Monday, November 30, 2009

Moochers need free-market dose

Neal Boortz: Moochers need free-market dose

7:58 p.m. Friday, November 13, 2009

What’s the most surprising element of the current health care debate?

That would be the belief many government-educated Americans have that the Democrats pushing this health care takeover actually care all that much about their health.

This whole debate — and the Democrats’ attempt to seize control of a sixth of our nation’s economy — would have ended long ago if the American people had realized that this is about creating dependency on government and nothing else. Look, if these moochers had any concern whatsoever about the availability and quality of health care in this country, they would have turned the free markets loose.

There has never in the history of mankind been any social or economic system better able to improve the standard of living of the people, and that includes health care, than the competitive free market — a system, by the way, currently despised by the ruling (not governing, ruling) party in Washington. Our friends the Democrats, knowing the power of the free market, wouldn’t so much as propose allowing you to purchase health insurance across state lines, let alone give you the same tax breaks if you were to purchase health insurance on your own that your employer gets purchasing it for you.

All right. So, I’m not going to be able to convince you that your friends the Democrats are just out to grow government and their political strength. I can, however, use the words I have left (they really need to give me a bigger word budget) to dispel you of this absurd notion that you have a “right” to health care.

How do you receive health care? Compare health care to your right to free speech. All that is necessary for you to exercise your right to blab away on almost anything is for other people to refrain from stuffing a sock in your mouth. Not so with health care. Health care is a service. Free speech isn’t, nor are the other rights enumerated in our Constitution. Someone has to provide you with health care. They either have to administer to you personally, or they have to provide you with drugs or medical implements. To claim a right to health care, then, is to claim a right to either the time or the property of the people with the skills, the drugs or the equipment you may need.

Get the point?

You have NO right to a portion of another person’s life, or to their property. None. Therefore, you cannot have a right to health care.

Think about this: Once you perfect a claim to a portion of another person’s life or property for your health care, where does it stop? Do you then have a similar claim for shelter or three squares a day? How much of that person’s life and property belongs to you? How much can they protect from your ever-growing dependency on government?

You know ... I need to write more columns at 1 a.m. Clearly I nailed this “right to health care” thing. Perhaps I should quit while I’m ahead, but I’m going to spend a few more words stating the obvious.

How’s this swine flu thing working out for you?

Have you had any problems finding your swine flu shots? Tell me how you like that rate of return you’re getting on all of the money that was confiscated from you for Social Security!

And have you noticed that you can get your oil changed faster than you can work your way through the line at a post office? Private sector vs. government.

Are you really paying attention to the choices you’re making here? No? Well, isn’t it about time?

Neal Boortz’s column appears every Saturday. For more Boortz, go to

Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required « The Enterprise Blog

Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required

By Nick Schulz

November 25, 2009, 8:19 am

A friend sends along the following chart from a J.P. Morgan research report. It examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy. It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.


When one considers that public sector employment has ranged since the 1950s at between 15 percent and 19 percent of the population, the makeup of the current cabinet—over 90 percent of its prior experience was in the public sector—is remarkable.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009



On June 20, 1676, the governing council of Charlestown, Massachusetts, held a meeting to determine how best to express thanks to God, for the good fortune that had seen their community securely established. By unamimous vote they instructed Edward Rawson, the clerk, to proclaim June 29 as a day of thanksgiving, our first. That proclamation is reproduced here in the same language and spelling as the original.

"The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series of his Afflictive dispensations in and by the present Warr with the Heathen Natives of this land, written and brought to pass bitter things against his own Covenant people in this wilderness, yet so that we evidently discern that in the midst of his judgements he hath remembered mercy, having remembered his Footstool in the day of his sore displeasure against us for our sins, with many singular Intimations of his Fatherly Compassion, and regard..."

The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour, many
The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth by By Jennie A. Brownscombe
By Jennie A. Brownscombe [1914]
The Pilgrim Society
Particulars of which mercy might be Instanced, but we doubt not those who are sensible of God's Afflictions, have been as diligent to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously to keep the same Beseeching that being perswaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and soulds as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ."

