30
Nov
No one has ever been stripped of a Nobel Prize, because this is actually specifically forbidden by the organization which administers the Nobel Prizes. According to the Nobel Foundation, “no appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body with regard to the award of a prize,” and no prizes can be revoked after the fact, no matter how controversial they may seem. Despite the existence of several petitions pushing for retraction of controversial Nobel Prizes, it is unlikely that the organization will change its rules to make a revocation possible.
The Nobel Committee is quite proud of some of their previous controversial nominations. They cite the fact that some of their previous winners were controversial at the time, but eventually proven correct. That’s wonderful.
But what about cases where the winner was proven to be a fraud? In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won along with Al Gore. Al Gore won for writing a book and making a movie, for profit, based on the IPCC report. In 2009, evidence has emerged that a key architect for the IPCC fudged results in order to justify climate change. That not only means the IPCC justification for winning is based on fraud, but Al Gore’s campaign is based on one as well.
I’d like to see the Nobel Committee’s response to how they deal with something like that. Controversial’s one thing, fraud is something completely different although quite often they are the same thing.
A few years back, we had a problem with global warming. When it became evident the planet wasn’t warming as much as desired, the phrase became “climate change“. The beauty of that is no matter what happens, they’ve got it covered. If you question any change at all not being global warming, you’re in denial.
Then, climate change was debated in the House of Representatives. A lot of people said it would be too expensive. Citing bi-partisan support because eight Republicans supported it, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″ passed. In the Senate, in order to counter the expensive cost of the legislation, “tax” was replaced with “fees“. They got it covered. No taxes has been stressed by Barbara Boxer. All this change will cost you nothing. If you don’t believe her, you’re in denial.
The bill struggled in the Senate. According to Boxer once again, it was because the Republicans, who quit coming to committee meetings, we’re interfering with the Senate’s attempts to modernize. If you don’t believe her, you’re in denial. Citing the fact that no Republicans were allowed input, and didn’t even attend some committee meetings, and didn’t attend the final vote, some Democrats are now against the bill they wanted. According to Boxer, that means they are in denial although she hasn’t come right out and said it. People who don’t support her are in denial, but Democrats don’t count I suppose.
Now, a couple of weeks ago, we got the news that the researchers who came up with original reports that started the whole global warming climate change debate, which led to the concern over all these taxes fees, which is causing all this partisan politics bipartisanship, might not be true in the first place. That, they in fact, couldn’t prove the planet was warming. So, even though they were smart enough to change the argument to “climate change”, still negates the argument of exactly how much is Mankind’s fault. Which, negates what exactly we need to do, what extent we have to go to. Maybe switching lightbulbs is enough to do it. Who knows? No one does. Believe it or not, now, if you ask exactly what impact the fact that one of the key architects of the IPCC TAR that started this whole thing fudged data, you’re in denial.
In the meantime:
- Black Hills Power Requests Electric Rate Increase in Wyoming, First in 15 Years
- Xcel reduces requested electric rate increase
- Narragansett Electric files 4.9 percent general rate increase.
- Empire District Electric files request for $5.2 million rate increase for SE Kansas customers
- AEP explains huge rate increase request
- Agency schedules hearings on Savannah, Ga., electricity rate increase request.
If you question why power utilities are raising rates all over the country right now, sometimes in double-digits, you’re in denial.
27
Nov
I woke up this morning to the news that Dubai had basically defaulted on their debt. I expected a market crash as the result. So far, that hasn’t happened. It’s been a bad day, but not all that bad. But, to me, something just don’t feel right.
- Late June, California announces it’s basically bankrupt and starts issuing IOU’s. The Dow rose from 8,200 to 9,00 on the news.
- The FDIC announced it was bankrupt as of 9/30/2009. The Dow rose from 8,200 to 10,100 on the news.
- Throught out 2009, the unemployment rate has increased 25% to it’s highest level since 1983. During that time, the Dow rose 10%.
