UpComing News

Polls Say Democrats Are Gambling By Taking on Rush Limbaugh


First, just a word before the following is dismissed by Democratic
readers as partisan, or as being from someone who doesn't know what he
is talking about. My polling firm, InsiderAdvantage, is non-partisan...

Crime Beat: US Congress Investigates Forensic Science Requirements


The US Congress' Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation on Tuesday
heard from a panel of forensic expert witnesses that some issues
dealing with the validity of forensic science need better review
procedures and more rigorous standards.

Unprecedented Billions Worthy of Audit


The 111th Congress has enacted, and President Barack H. Obama has
signed into law, HR 1, the graspingly entitled American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("ERROR" - whoops, should read...

Stem Cells Are Not Just About Science


Not many of us would want the federal government to leave military
procurement to defense contractors, Medicare reimbursement to doctors
or banking regulation to Citigroup. But President Obama says when...

Obama Takes a Dive on Earmarks


President Obama has vowed to curb the number of earmarks, also known as
pork, in future spending bills. A commendable promise, had his number
been zero. Unfortunately, the president wants to deal with...

A Dash of Science: Now That's Change


President Barack Obama did a lot more than lift the ban on federal
funding for embryonic stem cell research Monday. He came to the
startling conclusion that scientific research should be based on science...

Just Another Phony Mortgage Plan


President Obama and his big spenders are moving quickly to the relief
of those who are facing foreclosure on their mortgages. But the program
they are offering will do nothing for those most in need. In the fine...

Save Our Planet


The call "Save Our Planet" was heard in the halls of Congress on the
occasion of President Barack H. Obama's first speech to a joint session
of Congress on February 5. Fulfilling a campaign promise...

Omnibus Spending Bill Definition: Real Money


"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real
money." That quote is attributed to former Senate Republican Leader
Everett Dirksen (though there are questions about whether he actually...

Don't Surrender to Recession Stress


Do recessions make people sicker? Some studies say yes, some say no. The better question might be, "How is this recession affecting health?" Not in a good way, comes the answer. This recession -- depression...

Polls Say Democrats Are Gambling By Taking on Rush Limbaugh

First, just a word before the following is dismissed by Democratic readers as partisan, or as being from someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. My polling firm, InsiderAdvantage, is non-partisan. It polled the 2008 presidential race for the red-hot political site Politico, and was in a recent speech at Fordham University named by a guru who even D.C. liberals praise as one of the three most accurate national pollsters for the presidential contest.


This column isn't about partisanship. It's about strategy. I've only met Rush Limbaugh once. It was back when I was politically active, running Newt Gingrich's campaign. One time in particular I had occasion to sit and casually chat with Limbaugh. It was enlightening. He was the complete opposite of his persona. He was soft-spoken, extraordinarily polite and clearly not taking himself too seriously. My friends who know him well tell me he is still that way today.

Now for a second big personality, Democratic strategist James Carville. He was revealed just this week by media to have reportedly once said he hoped President Bush would fail -- just as Rush Limbaugh has recently been assailed for hoping the same about President Obama.

To be fair, Carville is much like Limbaugh. Sorry, conservatives, but while James can be nasty and shrill on TV -- and, as I write in my book, a tough political opponent -- he also is in private very polite and unassuming, not to mention kind and funny, too.

I would never make James Carville my target if I were trying to tear down the Democratic Party. Likewise, I would be wary of targeting Rush Limbaugh if I were an Obama strategist.

I can understand why some might suggest otherwise. A recent McClatchy newspaper poll reports that Limbaugh has only a 30 percent approval rating, and a 46 percent disapproval rating.

But that poll needs to be placed into perspective. It's likely that most of the 46 percent who say they view Limbaugh unfavorably have never heard his show. And reports of the survey's details suggest that Limbaugh suffers from weakness with independent voters.

Those two facts could prove dangerous for the Democrats in the future. Here's how:

Independents are the swing voters who place either Democrats or Republicans in the White House and in control of the House or Senate. When times are good, most independents will stick with the party for which they last voted. But let an unpopular policy start to get legs -- such as Hillary Clinton's health care proposal years ago -- or let the nation appear to be headed the wrong way while one political party is in charge, and look out!

Independents are open-minded. They will also turn on a dime. Here's a good example: How does anyone think that the Republicans managed to capture the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994 after decades of solid Democratic control and with Bill Clinton in the White House? The answer was "Hillary Care," combined with a general feeling that things in general weren't going so great under Democratic rule.

That's where this Limbaugh strategy seems flawed to me. By taking on Rush, the Democrats are calling attention to his show. That adds listeners. If President Obama were to continue sinking in the polls, and should some of his major early initiatives start to become unpopular, it is highly likely that the curious might just tune in Limbaugh to see what "the other side" has to say.

Limbaugh has two things already going for him. First, he has nearly a third of the nation that views him favorably. Second, anyone who listens to his show knows that Limbaugh plays the role of pompous ringmaster, but in jest. After five minutes it is clear that he is not a hatemonger. And he articulates a message that disaffected independent voters might readily embrace. There is, after all, a reason why he is the No. 1 talk show host in America.

