcome

Michael

When I think of a Patriot, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin come to mind. How could I even consider myself a Patriot? In reviewing my American history I remembered:

The Patriots of 1776 believed:

* in Natural Law which was based on God’s Laws and used these laws to build the Constitution

*in limited government

*in protecting the family and the institution of marriage

*in self-preservation

*in justice by reparation

*in the right to bear arms

*in no taxation without representation

*all men are created equal

*in “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”

*those representing “the People” work for the people

As I read through these, I realize that I believe the same things, so I will consider myself a Patriot.  I may not be in the same league, but I believe just as strongly.   The difference is they were Patriots of the structuring of a brand new country bound for glory.   I am a Tea Party Patriot working to bring back to focus the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and Natural Law in order to protect the country the 1776 Patriots envisioned.  The San Antonio Tea Party is a group of people of all races and professions who are nonpartisan, peaceful, well-organized, and intelligent .  If you believe as the Patriots, come work with us .   It just might relieve your frustration and help you have your voice heard.

Beverly Bybee

At a time when it was popular among environmentalists to talk about capping pollutants, John Holdren was writing about placing “caps” on the U.S. economy itself–and working toward “zero economic growth.”

Holdren, who is now President Obama’s top adviser on science and technology policy, wrote in the 1970s that it would be “entirely logical” to cap the Gross National Product–the total productivity of the American economy.

“It is by now abundantly clear that the GNP cannot grow forever. Why should it?” Holdren asked in a 1977 college science textbook he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, titled “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.”

“Why should we not strive for zero economic growth (ZEG) as well as zero population growth?”

The pertinent chapter, “Changing American Institutions,” discusses what the authors perceived as problems in America’s social mores, government, and economic system, which they say makes it “the leader in humanity’s reckless exploitation of Earth.”

The United States, they argued, should focus on limiting the amount of physical product produced and in circulation.

Again, it would be “entirely logical,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote, “to set limits on the amount of product a nation needs and then strive to reduce the amount of work required to produce such a product (and, we might add, to see that the product is much more equitably distributed that it is today).”

Elsewhere in the chapter, Holdren and the Ehrlichs instead highlight economies less focused on economic growth, what they call “growthmania,” where product could be better distributed.

“That economists have clung to their ‘growthmania’ is not surprising,” they wrote. “After all, natural scientists often cling to outmoded ideas that have produced far less palpable benefits than the growing mixed economies of the Western world in the twentieth century.”

“The question of whether a different economic system might have produced a more equitable distribution of benefits is not one that Western economists like to dwell on.”

Consistent with many of the other arguments laid out in “Ecoscience,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs believe making the change to a zero growth global economy also requires curtailing Earth’s population. “How do we get from here to there? Population control, of course, is absolutely essential, with an eventual target of a smaller population than today’s.”

The authors admit that making such a change to the U.S. economy would be difficult because of ingrained cultural opposition, with two chief road blocks to zero growth and broad redistribution of resources.

The first problem, they say, is that it would be “a threat to some of the most dearly held beliefs of this society” and would “attack the Protestant work ethic.”

That work ethic, they write, insists that one must be kept busy on the job for forty hours a week” and work overtime or moonlight, “so that the money can be earned to buy all those wonderful automobiles, detergents, appliances, and assorted gimcracks that must be bought if the economy is to continue to grow.”

Holdren and the Ehrlichs, however, call that tradition “outmoded,” and say American attitudes must change to reflect their environmental situation.

The larger problem, the radical enviromentalists wrote, is that forcing the economy to be less productive would face opposition from those with money and political influence.

“The critical question, of course, is how to get around the extraordinary power interests that would be unalterably opposed to maximum income limits and (if possible) even more opposed to direct taxation of wealth,” they say on page 850.

“Greed and the desire for power are extraordinarily strong forces against any serious attempts to curb income and wealth,” and, “(t)he real sticky wicket would be direct taxation of wealth, since that would threaten the entrenched power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Fords, Kennedys, and countless other beneficiaries of enterprising and acquisitive ancestors.”

“But once some system of further redistribution were established in the United States, it would then be justifiable to implement a transition to a (less productive) economy as quickly as possible.”

Before joining the Obama administration, Holdren was a professor at Harvard and the director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Mass. He holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University and an M.S. from MIT, where he also received his undergraduate degree.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy did not comment on questions from CNSNews.com about Holdren’s stance on zero economic growth or whether it has changed since the 1970s.