- The US federal debt increased:
2009 (est.) 12,867.5 90.4
2010 (est.) 14,456.3 98.1
2011 (est.) 15,673.9 101.0
2012 (est.) 16,565.7 100.6
2013 (est.) 17,440.2 99.7
2014 (est.) 18,350.0 99.8
It’s now exploring totally uncharted waters in that for the first time ever, it will actually exceed the GDP. - China seems to be looking at developing APEC moreso in the near future. That could pull investment money from the US. Who will buy our debt?
Now, I know the Dow has the shortest memory on the planet, but it just seems to me when you’re dealing with one financial disaster after another, it would have a negative impact on the markets. However, this Dow just seems to keep laughing at the bad news and climbing. I’d suggest it’s some sort of irrational exuberance. The only real justification I’ve seen is that the Dow over-corrected in 2008 and is returning to where it should be. However, if things have changed substantially, what is “where it should be”?
That’s the story we’re being sold. It’s hard to understand exactly where those jobs come from, but here’s a stab at it:
President Barack Obama hits three nails on the head with his plan to cap carbon emissions: weaning us off fossil fuels, spurring a wave of investment and job creation, and putting cash in the pockets of Americans who most need it.
In his budget, Obama included a “cap-and-refund” proposal that puts a strict limit on pollution that causes global warming and uses a permit auction to make large companies pay for the right to pollute. The cap on emissions will increase the price of fossil-fuel-based energy to encourage efficiency and new technologies. To protect consumers from rising prices, Obama’s plan refunds the revenue from the auctions directly to the American people through a tax credit.
The point of a carbon cap is to make energy efficiency and renewable energy sources more competitive by removing hidden subsidies for dirty energy such as coal. Pollution from fossil-fuel-based energy is known to impose important external costs, from health impacts today to climate change risks tomorrow. By raising the price of carbon emissions, a cap will create incentives for clean energy, efficiency, and conservation.
Sparing Consumer Electricity Costs
Leveling the playing field by forcing fossil-fuel prices to reflect their true cost will spur a wave of clean-energy investment: research and development in new technologies, new factories to produce solar panels, wind turbines, and energy-efficiency retrofits of commercial and residential real estate. That means jobs, and lots of them. and While some businesses that rely on dirty energy will be hurt, many others will thrive in the clean-energy economy.
Most carbon cap plans are set up to fail because they reward energy companies with permit giveaways and fail to compensate consumers for increased electricity bills. One such proposal hit the Senate floor last year, only to collapse under the weight of too much spending and not enough protection for the middle class. Obama’s cap-and-refund plan avoids these mistakes.
As stated clearly by Peter Orszag, President Obama’s budget director, giving away the permits would be nothing more than “the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States.” A cap is going to increase the relative cost of dirty energy whether permits are given away or auctioned because companies will have to use permits they could otherwise have sold in the market. Either way, in deregulated markets, energy companies will pass those costs to consumers. Giving away permits doesn’t help consumers; it just transfers wealth to utility companies. The exception is in regulated energy markets, where consumers would have to count on utility regulators to protect their interests.
Add Nonworkers to the Refund Flow
Just as important, almost all of the revenue from the permit auction is returned to the American public, recycling revenue directly into the U.S. economy and protecting consumers. Although prices for energy and energy-intensive goods are likely to rise, the refund can make up and even exceed the additional expenses for most Americans. As an added bonus, since lower-income Americans tend to spend new disposable income quickly—and they benefit the most under a tax-and-refund plan—we can actually expect a jump in consumer spending.
The President’s budget is only the very beginning of this process. There are ways to improve it and to involve more Americans.
Under the President’s plan, the refunds are distributed by extending the Making Work Pay tax credit, which applies to 95% of working Americans. If all, or nearly all, of the revenue from an auction is directly refunded, most Americans will receive more from the refund than they pay in increased energy prices. Unfortunately, this tax credit would not reach nonworkers, including retirees, people on disability, and the unemployed. Because these populations are among the most vulnerable, the refund should take them into account. As the cap declines, the auction revenue will actually increase, and a plan should be made to distribute the additional funds directly to the American public.
A Cleaner, Healthier Economy
These are important issues, but they deal with how to implement what is a genuinely transformative policy for this country. Right away, the President’s proposal will create new investment incentives and get cash into the pockets of working Americans. In the future, as we adjust to a new green economy, the cap will be lowered, generating even greater revenue that will be distributed to the U.S. public.