Psalm 96

O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth.
Sing unto the LORD, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day.
Declare his glory among the heathen, his wonders among all people.
For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.
Honour and majesty are before him: strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.
Give unto the LORD, O ye kindreds of the people, give unto the LORD glory and strength.
Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come into his courts.
O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.
Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof.
Let the field be joyful, and all that is therein: then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice
Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789

General Thanksgiving

By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America


WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

The Atlantic Online | September 2009 | How American Health Care Killed My Father | David Goldhill

The Atlantic Online | September 2009 | How American Health Care Killed My Father | David Goldhill


Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Pajamas Media » Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive) » Print

Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)

Posted By Christopher Monckton On November 23, 2009 @ 10:37 am In . Column2 05, Crime, Europe, Science & Technology, US News, World News | 165 Comments

This is what they did — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be [1] — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up. Unfortunately, the British researchers have been acting closely in league with their U.S. counterparts who compile the other terrestrial temperature dataset — the GISS/NCDC dataset. That dataset too contains numerous biases intended artificially to inflate the natural warming of the 20th century.

Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.

What have the mainstream news media said about the Climategate affair? Remarkably little [2]. The few who have brought themselves to comment, through gritted teeth, have said that all of this is a storm in a teacup, and that their friends in the University of East Anglia and elsewhere in the climatological community are good people, really.

No, they’re not. They’re criminals. With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute. But I won’t be holding my breath: In the police state that Britain has now sadly become, with supine news media largely owned and controlled by the government, the establishment tends to look after its own.

At our expense, and at the expense of the truth.

Monday, November 23, 2009

American Thinker- Print Article

November 22, 2009

Praising Saul Alinsky and Cloward-Piven

Jim Yardley
That title may sound odd coming from the mouth of a hardened Libertarian/Conservative, but it is not meant as praise for their objectives, only their methods.
The health care juggernaut working its way through Congress is, to any political realist, virtually unstoppable in some form. We will be yoked under it even if some cosmetic changes are made. Of course there will also be the unstated understanding that any section that is sacrificed for passage will be resurrected in the future.

One section that won't be cut, I feel sure, is the mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance, either from private, but heavily regulated, health insurance companies, or from the Federal government. The current language of the bill, as I understand it, requires this purchase under the threat of fines, or imprisonment.

And this is where I have to sing the praises of Alinsky and Cloward-Piven. They have given us a way to "spike their wheels."

Numbers that the Department of Justice claims are accurate as of June 30, 2008, indicate that Federal and State prisons, we have a total of 2,310,984 prisoners.

According to our President, and various members of Congress, we have somewhere between 30 million and 47 million without insurance coverage, who will be required to get such coverage or else join their felonious brothers and sisters in the prison system.

Splitting the difference between 30 and 47 million, let's just use 38.5 million as a working number. According to the Heritage Foundation, the number of people who currently have employer provided healthcare and who will lose that coverage and be forced to join the 38.5 million is about 88.1 million.

OK, we know that the 88.1 million number might be a bit high, so let's be conservative and reduce it by a third, to 58.8 million. With the original 38.5 million we have a total of 97.3 million people who are under threat of imprisonment and fines unless they bow to Obama (I suppose he's getting tired of being the one bowing) and purchase health insurance.

If only one person out of a hundred refused to purchase Obamacare Advantage, or whatever they decide to call it, and also refused to pay the fine, how do you think Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Waxman, Boxer, et al, would react to the idea of adding 973,000 new inmates to the prison system? That would be a 42% increase over the current prison population, which is already straining our ability to house felons.

If Obamacare were currently law, I might be guilty of inciting criminality. Nah, not "might be." I'd be guilty as hell. If this abominable law is passed, I think the ultimate act of civil disobedience might be the most effective way to bring these politicians to their senses.

During the Vietnam era, some men were willing to go to jail rather than serve in what they considered an immoral war. A LOT more just cut and went to Canada. I can't speak for all my brothers in Vietnam, but I know the vast majority of soldiers with whom I served had enormous respect for those who went to jail as a matter of conscience, and utter disdain for those who ran and hid in Canada. I thought at the time that if those who went north had overwhelmed our prison system, the war would have been ended years earlier.

I think the same strategy would work now. Overwhelm our prison system, and see how quickly the laws (and some incumbents) are changed.