In public opinion polling we keep in mind something that often is not obvious. If just 5 percent of those who say they have an unfavorable opinion of someone shift to favorable, it can be huge. For example, if 7 percent of those who view Limbaugh unfavorably switch to a favorable view, that makes the numbers 37 percent favorable, 39 percent unfavorable. A statistical tie. Curious independent voters could make that a reality.

The Democrats need to hope that things go well and Limbaugh doesn't keep adding listeners as a result of this attack strategy. Otherwise, two years from now it may be Rush who is in the 50 percent-plus favorable column. That would be quite a feat for a talk show host, and a true threat to the Democrats.

Finally, a correction. Last week I suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi flies in private airplanes. Instead, the planes are military ones, and were also provided to high government officials under the Bush administration. Even so, after the revelations of the last few days, I figure the public has heard plenty enough about Pelosi and planes.

US Congress Investigates Forensic Science Requirements

The US Congress' Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation on Tuesday heard from a panel of forensic expert witnesses that some issues dealing with the validity of forensic science need better review procedures and more rigorous standards. The hearing focused on a recent report released by the National Academy of Sciences regarding the status of US crime labs, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The study found that, with the exception of DNA analysis, most forensic disciplines are in need of further scientific evaluation to determine their reliability and accuracy."


Forensic science is a key factor in the fundamental functioning of our justice system,” said Subcommittee Ranking Member Adrian Smith (R-NE). “While many forensic disciplines are in need of more rigorous review to validate their accuracy and reliability and we should work to address this need, I think it is important to recognize the enormous value forensic evidence provides to the justice system. We must exercise caution to ensure we are not overly dismissive of forensic evidence.”

Mr. Peter Marone, Director of the Virginia Department of Forensic Science and a representative of the NAS committee that authored the report, testified at Tuesday's hearing, recommending a unified plan for the forensic science enterprise with an aggressive, long-term agenda.

He said that “some of the forensic science disciplines need further research to provide what scientific community commonly uses as the proper underlying validation for some of the methods in common use and to provide the basis for more precise statements about their reliability and precision.”

However, Marone also noted that “Because a method has not been sufficiently validated does not make it invalid.”

While the NAS study recommended the creation of a new agency to provide oversight over forensic science, subcommittee members and witnesses at the hearing discussed the advantages and disadvantages of creating a new agency versus expanding efforts within other agencies such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Significant consideration was given to how the federal government could best build upon existing activities to advance scientific validation of forensic disciplines.

One of the witnesses, Ms. Carol Henderson, Director of the National Clearing House for Science, Technology and the Law, testified that as an immediate step, the National Institute of Standards and Technology is “well-suited to the task” given its record of contributions to forensic science and its “well-deserved reputation for independence – a recurring concern of the NAS panel.”

Unprecedented Billions Worthy of Audit

The 111th Congress has enacted, and President Barack H. Obama has signed into law, HR 1, the graspingly entitled American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("ERROR" - whoops, should read "ARRA"). In the history of the United States of America and of every other sovereignty which is, or ever was, on the face of the earth, the billions of dollars in the so-called "Stimulus" appropriations of the 111th Congress never have been equaled - or, indeed, remotely grasped. The cost of HR 1 as enacted is $787 billion, as calculated by the (usually objective and competent) Congressional Budget Office. Others have calculated the total cost 2009 - 2019 were the expenditures to become permanent at $3.27 trillion.


The United States Government Accountability Office ("GAO"), until July 7, 2004 named the General Accounting Office (dating from the days when its function was more strictly solely accounting), is an independent Federal agency, founded in June 1921, populated by career personnel, noted for its objectivity and thoroughness or near-thoroughness. The title of its top official is that of Comptroller General. At the moment that office is vacant; Hon. Gene L. Dodaro is Acting Comptroller General - with, of course, the functional authority of the office. In a rather purist and technical sense, GAO is not part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and arguably, if anywhere, is part of the Legislative Branch.

There is no ARRA requirement for audit. To those of us who are neither economists nor accountants, much less to others who are one or the other, it would appear elementary that ARRA expenditures should be subject to audit, phenomenal though that task would be.

Senator A. Mitchell (Mitch) McConnell (R-KY) has written the Acting Comptroller General requesting audit. It is unfortunate that the request is not bipartisan but better, a request from one keen and courageous mind than no request at all.

Some excerpts and comment from the McConnell letter indicate the thrust of the request and the Senator’s bona fide concern.

The Senator expresses deep concern "that oversight will stop at the [S]tate level once a governor designates the [F]ederal money to be spent at the local or municipal level . . . Tracking money only to the [S]tate level is insufficient . . . Therefore, I request that GAO track expenditures to the project level and report on a bimonthly basis, as part of the 13 mandates . . . in ARRA."

The Senator propounds five questions.