The results of America’s fossil-fuel addiction are clear: We send billions overseas for foreign oil, muck up the environment with coal pollution, and stunt economic development. Breaking that addiction will cause withdrawal symptoms for some, but it is necessary to build a cleaner, healthier economy for all.
OK, I get it now. It’s so simple. By making traditional energy sources prohibitively expensive, it will create new industries that will create new jobs.
That concept’s actually not new. It’s been floating around for a while. Remember when gas shot up? People immediately demanded more efficient cars that ran on alternative fuels. Remember that? Entire industries sprung up immediately. Here’s how some of them have fared since then:
| Then | Now | Change | ||
| ANDE | Andersons Inc. | $39.36 | 28.84 | -27% |
| AVR | Aventine Renewable Energy, Inc. | $0.98 | 0.09 | -91% |
| BFRE.PK | BlueFire Ethanol, Inc. | $0.86 | 0.84 | -2% |
| EBOF.OB | Earth Biofuels Inc | 0.036 | ||
| GPRE | Green Plains Renewable Energy, Inc. | $25.49 | 11.75 | -54% |
| GRGR.PK | Green Energy Resources | $0.13 | ||
| GSCT.OB | GS CleanTech Corporation | $0.00 | ||
| GSPI.PK | Green Star Products, Inc. | $0.04 | ||
| IESV.OB | Intrepid Technology & Resource Inc. | $0.02 | ||
| MGPI | MGP Ingredients Inc. | $20.73 | $0.00 | -100% |
| PEIX | Pacific Ethanol, Inc. | $18.23 | 0.36 | -98% |
| SYNI.OB | Syngas International | $0.00 | ||
| VSE | VeraSun Energy Corp. | $17.47 | 44.92 | 157% |
| XNL | Xethanol Corporation | $2.97 | 0.09 | -97% |
Those are the lucky ones. Most of the rest are gone. Who are the big players now in ethanol and bio-diesel? Wanna guess?
- Archer Daniels Midland, based in Illinois.
- Bunge Ltd., Bermuda
- British Petroleum, Britain
- ConAgra, Nebraska
- Chevron, California
- Royal Dutch Shell, Britain
OK, this is where I start getting uppity. Half of the biggest players benefiting from a 100% US imposed program are foreign owned. After a brief spike in domestic coal production, it’s dropped off substantially since. And, we’re not gaining any jobs in the energy producing sectors. I don’t think anyone would argue at this point the US economy has benefited from the push for bio-diesel and ethanol. I think it’s rather obvious at this point that nothing much is sparking the US economy.
However, the Brazilian economy has thrived at our expense. They moved to using ethanol in the 70′s. As such, they had all the necessary refining capabilities and such in place. They’re cranking out 1/3 of all ethanol/bio-diesel produced at this time. However, it’s coming at a cost that disturbs me:
That’s the ecological trade-off for mining coal.
Brazil is in the process of destroying a huge percentage of their rain forests. Some would argue we need them to survive. Without the carbon eating impact of rain forests, we’d have, you guessed it, runaway greenhouse effect.
Now, Obama thinks we need to speed up that process with cap and trade. Windmills and solar panels won’t do squat to provide energy, where will it come from? Brazil can’t burn their forests fast enough to provide an alternative additive. That’s not even an actual fuel source. Where will all this energy come from? The Democrats are more than ready to tax the hell out of coal, but no one has a ready answer for what will replace it that does as much, or more, damage to the ecology.
23
Nov
Lou Dobbs is pondering running for president apparently. He already has a website: http://www.loudobbsforpresident.org. Well, “someone” has one for him anyways. And, he’s not denying he’s interested. So far he seems to be a one issue candidate. But, since it’s kinda early, and he’s not officially running, that’s hardly a strike. That one issue is one that can generate a lot of support. What I find most odd about the draft Dobbs page is this initial paragraph:
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is mobilizing activists and groups across America to defend CNN host Lou Dobbs and all First Amendment rights from attacks launched by illegal alien and Obama supporting organizations such as La Raza, Media Matters, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Associated Press.”