Thanks Saul Alinsky, and Doctors Cloward and Piven. Even if it's not the change the two of you hoped for, we might just see if your ideas really work.

Page Printed from: at November 24, 2009 - 01:26:04 AM EST

The Superbower by Mark Steyn on National Review Online

The Superbower
Whenever Obama’s not talking about himself, it’s like he’s wandered off-message.

By Mark Steyn

My radio pal Hugh Hewitt said to me on the air the other day that Barack Obama “doesn’t know how to be president.” It was a low but effective crack and I didn’t pay it much heed. But, after musing on it over the last week or so, it seems to me frighteningly literally true. I don’t just mean social lapses like his latest cringe-making bow, this time to Their Imperial Majesties, the Emperor and Empress of Japan — though that in itself is deeply weird: After the world superbower’s previous nose-to-toe prostration before the Saudi King, one assumed there’d be someone in the White House to point out tactfully that the citizen-executives of the American republic don’t bow to foreign monarchs. Along with his choreographic gaucherie goes his peculiar belief that all of human history is just a bit of colorful backstory in the Barack Obama biopic — or as he put it in his video address on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall:

“Few would have foreseen on that day that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent.”

Tear down that wall . . . so they can get a better look at me!!! Is there no one in the White House grown-up enough to say, “Er, Mr. President, that’s really the kind of line you get someone else to say about you”? And maybe somebody could have pointed out that Nov. 9, 1989, isn’t about him but about millions of nobodies whose names are unknown, who lead dreary lives doing unglamorous jobs and going home to drab accommodations, but who at a critical moment in history decided they were no longer going to live in a prison state. They’re no big deal; they’re never going to land a photoshoot for Vanity Fair. But it’s their day, not yours. It’s not the narcissism, so much as the crassly parochial nature of it.

Is it the only template in the White House speechwriters’ computer? “Few would have foreseen at the Elamite sack of Ur/Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow/the assassination of the Archduke Franz-Ferdinand/the passage of the Dubrovnik Airport Parking Lot Expansion Bill that one day I would be standing before you talking about how few would have foreseen that one day I would be standing before you.”

Some years ago, when Ellen DeGeneres came out as a lesbian and ensuing episodes of her sitcom grew somewhat overly preoccupied with the subject, Elton John remarked: “Okay, we know you’re gay. Now try being funny.” I wonder if Sir Elton might be prevailed upon to try a similar pitch at the next all-star White House gala: Okay, we know you’re black. Now try being president. But a few days later Obama dropped in on U.S. troops at Osan Air Base in South Korea for the latest episode of The Barack Obama Show (With Full Supporting Chorus). “You guys make a pretty good photo op,” he told them.

Hmm. Do I detect a belated rationale for the Afghan campaign?

Probably not. The above are mostly offences against good taste, but they are, cumulatively, revealing. And they help explain why, whenever the president’s not talking about himself, he sounds like he’s wandered vaguely off-message. The other day, for example, he told Fox News that “if we keep on adding to the debt . . . people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.”

That’s a great line — but not from a guy who plans to “keep on adding to the debt” as a conscious strategy. This is the president who made “trillion” the new default unit of federal budgeting, and whose irresponsibility is prompting key players around the world to consider seriously whether it’s time to ditch the dollar’s role as global reserve currency. But Obama’s much vaunted “bipartisanship,” to which so many “moderate” conservatives were partial a year ago, seems to have dwindled down to an impressive ability to take one side of an issue in his rhetoric and another in his actions.

Which brings us to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11. He’d been brought before a military commission, and last December indicated he was ready to plead guilty, and itching for the express lane to the 72 virgins.

But that wasn’t good enough for Obama, who in essence declined to accept KSM’s confession and decided to put him on trial in a New York courthouse. Why? To show “the world” — i.e., European op-ed pages and faculty lounges — that America would fight terror in a way “consistent with our values,” and apparently that means turning KSM into O. J. and loosing his dream team on the civilian justice system. But, having buttered up Le Monde and the BBC and many of his own lefties by announcing that Mohammed would get a fair trial, Obama then assured NBC that he’d be convicted and was gonna fry.