" . . . [T]o what extent are Governors assuring that Federal spending does not supplant [S]tate spending?

How is the Administration measuring . . . effectiveness . . . in job creation?

To what extent is the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board tracking . . . spending . . . sole-source contracts, and how much of it circumvents contracting laws and regulations?

To what extent do Davis-Bacon requirements in [ARRA] increase the cost of each project?

What are some of the key Federal regulations that may delay project starts and therefore delay job creation?"

GAO surely will have its hands full - and well may need additional appropriations from Congress - thoroughly or even reasonably thoroughly to audit. Astronomical sums distributed rather quickly around the country inevitably invite both honestly confused disbursements as well as the politically motivated chicanery of misuse.

Stem Cells Are Not Just About Science

Not many of us would want the federal government to leave military procurement to defense contractors, Medicare reimbursement to doctors or banking regulation to Citigroup. But President Obama says when it comes to allocating federal funds for scientific studies, we should defer to scientists.


That assertion came in reference to research on the use of embryonic stem cells to find treatments for various diseases. Obama announced that he was junking President Bush's rules, which limited federal funding to research using embryonic stem cell lines that existed before August 2001.

"This order," said the president, "is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America" and "protecting free and open inquiry." Harold Varmus, co-chairman of the president's scientific advisory council, said it showed the president would rely on "sound scientific practice … instead of dogma in developing federal policy."

But one person's dogma is another one's ethical imperative or moral principle. Science can tell us how to build a nuclear weapon. But science can't tell us whether we should use it.

Just because research may be useful in combating disease doesn't mean it's ethically acceptable. The infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment -- in which the federal Public Health Service secretly withheld treatment from infected black men to learn more about the disease -- might have yielded valuable data. But no scientific discovery could possibly have justified it.

Research on embryonic stem cells is controversial because it requires the destruction of live human embryos. Supporters find it easy to minimize the significance of this fact because the embryos are only a few days old -- nothing more than "blastocysts."

But if it's OK to destroy 5-day-old embryos to further scientific inquiry, is it OK to destroy embryos that are five weeks old? Five months? Eight months? Science can't answer that question.

You don't have to be part of the pro-life movement to have qualms about this kind of scientific inquiry. James Thomson, the University of Wisconsin biologist who pioneered the field, has said, "If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." The president's new order suggests we shouldn't think too much.

In 2001, supporters of embryonic stem cell research called on Bush to allow experiments using "surplus" frozen embryos in fertility clinics, arguing that they would be disposed of anyway. But Obama didn't limit his new policy to these fertilized eggs.

On the contrary, he left open the possibility of funding studies using embryos created specifically so their cells can be harvested -- which Congress has barred, but which some advocates would like to allow. The president took no position on whether scientists should be permitted to create embryos for the sole purpose of dismembering them for their stem cells.

He did, however, reject another option. "We will ensure," he said, "that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society."

Is that a scientific judgment? No, it's a philosophical one, reflecting Obama's moral values. Apparently, the folks in the white lab coats can't be relied on to answer all questions.

But this position is hard to square with his professed approach. On one hand, the president says his policy is "about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion." On the other, he will use coercion to keep them from doing reproductive cloning.

What this mandate means is simple: It may be permissible for scientists to create cloned embryos and kill them. It's not permissible to create cloned embryos and let them live. Their cells may be used for our benefit, but not for their own.

There lies the reality of embryonic stem cell research: It turns incipient human beings into commodities to be exploited for the sake of people who are safely past that defenseless stage of their lives.

It's a change that poses risks not just to days-old human embryos. The rest of us may one day reap important medical benefits from this research. But we may lose something even more vital.

Obama Takes a Dive on Earmarks

President Obama has vowed to curb the number of earmarks, also known as pork, in future spending bills. A commendable promise, had his number been zero. Unfortunately, the president wants to deal with an unsavory dish by cutting the portion size. Earmarks are pet projects that lawmakers stuff into spending bills. There are 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill about which Obama gave his pork talk on Wednesday.


Democratic leaders are right that "this is last year's business." And it's true that earmarks made up less than 2 percent of the $410 billion spending bill. But earmark spending is not only about money. It is about enabling fundamentally corrupt practices in the budgeting process. Too often the following happens:

Member of Congress obtains pork for a group or business. The recipient returns some of it in the form of campaign cash or, in at least one case, antiques for the home. Former Rep. Randy Cunningham, a California Republican, was famously brought down by a bribe-for-earmark scandal including Persian rugs.

The FBI is now investigating PMA Group on suspicions of making phony campaign donations to select representatives. Rep. John Murtha has received generous contributions from the employees of PMA, a lobbying firm whose clients have enjoyed earmarks, courtesy of the Pennsylvania Democrat.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid likes the status quo on pork. Waving the flag of American security, a spokesman for the Nevada Democrat recently told The Washington Post that defense-related earmarks "improve critical national defense programs."

No, they don't. Every defense-related earmark goes to something the Defense Department didn't ask for -- and is usually directed to some contractor back in the district. That money could have gone to actually enhancing national security.