That’s supposed to be reserved for anti-American Christian redneck Republicans. L0u Dobbs may be Christian. The rest, not so much. Well, he was born in Texas, so that should count. But, he left there. He seems quite patriotic, but attended college in Moscow. So he’s got a couple of things going for him. But, since he’s been at CNN for thirty years, I couldn’t possibly like him. CNN bit the radical liberal pill in the 90′s and pretty much drove the country into the partisan bickering to levels never known to man before. Well, OK, so Dobbs left CNN for that reason in 1999. But, I gotta admit, he’s got one huge thing going for him:
He left CNN to help start up space.com. But, in the long run, space.com’s done for astronomy what CNN did for political commentary.
To say the least, he presents an unusual political conundrum. I like that. What I like most is when people who make their living criticizing and second guessing politicians put their money where their mouth is.
20
Nov
I try to come up with witty post titles to show how clever I am. However, in Eric Holder’s case this week, he’s got me. There are so many choices to pick from I get a brain freeze simply trying to pick one, or two, or three.
Now, I’m not stupid, and most people aren’t. People are scratching their heads trying to figure out what’s going on with this guy. I’m not. It’s quite clear to me. And, it’s fairly clear to some others:
That’s the key right there. So, keeping that in mind, some of what’s going on makes sense. Now, in addition, you have to toss in a little history as well. There are some similarities already occurring that I think need watching.
In the late 90′s, as the Clinton presidency was winding down, there was an attack on a US military ship. A seemingly invincable navy ship was almost sunk by a handful of guys on a little boat. In 2009, a US military base is attacked by one guy with a gun. In both cases, there were multiple casualties. In both cases, the attack was announced in advance. In both cases, one segment at least of the US intelligence community knew what was going on and did nothing about it. When everything was researched, the problem seemed to be that one element of the intelligence community was not allowed to share information with the others. The common thread according to me? Jamie Gorelick. Gorelick and Janet Reno gutted the CIA. In 1997, Eric Holder replaced Jamie Gorelick under Janet Reno.
In 1980, as a special prosecutor, Eric Holder was partly responsible for the decision to indict several legislators in the ABSCAM investigation. The one person they decided not to, Jack Murtha. They skewered the legal system by labeling Murtha an “unindicted co-conspirator”. Look that one up in the legal books.
In 1997, it was Holder’s recommendation to allow Kenneth Star to expand an investigation that previously had been limited to possible illegal business dealings by Hillary Clinton, to include possible perjury charges against President Clinton regarding lying about a civilian sexual harassment charge. The special counsel would serve seven years with investigations into Whitewater, Vince Foster, and Monica Lewinsky. There of course, was no legal predecent.
In 2001, in Clinton’s last days, Holder recommended Clinton pardon Marc Rich. Rich was the star of a completely unprecedented number of presidential pardons that included drug dealers, terrorists, rapists, you name it. There of course was no legal precedent for such a mass pardon.
The reason I go into his sordid past is because it paints a picture of a person who literally just makes it up on the fly. There was no legal reason to tag Murtha as an “unindicted co-conspirator”. There was no legal reason to allow Starr to change an investigation into one issue and then suddenly jump to another unlrelated issue. There was no legal reason to pardon the hundreds of people Clinton pardoned. However, in all cases, there were political reasons to do it.
Now, we’ve got the bizarre charade that has been Holder defending his decision to bring terrorists into New York City to stand trial in civilian court for what most perceive a purely military issue.
Where to start? Sheez.
OK, so Holder doesn’t know the precedent of when the first military prisoner was tried in civilian court. Big deal huh? ( Answer, never. ) OK, so Holder doesn’t know if a military prisoner is to be given Miranda rights or not. ( Answer, obviously, if tried as a civilian. ) And, Holder doesn’t think pre-judging the outcome of a trial won’t affect the outcome of the trial ( Answer, he just invalidated the entire trial. ) Some would argue Lindsay Graham’s a jerk. That makes it all OK. However, Graham’s a former JAG. He knows military law. Holder doesn’t.
But, it got even more absurd.