So it’s like a fair trial consistent with “our values” except for the one about presumption of innocence? If the head of state declaring you guilty and demanding the death penalty doesn’t taint the jury pool, it’s hard to see what would. The KSM circus is not, technically, a “show trial”: He could well be acquitted. But, even if he is, he’s unlikely to be strolling out a free man like Frank Sinatra beating the rap in Robin and the Seven Hoods and standing on the courthouse steps to sing “My Kind of Town (Manhattan Is)” — although I wouldn’t entirely rule it out: In a world in which the self-confessed perpetrator of the bloodiest act of war on the American mainland in two centuries is entitled to a civilian trial, all things are possible. The other day, the attorney general, Eric Holder, promised us that it would be “the trial of the century” — and he said it like it’s a good thing. Why would you do that?

So how’s it playing with its intended audience? Alas, the world moves on. Not being George W. Bush may be enough to impress the 2009 Nobush Peace Prize committee in Oslo, but it’s old news everywhere else. America’s enemies have figured out that the Superbower is their best opportunity since the Seventies; and for America’s friends, the short version of the hopeychangey era to date is last week’s cover story at the London Spectator showing an empty suit in the Oval Office over the headline “The Worst Kind of Ally.”

Hang on, wasn’t that title retired with Bush? Well, no. Apparently, he routinely called up prime ministers hither and yon and kept them in the picture and up to speed. Obama doesn’t have time for any of that: When he stiffed Poland on missile defense, he got Hillary to phone it in. The Poles, bless ’em, declined to take her call. In Delhi, meanwhile, they’re horrified by Obama’s performance in China. America’s enemies smell weakness, and our allies feel only the vacuum of U.S. leadership. About himself, the president speaks loudly. For America, he carries a small twig.

Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2009 Mark Steyn

The American form of government. [VIDEO]

The American form of government. [VIDEO]

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Climategate latest | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Climategate latest

Andrew Bolt

Monday, November 23, 2009 at 05:52am

Slowly seeping into the local media.

The Australian:

COMPUTER hackers have broken into Britain’s leading climate science research centre, making public thousands of private emails between top climate change scientists and, in the process, laying bare their bitter disagreements about the cause of climate change.

Tim Blair in the Daily Telegraph:

Should they be proved genuine, which is looking likely at this point, in the absence of any denials, these emails are absolute dynamite.

Sydney Morning Herald (devoting an entire artice to the defence):

A leading climate change scientist whose private emails are included in thousands of documents stolen by hackers and posted online says the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month’s global climate summit in Denmark.

Prominent climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr says we now need to review the extent of the hijacking of the IPCC:

The challenge to the IPCC community, now that their duplicity has been exposed, is to communicate to all of us why the peer-reviewed papers that we documented, and that were available in time for the IPCC review process, were considered “bad papers” and thus ignored in the IPCC report. A balanced assessment would comment on these papers, and provide the reason they disagree with their results.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home

Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home

Frank M. Carrio, CMI
ESOP Committee Member
Thursday, Nov 19th, 2009

We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington!

This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA….

A License Required for your house

Thinking about selling your house – A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.
No one is excluded.

However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:

  • A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.

The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.

  • In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
  • To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured.
  • Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
  • Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner.
  • If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.

The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initial y so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.

  • The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings.
  • However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.

Sect. 202:

Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.

You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants.

You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants.
Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”

Sect. 204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.

Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.

And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year.

But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.

Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.

Sect. 304:
Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d), Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions, that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

American Thinker Blog: Top Ten Reasons Black America Fears Rush Limbaugh

November 17, 2009
Top Ten Reasons Black America Fears Rush Limbaugh
Lloyd Marcus
I am a black man who, since 1993, has been a regular listener of the Rush Limbaugh radio program. I must caution black America. Be afraid, be very afraid of this powerful white man. Regular listening to him could be devastating to the psyche of the 96% of black Americans who voted for Obama. I have compiled the following Top Ten list of reasons why.