Obama's call for still greater transparency on earmarking is a useless gesture. Most lawmakers are darn proud of them. They list the bacon they've bagged for their constituents right on their Websites.

Some portray earmarks as a beautiful exercise in democracy and ask, "Why should unelected officials make decisions?" Frankly, I'd rather have an unelected general in the Pentagon allocate defense dollars than a politician raking in campaign cash from a local defense contractor.

"Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose," Obama said. That is true, and many do. But the worthy ones can be part of a rational budgeting process.

A regrettable offshoot of the debate is that good ideas get ridiculed because they are earmarks. Great fun has been made of the earmark for swine odor and manure management in Iowa. Actually, those are very serious concerns in a state that has nearly seven hogs for every human.

We had a good laugh over the earmark for studying catfish genetics in Alabama. But Alabama has 250 commercial fish farmers for whom catfish is by far the dominant species.

And there was a big har-har-har about the earmark for grape genetics research in New York state. New York happens to be home to a large winemaking industry. ("Quick, peel me a grape," twittered Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a longtime foe of earmarks.)

Why are earmarks getting so much attention now? Three reasons: (1) They are easy to understand. (2) The public links the current economic fiasco to a "bought government" for which earmarks are one form of currency. (3) With trillions now going out the door for bailouts and economic stimuli, Americans feel they have an enormous stake in clean budgeting.

If Washington can't end a tawdry system that involves relatively small amounts of money, what hope is there for reforming the big stuff? Cutting the number of earmarks to zero shouldn't be that hard -- and should be this year's business.

A Dash of Science: Now That's Change

President Barack Obama did a lot more than lift the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research Monday. He came to the startling conclusion that scientific research should be based on science. This will be a change. George W. Bush spent the past eight years making sure scientific research was based on conservative ideology, political manipulation and whim.


Global warming? Buncha baloney. We've got millions of years left. Saw a polar bear the other day in a zoo. Looked fine. And if scientists disagree with that, we can always find new scientists.

Using embryonic stem cells to try to cure diseases like Parkinson's and diabetes or to repair spinal cord injuries? Hold your horses on that one. Some religious conservatives don't like that one.

Some centuries ago, they didn't like Galileo saying the Earth revolved around the sun, and they got him to recant (and spend the rest of his life under house arrest). That wasn't good for science, but it was just fine for the Inquisition.

Monday, Obama said, in effect, modern inquisitions were over. He said scientists must be "free from manipulation and coercion."

And he said he is going to make sure "that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda -- and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

This was more than some could take. House Republican leader John A. Boehner quickly issued a statement saying, "This decision runs counter to President Obama's promise to be a president for all Americans."

And, I guess, if you are an American who believes scientists should be manipulated and coerced and have their results distorted by politics and ideology, you are very disappointed today.

Which is not to say all conservatives are disappointed by Obama's decision. Nancy Reagan quickly endorsed it, saying that "time is short, and life is precious."

And during his presidential campaign, John McCain said, "I've prayed a lot about it, but I've come down on the side of support for embryonic stem cell research."

According to Gallup, "A solid majority of Americans (typically 60 percent) agree with using stem cells derived from human embryos for medical research, 61 percent considering such research morally acceptable."

Which is why some Republicans don't really want to talk about it that much. Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday: "Let's take care of business first. People are out of jobs."

They are. And putting people back to work is Job 1 for the Obama administration. But this president seems determined to prove that government can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Speaking of the need for painstaking and costly research, Obama said, "When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed."

He went on by saying: "In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent."

So science will go forward. But wait. There is a potential problem with this. Scientists can become mad. We know this from watching many, many movies. You give mad scientists money and leave them alone in a laboratory, and you know what they will do?

Eric Cantor does. He says Obama's decision on stem cell research could lead to "human cloning."

Which Cantor is against. Though I don't know why. Human cloning might be the best way Republicans have to create more Republicans.

Just Another Phony Mortgage Plan

President Obama and his big spenders are moving quickly to the relief of those who are facing foreclosure on their mortgages. But the program they are offering will do nothing for those most in need. In the fine print, Obama's plan provides no relief for any homeowner whose mortgage exceeds the total value of his home. But these folks are the ones who have been conned into taking subprime mortgages so loaded with brokerage commissions, interest rate subsidies, bank fees, and lawyer and title company charges that the amount of the mortgage has ballooned.


These high mortgage amounts, coupled with declining property values, have turned about 20 percent of American mortgages upside-down, so that the debt exceeds the value of the property.

But excluding these homeowners from help, Obama is guilty of a holier-than-thou hypocrisy. Was it not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that encouraged such mortgages? Was it not the Democrats in Congress who passed legislation urging Fannie and Freddie to weaken their standards to allow more low- and lower-middle-income families to buy homes?