I was thrilled to see someone finally publicly ask how you could be more likely to get a conviction in civilian court when the defendant has already pled guilty and asked to be executed? How would he be more likely to be convicted in a court that requires Miranda rights than a court that does not when he was never given those rights? How could he possibly be more likely to be convicted in a court that allows plea bargains as opposed to a court that does not? And, what’s the point of even having a trial if Holder KNOWS he’ll be convicted? Bigger question, what does Holder do if KSM is not found guilty? You can not hold a person indefinitely in civilian court. Unless they find him guilty, he has to be freed. And, even if they do find him guilty, what if it’s not life? Stranger things have happened in civilian court. Bottom line, Holder could not come up with a single reason to justify his decision to force these people into civilian court.
On and on it goes. The charade just keeps getting more bizarre.
The problem is Obama and Holder made their decision simply to attack Bush when it was politically expedient. They had nothing to lose fighting Bush then. Problem is, they have no way to back down. Obama’s backing Holder, but he has no logic either.
Biggest issue I see here? Holder’s whimsical decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City is, according to Holder, not posing a threat to the people of New York City. Not only is he ignorant of the law, he’s totally clueless about history as well. There is precedent for trying terrorists in US courts. The key difference here is these people were captured in combat, on foreign soil. Terrorists are a different matter. In July 2001 a terrorist was found guilty in abetting the attack on Khobar Towers. The sentencing date was set for September 19, 2001. The terrorist was Usama Bin Laden. The location was the Federal Courthouse in New York City. Within blocks of the World Trade Center.
- So, you’ve got Holder guaranteeing a conviction in civil court for a non-citizen who has not been served his civil rights. How many problems do you see with that?
- You’ve got a situation where militants are cherry picked to which court they go. How many problems do you see with that?
- You’ve got Holder assuring us that the chance of conviction is greater in civilian court than it was in military court regardless of the fact a conviction has already been acheived in military courts?
- You’ve got Holder assuring us it poses no threat to anyone, regardless of the fact a similar situation resulted in 2,000 people being killed.
- And what scares me most, you’ve got an Attorney General who feels the law is what he wants it to be at any given moment and no one seems to care.
19
Nov
Iran has been less than cooperative with Obama’s administration. They weren’t too cooperative with Bush’s either. For that matter, they haven’t been terribly cooperative since the Shah left. So, given the thirty year history of lying, antagonism, and developing weapons of mass destruction, Obama put his foot down last night:
Now, Obama announced that in his usual cool, calm, political voice. It didn’t fly too well and some people are making fun of it. He is a student of presentation, he knows he could have done better. Now, I’m no ventriloquist, surprised I can even spell it, so, I’m not going to help him much here other than just give suggestions.
First suggestion, take a cue from Christopher Walken, preferably in Pulp Fiction. Put some swagger in those tough words. Put an emphasis on the unexpected. “Our, expectation is that over the next several weeks we will…… be developing a package of potential, steps that we could take that will, indicate our seriousness……” You get the picture.
Or maybe a Dirty Harry? Grit a little. Chomp on a cigar. “You gotta ask yourself, Ahmadijad, do you feel lucky? Huh punk? Do ya? Our expectation is, is that over the next several weeks we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take that will indicate our seriousness.”
Scary huh?
The Joker? “Our expectation is, is that over the next several weeks we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take that will indicate our seriousness to Iran. Why so serious? Because my daddy carved this smile on my face.”
Jack D. Ripper?
General Jack D. Ripper: Ahmadinejad?
Ahmadinejad: Yes, Jack?
General Jack D. Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
Ahmadinejad: Well, I can’t say I have.
General Jack D. Ripper: Vodka, that’s what they drink, isn’t it? Never water?
Ahmadinejad: Well, I-I believe that’s what they drink, Jack, yes.
General Jack D. Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
Ahmadinejad: Oh, eh, yes. I, hmm, can’t quite see what you’re getting at, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Water, that’s what I’m getting at, water. Ahmadinejad, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this earth’s surface is water. Why, do you realize that seventy percent of you is water?
Ahmadinejad: Uh, uh, Good Lord!
General Jack D. Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
Ahmadinejad: Yes. (He begins to chuckle nervously)
General Jack D. Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Ahmadinejad: Yes. (More laughter)
General Jack D. Ripper: Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol?