10. If you want to believe blacks are eternal victims in America, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

9. If you do not want to take responsibility for your life, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

8. If you are a dead beat loser who voted for Obama in hope of him redistributing what others worked for to you, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

7. If you believe blacks can not achieve without lowered standards and intervention by government and liberals, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

6. If you believe blacks who speak English correctly and are self sufficient are traitors, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

5. If you believe black liberal Democrats (Sharpton, Jackson, Waters & Co.) are your friends rather than your slave masters, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

4. If you do not believe self respect, pride and true self esteem comes from personal achievement, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

3. If you want to hate your country and believe it is the greatest source of evil in the world, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

2. If you want to believe rich white racist Republicans are burning the midnight oil thinking of ways to keep black America down, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

And the number one reason black America should fear regularly listening to Rush Limbaugh; they will become ditto heads.

Lloyd Marcus (black) Unhyphenated American

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Queen Pelosi

Etymology of Nancy Pelosi:

Main Entry: Nancy Pelosi

Pronunciation: \,nan-cee’ –pee,-low-‘see\

Function: noun

Etymology: Russian, Stalinism, Maoism & Marxism, from Joseph Stalin, Stalinist-Revolution

Date: 19th century

1 : An extremely liberal, corrupt, power-hungry, narcissistic and goony politician.

2 : An utterly wack, foolish and nuggety Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Synonyms: Harry Reid, AstroTurf, dense, asinine, brainless, thick-headed, nonsensical, half-baked, moronic, naïve, obtuse, funky, gross, oddball, peculiar, freakish, grotty, kooky, weird.

Antonyms: Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, intelligent, reasonable, honest, trustworthy, good, nice, pleasing, wise, open-minded, fascinating, incredible.

Eye on Cleveland: Light Bulbs to be Delivered by Utility

Story #5:

RUSH: Now here's a story out of Cleveland by Kevin O'Brien in the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "There was a time when you and I could be trusted to change a light bulb. In those days, powerful people who made weighty decisions understood that if a light bulb burned out, even the dimmest of us common folk would know enough to remove it from its socket, choose a suitable replacement and install it." We made jokes about it, it was so simple.

"Apparently all of the weighty decisions have been made, because powerful people have now worked their way down to telling us what kind of light bulb we will use -- and even bringing some to us, apparently fearing that even the brightest of us common [people] might botch the job. How is it that an act whose very simplicity spawned a genre of humor, based mostly on ethnic, sexist and sectarian slurs ... has suddenly become a complicated, labor-intensive, expensive, public endeavor? ... In just a few days, people dressed in green T-shirts and green caps will begin the rather enormous task of delivering two 23-watt, warm-white, compact fluorescent light bulbs to every residence FirstEnergy," which is the power company, "serves. They won't ask whether you want them."

Stick with me, here. This is Cleveland. "They'll just leave them on your doorstep, in a bag that will also contain a brochure called 'More Than 100 Ways to Improve Your Electric Bill.'" Now, don't... Folks, stick with me on this because we haven't even gotten to what's outrageous about this. "They won't ask for payment, though. As you might expect with an electric utility, that's already wired. These whiz-bang new light bulbs -- which cost FirstEnergy $3.50 each, and which you could buy all by yourself at any number of stores for even less if you were still trusted to do that sort of thing -- will cost you $21.60 for the pair." So $3.50 each is what the power companies has to pay for them. They're going to charge their customers 21.60 for the pair of 23-watt bulbs.

"You'll pay it off over the next three years, at 60 cents a month added to your electric bill." Hang on. "The bulbs you would buy at the store might come from China, like FirstEnergy's do, but they wouldn't come with delivery vans, or brochures, or paid bulb valets clad in green shirts emblazoned ... 'Providing energy-efficient light bulbs is just one way we can help our customers save money while also helping the environment,' FirstEnergy's Web site proclaims. Except that FirstEnergy really isn't 'providing' them. You are. FirstEnergy is just inflating your cost tremendously by having them brought to you. And, by the way, the $21.60 you'll pay for those bulbs [in Cleveland] also includes a little assessment to cover the cost of the electricity that FirstEnergy won't be selling you because you use those bulbs.

"Think of it as paying money to save money so FirstEnergy won't lose money." So can I set this up for you? The utility in Cleveland is going to deliver two 23-watt compact fluorescents to every customer. You're going to be charged $21.60 for the two of them when the utility is buying them for $3.50. You will pay for them over the course of three years at 60 cents a month added to your bill. But because they ostensibly save power, and you won't be using as much, you are going to be assessed an additional charge to make sure that FirstEnergy does not lose money by having you install the new bulbs; the purpose of which everybody believes is to reduce power consumption, to save the energy or save the climate because we're not going to be emitting as much carbon.