How can Obama now pretend to be so shocked -- shocked -- that about 20 percent of America's home mortgages are now worth more than the property they finance? It was the insistence of liberal Democrats that made it so. When Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros demanded that Fannie and Freddie invest 42 percent of their assets in buying low- and lower-middle-income mortgages, and when his successor Andrew Cuomo raised the quota to 50 percent, what did they think would happen? When they explicitly told Fannie and Freddie not to insist on down payments in the mortgages they purchased, how did they think the purchase would be funded?

Obviously, if you don't require the borrower to put money down, the full purchase price must be covered by the mortgage. To now, piously, refuse to come to the rescue of those who fell for your party's seeming generosity and bought homes on the terms it suggested is hypocritical at best.

But it is not only the over-mortgaged who Obama will ignore, but those who have lost their jobs! If you do not make enough money such that your mortgage payments come to 31 percent of your income, you can't get your mortgage refinanced. If your income has dropped to a point where your monthly payments on your loan consume a greater part of your earnings than 31 percent, you are stuck.

So we have Obama rushing to the aid of those who have been hurt in this bad economy, but exempting from his proposed relief anyone who has lost his job and seen a cut in income or whose property values have dropped below the amount of his mortgage. In other words, he'll help anyone but those most in need.

And, once again, Obama would limit his aid to those who make below $200,000 a year. While he doesn't specify this limit in his proposal, he does limit his intervention to mortgages of less than $720,000. At standard mortgage interest rates, such a loan would call for $60,000 or so in payments a year. To qualify for relief, your mortgage payment can't be larger than 31 percent of your income after the refinancing -- or about $200,000. Once more, Obama makes it clear that he is not the president of anyone who makes that much money or more. He is only the president of the other people.

Obama, of course, forgets -- or doesn't care -- that those making over $200,000 account for almost a third of the total national spending, and you cannot stimulate an economy while constantly cutting off those people from any consideration in any government program. But Obama is determined to try.

Save Our Planet

The call "Save Our Planet" was heard in the halls of Congress on the occasion of President Barack H. Obama's first speech to a joint session of Congress on February 5. Fulfilling a campaign promise, President Obama topped the agenda of his new Administration with a call on Congress.


In his speech the President declared that truly to transform our economy, to protect our security and to save our planet from the ravages of climate change (formerly known as global warming) we need to make clean renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. President Obama went on to suggest a "cap-and-trade" bill that would address climate change and energy initiatives.

A cap-and-trade bill is fully described by defining each part separately. The Center for American Progress, a think tank led by John D. Podesta, former Chief of Staff to President William J. Clinton and co-chairman of the Obama-Biden Transition Project, explains:

1. The cap is the limit a large-scale emitter, U.S. Steel for example, is allowed to emit in greenhouse gases. The company must have an "emissions permit" designating the amount of greenhouse gas pollution it is permitted. Over time, the limits are ratcheted down, allowing less pollution until a set goal is met. The Clean Air Act of 1990, which brought under control sulfur emissions that caused acid rain, met a goal at much lower cost than estimated and lower pollution than government predicted.

2. The trade: Some companies will find it cheaper and faster to lower emissions and will accumulate a surplus. This surplus of permits can be traded for future emission permits or may be sold to companies who are unable to make reductions as easily.

3. The profits: In the event the government auctioned the pollution permits to the companies in the first instance, a revenue stream would flow to other critical public policy objectives.

The goal of a successful cap-and-trade program, according to the Center, is “to limit the rise in global temperature to approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2050 by reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions from companies as part of a larger plan for curbing global warming."

To achieve this goal, the Center suggests, "The U.S. Government should steadily tighten the cap on greenhouse gases until emissions are reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050."

The rise in global temperature during the past century (1900-2000) was about one degree Celsius (1ÂșC). The warmest year in the last century was 1934. Temperatures in the first part of this century are about even to slightly cooler.

Climate-change believers have identified carbon dioxide as the principal cause, among all greenhouse gases, of global warming. There is no scientific evidence that proves such a claim is valid or that there is any man-made cause of global warming.

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming," according to U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. Dr. Goldenberg is one of over 650 international scientists who dissented over man-made global warming claims in a U.S. Senate Minority Report in 2008.

Former Vice President Albert A. (Al) Gore's claim that global warming science is settled was rejected by a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists which revealed that 68% disagree that global warming science is "settled." The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of 1995 (IPCC), reportedly endorsed by some 2,000 or more scientists, has come under increasing attack.

The Senate Minority Report states: Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming…. Vice President Al Gore's claim that the 'science is settled' and there is a 'consensus' on man-made global warming collapsed in 2008."

An international team of scientists has countered the UN IPCC report in a “Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,” with Dr. S. Fred Singer declaring, “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate.”

The Senate Minority Report continues: "Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as 'consensus busters.'"

On November 25, 2008, Politico noted a "glowing accumulation of global cooling science” is challenging warming fears, and added that “the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation." On October 20, 2008, Canada's National Post: "The number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly."