Ahmadinejad: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
General Jack D. Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
Ahmadinejad: Uh? Yes, II have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?
Ahmadinejad: No, no I don’t know what it is, no.
General Jack D. Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?
General Jack D. Ripper: Ahmadinejad, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk… ice cream. Ice cream, Ahmadinejad, children’s ice cream.
Ahmadinejad: Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Ahmadinejad: I– no, no. I don’t, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Ahmadinejad. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.
Ahmadinejad: And, you think Iran is going to poison our water too?
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, Ahmadinejad. I do.
Ahmadinejad: So, you will stop drinking the water?
General Jack D. Ripper: No, Ahmadinejad. Our expectation is, is that over the next several weeks we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take that will indicate our seriousness to Iran.
I can think of a few other personnas that might have put some ooomph to those words. Maybe steal a character or two from The Holy Grail? As it is, it just doesn’t seem terribly forceful to me. Maybe it’s just me.
18
Nov
My good friend, Paul Burton, who I consider the pre-eminent thinker of Eubank, called me with a thought that was so clear to me he didn’t even have to explain it.
Stop signs versus stop lights are the perfect symbols of the difference between conservatives and liberals.
Think about it for minute.
At a stop sign, everyone is responsible for what they, and those around them do. At a stop light, everyone who has a green light fully expects everyone else to stop for them. If there’s a wreck, it’s never the person who assumes the light was red’s fault. It’s that person who assumed they had the right to go through the light while everyone else waited for them.
At a stop sign, if a wreck occurs, it’s minimal and easily fixed. Assuming of course everyone had followed the rules and stopped. If there’s a wreck at a stop light, it can be very ugly, and expensive.
At a stop sign, if everyone follows the rules and does come to a complete stop, no one gets hurt. If someone ignores the rules, someone could get hurt as badly as if they had run a stop light. If someone stops at a green light, chances are they will get hurt a lot less than that person who ran through the stop sign.
At a stop sign, everyone has to acknowledge the other person is there and work out some order to get everyone through the stop. At a stop light, you have turn lights, stop lights, red lights, caution lights, and green lights. Your every move is dictated electronically. But, what you will never do is consult with anyone else over when to turn. Even if you have to sit there five solid minutes with no oncoming traffic.
At a stop sign, if no one is coming, you go. At a stop light, if no one is coming, you sit and wait for the light to tell you it’s OK to go now.
At a stop sign, if there’s an accident, it’s someone’s fault. There’s just no way out of it. At a stop light, everyone blames it on the light.
Lastly, nothing can go wrong with a stop sign. It’s either there, or not. If you rely completely on stop lights, and the power goes out……..
Fox says:
White House Takes Aim at Critics of New Breast Cancer Guidelines
White House says:
The hope appears to be that some media outlet will give them unchecked airtime under the banner of covering the “controversy.” Today they’re going back to that playbook again, and Fox News obliges them with the headline “Critics See Health Care Rationing Behind New Mammography Recommendations.”
That’s under the title of “Reality Check:”. That sounds a lot like AP’s “Fact check”.
However, working in the medical industry, sorta, I do know for a fact that insurance companies do follow the recommendations of the federal government. They have to. Dan Pfeiffer once again totally dismisses those concerns, which are illustrated in the articles. He addresses what he wants to, but to summarily dismiss the concept that insurance companies don’t have to follow the recommendation of the federal government is absurd.
Next I’m sure he’ll attack Fox for suggesting there is no Congressional District 00 in South Carolina.
Ray Manzullo made this unfortunate comment a little while ago:
He then went on to clarify a little:
He said he never specified Islam and apologized for any misunderstanding.
Just to be clear, 100% of the prisoners at Gitmo are Muslim. That sort of precludes any assumption Manzullo had that he might have been referring to anything else. However, I wanna see something.
Here’s Manzullo’s elections results so far:
- 2000 – 178,174, 67%
- 2002 – 133,339, 71%
- 2004 – 201,976, 69%
- 2006 – 121,331, 66%
- 2008 – 190,039, 61%
Let’s see what he gets in 2010. Any takers?