Do you follow that, folks? What? No, it's not insanity, it's liberalism! Pure and simple. It's liberalism. After they rope everybody in on all of this "Save the planet stuff! Save the planet stuff! We gotta reduce our carbon emissions," they're going to charge you for "saving" the planet. They're going to charge you for not using the electricity they tell you that you should not use! They're going to bring the light bulbs to you. "The General Assembly passed a law last year requiring Ohio's utilities to reduce their customers' energy use by 22 percent, and to shift 12.5 percent of their power production to 'renewable' energy sources -- solar and wind, for instance -- all by 2025." So this utility is just following the law, as passed by the Ohio legislature, folks. Liberalism is behind this.

Now, Snerdley, it's not a question of them getting away with it, it's that they're obligated to do it by the legislature, or what is it called in Ohio? The General Assembly. "The General Assembly passed a law last year requiring Ohio's utilities to reduce their customers' energy use by 22 percent, and to shift 12.5 percent of their power production to 'renewable' energy sources -- solar and wind, for instance -- all by 2025. The Great Light Bulb Boondoggle is the leading edge of an energy-reduction effort to comply with commands the government of Ohio has issued to the tides of technology. Those commands -- to foist immature and inefficient generation methods on consumers and push aside less expensive, more efficient power sources, like coal -- will be enforceable only at great expense to the public.

"People are upset about FirstEnergy's light bulbs, as folks with sore ears at the PUCO will attest. But let's keep this in perspective: $21.60 is nothing, compared to the expenses we'll pay if the greenshirts drop a bag full of cap-and-trade taxes on our front porches. ... Call your senators and your congressional representative instead. Tell them you've had enough of command-economy enviro-thuggery. And invite them to put cap-and-trade in a place where a solar array would be both impractical and painful." The author of this story is Kevin O'Brien at I don't know if the legislature or the General Assembly in Ohio mandated the price structure. Could be that the power company did that. I mean, folks, two light bulbs, $3.50 is what it costs the power company in Cleveland to buy them, and they're going to sell them to you for $21.60. You have no choice. You're going to pay for them whether you put them in or not. And you're going to get billed 60 cents a month for three years, but since you're going to be using less electricity because those two light bulbs, they're going to assess you a fee so that you will be paying what you would have been paying had you not put the light bulbs in. Huh? Well, but, Snerdley, health care costs aren't going to go down. He's asked me if health care costs go down like the government promises when they run everything, they're going to raise fees to keep the price up.

Health care costs are not going to go down, just like utility costs are not going to. Nothing is going to go down! For crying out loud, no price is going to go down. You have dips in prices and so forth with sales and a number of other factors, but as a general rule, prices of everything go up and they will continue to go up. When is the ban on incandescent light bulbs go into play? It's not that far down the road, a couple years, right, couple, three years? I don't think anybody knows about this. I mean this is not the same as requiring you to go to digital on your TV. This is not the same as that. This is bringing a light bulb into your house that requires a hazmat team to throw away because there's mercury in it. And when people find this out this could be one of many tipping points that wake up all these precious moderates and independents out there, say, "What do I have to do? You're telling me I gotta use these little spaghetti light bulbs here, and you're going to charge me more for it even though I'm supposed to save the planet by using less electricity?" What then?

Thursday, November 12, 2009

The Obama Watch

The Man Who Despises America

The very next paragraph is going to make the nut jobs on the far left excitable beyond belief. I am not referring to all Democrats or even a majority of liberals. I am singling out the "they've-lost-all-touch-with-reality" crowd. This includes Media Matters for America led by the admitted hit-and-run, drunk-driving serial liar. The group includes the unshaven, bathrobe-clad unemployed who live in their mother's basement and are devout followers of MoveOn.Org. It is also the bitter, aging spinster working at the New York Times, the morbidly obese documentary film maker, and cable TV news' resident drama queen who hosts MSNBC's Countdown. They are about to simultaneously suffer from brain aneurisms. So without further delay, I'll say it.