Washington Post staff writer Juliet Eilperin writing in 2007: "Climate skeptics appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

With no intention of throwing a chill on President Obama's global warming plan for Congress, a report out of California on Fox News Thursday, February 28, suggests a possible change in global temperatures on the downside. Fox Anchor Brit Hume reported that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have revealed data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year and several areas around the planet are experiencing record cold and snowpacks.

California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65 hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75 hundredths of a degree. Watts reckons this to be a value large enough to erase all global warming over the past 100 years.

President Obama may wish to reconsider the flagship issue of his new administration.

E. Ralph Hostetter, a prominent businessman and publisher, also is an award-winning columnist and Vice Chairman of the Free Congress Foundation Board of Directors.

Omnibus Spending Bill Definition: Real Money

"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money." That quote is attributed to former Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (though there are questions about whether he actually said it). Nevertheless, it reveals a lot about the way the federal government spent money 40 years ago.


I can only wonder what Senator Dirksen would quip today. Congress has once again approved a multi-hundred billion dollar spending bill, this time to fund the government to the end of the fiscal year (Sept. 30). All told, this bill piles an additional $410 billion onto a $1.3 trillion deficit this year, and a more than $10 trillion debt overall. These figures are so massive that it’s hard to comprehend them.

One of the basic functions of Congress is to produce annual funding bills that keep the government operating. These bills, known as appropriations bills, fund the respective sectors of the federal government – for example, one bill funds the Justice Department, another funds the Interior Department, and so on.

But by the end of last year, the Democrat-led Congress failed to approve nine of the total 12 appropriations bills. Subsequently, the government has operated under a temporary measure, known as a “continuing resolution,” until Congress approved the remaining funding bills.

Instead of taking up these appropriations bills individually, the Democrat majority bundled the remaining ones into a massive, pork-laden $410 billion “omnibus” spending bill. Like the previous year, this bill was unveiled just as the temporary continuing resolution was about to expire. In other words, it was presented on a “take it or leave it” basis: approve this bill, or risk the government shutting down.

This political threat pressured members to approve a bloated spending bill quickly, leading to wasteful spending. An omnibus bill corrupts the appropriations process, which was designed to ensure that individual spending bills could be carefully scrutinized and amended. Bad bills can be opposed, good bills supported. With an omnibus package, good provisions are coupled together with bad ones, and legislators are forced into an “all or nothing” position.

I think it is worth spending the time necessary to draft legislation that provides the government with the resources it needs while safeguarding taxpayer dollars, especially considering the wasteful and extraneous spending projects in the omnibus bill. For example, there are earmarks for tattoo removal in California, tens of thousands for “midnight basketball” in Los Angeles, and over a quarter-million dollars for “sea voyages in ancient-style sailing canoes” in Hawaii.

Don't Surrender to Recession Stress

Do recessions make people sicker? Some studies say yes, some say no. The better question might be, "How is this recession affecting health?" Not in a good way, comes the answer. This recession -- depression? -- seems different. This recession is messing with our heads. When the economic arrows first turned downward, a crop of silver-lining stories contended that health-habits improve in down economies. During boom times, the upwardly mobile drink too much and dine often at fatty-food restaurants. Working long hours, they skip exercise and put off visits to the doctor. Some of these unhealthy tendencies reverse themselves in a recession


For example, Shelley McGuire, a nutritionist at Washington State University in Pullman, recently predicted that a return to home cooking would helpfully add whole grains and subtract salt from the American table. She called this new regime the "back-to-basics bailout diet."

Professor Christopher Ruhm, an economist at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, studied death rates during the 1974 and 1982 recessions, and found that they dropped significantly. Less heart disease and fewer car accidents seemed to be the biggest factors.

I asked Ruhm whether he anticipates the same trends in this recession. "It's hard to predict what will happen this time," he responded. "This is a different kind of downturn -- longer and more severe than we have seen in recent years."

We believers in the mind-body connection know that stress and anxiety, painful in themselves, can make other conditions worse. And stress is coming at us in battalions. In this crazy economy, we can't plot the extent to which things will get worse before they start getting better. We face the big black box of the unknown.

Those who owe little or no money and have jobs are also anxious. They see their real-estate values shrinking and neighbors' work disappearing. Their investment safety net lies in the gutter. There seems to be no safe harbor anymore.

In a famous experiment, two groups of rats were given electric shocks. The first group received a warning signal before the shock. The second had no warning. The second group showed much more stomach ulceration (a sign of stress) than the first, even though they received the same number of shocks. The conclusion: Lack of predictability increases stress.

And that's the way it is. One day the banks are in super trouble; the next day, it's General Motors. Out comes a horrid employment report, then warnings of economic collapse in Eastern Europe.

Hospitals report pre-existing medical problems growing worse. Diabetics who were controlling their disease with exercise are quitting their gym memberships. Patients being treated for high blood pressure and still taking their medications show elevated readings. Possible causes: a turn to saltier food or to anti-inflammatory remedies, which increase water retention, for stress-induced headaches.

Of course, mental disorders flare up in these circumstances. Ruhm's study found that even in the past recessions where death rates dropped, measures of mental health suffered. Suicide rose 2 percent and homicide 12 percent.

Psychiatric hospitals are filling up with serious cases. McLean Hospital, near Boston, admitted 31 percent more patients in December than it had the same month a year before. And there's been a run on anti-depression pills, including among the relatively secure.

Back in our cage, we await new economic shocks without knowing when or whence they will come. Fortunately, humans retain a measure of control over their health. There are proven ways to lower stress. Exercise can be free, and a good diet may actually save money. Let's unearth one of those silver linings and tell ourselves: We're still in charge of many things.

New Moon Photos: Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart & Taylor Lautner Wigs Out

The Twilight crew is back to work, this time north of the border and on the sequel, New Moon. Robert Pattinson is in Vancouver along with Kristen Stewart (don't forget, she is not his girlfriend, at least not yet) and Taylor Lautner, 17 (who is pictured wigged out on-set as Jacob Black) looking buff. He has already asked fans of Rob Pattinson to cut him some slack and give him a chance.

The young actor has beefed up for the role and there are several new pictures online of the actors on set and making their way around the city taking care of the mundane tasks of life like shopping and getting the morning coffee. the paparazzi in canada is very busy, keping an eye on all of the young actors.

Horror Yearbook notes that in all over one hundred pictures of the cast have been leaked from the set. Spoiler TV has them all here. As an added bonus, Celebrity blog for the youth set Just Jared Jr. has even more snaps from the cast off of the set. the timing for the increased buzz might boost sales. Twilight is coming soon to a store near you as it will be released on DVD and Blu-Ray on Saturday, March 21.

For the film that everyone is now talking about, The Twilight Saga: New Moon will be in theaters November 29, 2009. Sink your teeth into more pics here at the JJJ site of Robert and a wigless Taylor shopping.

Jennifer Aniston & Angelina Jolie: Sisterhood of the Wandering Boyfriends

Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie were tossed together in the most unlikely manner, both were working over Brad Pitt at what sounds like very close to the same time. When the smoke had cleared, Aniston and Pitt would call it quits and Angelina was blamed by most celebrity watchers for splitting up the golden couple with an on screen romance that turned into an off screen affair.


Depending on who asks the question, Jolie and Pitt deny they were going at it on set, with all sorts of interesting statements. Jolie once said she would never have an affair with a married man because of her dad Jon Voight and the way he behaved with his wife and Jolie's mother.

Despite all of the denials, Brad recently came clean and admitted that he and Jolie fell in love working together on the film, but he brushed aside criticism, saying it wasn't tawdry. Now Jennifer and Angelina are again fodder for the gossips, this time both are said to be having trouble with their wandering men.

For Jennifer, reports have claimed that she and John Mayer, her beau of about a year have hit the skids and are moving on. For Angelina, she and Brad get the cover of Star with a story about a nanny and a back rub.

The Invitation: Melissa Rycroft and Her Dancing with the Stars Offer

When Nancy O'Dell was forced to bail on Dancing with the Stars because of an injury, executive producer Conrad Green told Us Weekly that the immediate thought was 'who could we get?' "It was necessary that the public felt sympathetic toward whomever was stepping in the last minute. Melissa jumped straight to mind," the executive revealed. That certainly applied to Melissa as she had just been dumped on TV in front of about 17 million viewers.



It worked well, she was fabulous on the March 9 premiere as a contestant and Rycroft put all her energy into the show. "It's a tough job for someone to come in this late," Dancing veteran Lance Bass dished.

Melissa's partner speaks. With just two days before show time Rycroft threw herself into rehearsals. "I combined cheerleading moves (Melissa was once a member of the famous Dallas cowboys cheerleaders squad) with the routine I had designed for Nancy," her partner Tony Davolani said.

"Melissa has the right attitude about the way she approaches things. To think of what she went through on the Bachelor and then to come to our show and be so positive, what a trooper," Tony said.

Britney Spears Sexy Concert Act, Sister Jamie Lynn Spears and the Kids

A scantily clad Britney Spears fondled male dancers and simulated sex during her Circus tour kick off at the New Orleans Arena in early March. But fortunately the kids were all right, well at least Britney's kids were as they were taken out of the concert before it went to the apparent R rating. Sister Jamie Lynn Spears was said to be texting Britney to keep in touch and the kids didn't see any of the raunchy show with mom and the dancers. Sean Preston and Jayden James were shielded from the show, once it was about to escalate into the bump and grind for which Britney is so famous.


According to Us Weekly, the kids along with a bunch of extended family, watched from a luxury suite (including dad Kevin Federline, 31) and the kids were told to watch for mommy and to cheer and clap for mommy during the early part of the show.

However, about 45 minutes into the show it was time for the two young boys to go, an insider spilled. According to a source that dished to Hot Stuff that "Lynne Spears took the boys out just before Britney came out wearing nipple tassels."

The report adds that drug tests would be required of the dancers and reports have already claimed that some have already been bounced from the tour.

Elizabeth Montana Photos: Hawaii Bikini Babe is Joe Montana's Daughter

First it was his son Nate Montana shirtless, now it is his daughter Elizabeth Montana in a skimpy bikini steaming up the gang over at TMZ. As a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers and for the last two seasons for the Kansas City Chiefs, dad was known as Joe Cool while piling up NFL championships and stunning 4th quarter comebacks.

But now it is the kids time in the sun. Literally. Using good genes, Joe Montana is married to the beautiful Jennifer, the kids seem all right and quite happy to be soaking up the sun and showing off their bodies on the islands in Hawaii.

Wiki has this info on the family. "(Joe) met Jennifer Wallace, an actress and model, while the two worked on a Schick commercial, and the two married in 1985. He and Jennifer are still married and have four children: Alexandra Whitney (b. 10 October 1985), Elizabeth Jean (b. 20 December 1986), Nathaniel ("Nate") Joseph (b. 3 October 1989), and Nicholas Alexander (b. 28 April 1992)."

TMZ has pictures of the blonde here. "His oldest son, Nate, was a walk-on quarterback at Notre Dame starting in Fall 2008 after being a third stringer at De La Salle.[34] Montana's other son, Nicholas, is a quarterback at nationally ranked Oaks Christian High School in Westlake Village, near Los Angeles, CA. Nicholas was a junior in Fall 2008."

Zac Efron New Digs, Robert Pattinson Relaxes & Jonas Brothers Slow Down

Robert Pattinson has a relaxation secret that the British rock band the Rolling Stones once sang about. The Jonas Brothers have been told to slow down by the neighbots, according to Star, and Zac Efron's digs are revealed with an 'inside Zac's house look' from Life & Style. The report notes that Zac "has graduated to new digs - a reported $2.35 million, 2,400 square foot mansion in LA. And Kenneth Brown, who’s featured on the HGTV show reDesign, will be doing the decorating.

The Jonas Brothers need to chill, the neighbors say. Kevin, Joe, and Nick, who recently bought a $2.8 million, six bedroom house at the Vaquero Club in Westlake, Texas, have been racing each other in golf carts on the course - but neighbors aren’t happy. “They’ve been told to mind the course’s speed limit,” a source says. “The boys each have a golf cart and love to play golf, but they love goofing around more.”

Robert Pattinson has a few things to say bout the Jonas Brothers, or at least one in particular. According to Us Weekly, Of Camilla Belle (with whom he's been photographed), he says he didn't steal her "from the Jonas brother," referring to Joe Jonas. For relaxing, well Rob goes old school with a little yellow pill.

He says before his audition for Twilight he broke a valium in half and took it so he could relax and allow his nerves a chance to settle down so he could give his performance.

Robert Pattinson, The Ladies and New Moon Hunk Taylor Lautner

Will Taylor Lautner eclipse Rob? Robert Pattinson may have some girl trouble, though that might be attributed to his charm and good looks that have too many Hollywood ladies seeking his company for the time that he has available. In his recent trip to Los Angeles for the Oscars, he was quite the hit and rumors were rampant that dropped names like Natalie Portman and Paris Hilton looking to score some time with the star of Twilight.

According to Celbuzz, the actor was confronted by one excitedly upset young female that was furious that Pattinson had not taken the time to call her back. The item cites Us Weekly that claims Rob said, "Give me a break will you? I didn't have the time. I was only here for four days."

Taylor Lautner has bulked up for the next installment of the film series titled "New Moon" and he is looking for some love from pattinson fans. He tells E! Online, "I'm so thankful for the fans and even those Robert Pattinson slash Edward fans. I know we wouldn’t…be here filming ‘New Moon’ and filming [third sequel] ‘Eclipse’ if it wasn’t for them."

He asks the Rob fans not to hate on him too much but some are saying that after New Moon hits and if it sees bigger success than Twilight will Taylor have a brighter star than Rob?

Jessica Simpson Leads Britney Spears Little Sis Jamie Lynn to Country

Pop goes country again. Jessica Simpson had struggled in the pop world even before her split with then hubby Nick Lachey, but once they were finished it seemed like pop fans lost interest. Jessica is now working the country circuit. Britney Spears is also on her comeback, though she is sticking to pop, along with the wardrobe malfunctions and more. Britney Spears little sis Jamie Lynn has abandoned the britney model and appears ready to try the Jessica route, she's going country.

Can she sing? The little sis has a show on Nickelodeon (Zoey 101) but had to break for some mommy time when she told the world she was pregnant. The baby daddy is from Louisiana and named Casey Aldridge. The two have said they will get married.

According to a report from Actress Archives during that break to raise her little daughter Maddie she has been working on a country album. One of the biggest stars in country music right now is 18-year old Taylor Swift, so even at only seventeen years old, age wouldn't be a factor.

But Swift is a very talented songwriter and performer and no one has a clue if Jamie Lynn Spears has even a tenth of that. It will be interesting to see if she can make country music that fans will connect with.