Barack Obama despises America.

When people who voted for Obama in 2008 -- including registered Democrats -- start speaking in normal conversational voices at dinner parties, neighborhood gatherings and PTA meetings that the over-inflated ego from Chicago has it "in for America," then it's clear most reasonable people have reached the same conclusion.

The central conviction of Obama's ideology is that America is guilty of limitless moral failures and is the chief architect of the world's ills. Obama has boundless enmity for America, its key institutions, and its longtime allies. Consider these facts.

The 30-years of Obama's post-adolescent life are radical by any measure. First, he grew up listening to the ramblings of committed Communist Frank Marshall Davis. It had such a profound effect on him that he wrote fondly of Davis in his first book. In fact, that book is replete with statement after statement about how the U.S. is deeply flawed. Most Americans believe in American exceptionalism. Not so with Obama.

Patriotic Americans would not have listened to the bigoted, anti-Semitic, hate-America rants of a fringe religious leader for 20 seconds let alone for 20 years. Yet, Obama who admitted he attended services at Trinity United Church at least twice a month for two decades called Jeremiah Wright his mentor and his moral sounding board.

Nor would most Americans cultivate a close friendship with an admitted domestic terrorist and his wife whose most notable life's accomplishments were to set off bombs that killed and maimed innocent people.

Joining Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright in organizing attendance at Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's 1995 march on Washington is beyond imaginable. Especially after Farrakhan demonstrated public support for Colonel Muammar Qaddafi during the Libyan Leader's most bellicose years against the U.S., which included Libyan complicity in numerous terrorist attacks.

Obama's view of America in national security and foreign affairs is profoundly disappointing to say the least.

Americans overwhelmingly view the men and women who saved Europe and the Far East during World War II as comprising the Greatest Generation. By his comments and actions, President Obama obviously thinks otherwise.

Obama did not honor American greatness on the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift while on his first European trip. Instead, he accused "America [of having] shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward its European allies.

He also denigrated the accomplishments of the American G.I. during World War II in the Pacific theater when he offered a thinly veiled apology for the U.S. having dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those acts brought the war to a swift conclusion, perhaps saving hundreds of thousands of lives when it appeared Japan was prepared to wage an island-by-island battle to the last man.

Obama ordered the release of the so-called CIA "torture memos," seriously damaging delicate intelligence relations with allied nations and placing at grave risk the safety of U.S. intelligence officers working overseas. The impact of his action handcuffs the ability of U.S. intelligence officials to protect the U.S. and American interests from acts of terrorism.

In a matter of weeks last spring, Obama gave deference to a variety of belligerent leaders while stiff-arming longtime American allies. First, he called for closer relations with Cuba while ignoring that nation's long list of continuing human rights abuses. Then he warmly welcomed Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez at an Organization of American States summit.

Next, he failed to respond and set the record straight after Nicaragua's Communist leader Daniel Ortega listed alleged U.S. crimes and atrocities during a nearly one-hour rant at the OAS meeting. It is unsettling that in his own remarks Obama incorrectly claimed the OAS has 36 members rather than the actual 34. Ortega and the hemisphere's other Socialist leaders claim the OAS would include 36 members if Cuba and an independent Puerto Rico were allowed to join. Mere coincidence or Freudian slip?

Immediately following the OAS embarrassments, Obama ignored a request from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet. Obama would repeat this snub six months later before agreeing at the last moment to meet Netanyahu after the Israeli leader was en route the U.S.

In his speech before the Muslim world, Obama made the patently absurd claim of equivalency between the status of displaced Palestinians and the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust. His claim that 7 million Muslims live in the U.S. is a figure inflated by as much as 700%.

In an earlier speech, Obama claimed that the U.S. is not a Christian nation, which is at odds with the fact that 79% of Americans self-identify as Christians and the nation's founders were devout Christians.

In less than six months in office, Obama apologized for Guantanamo Bay; for alleged mistakes committed by the CIA; for U.S. policy in the Americas; for America's history of slavery; for "sacrificing [American] values;" for "hasty decisions" in the war on terror; for "America's standing in the world;" for American errors in foreign policy; and for U.S. relations with the Muslim world.

He pronounced Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology acceptable and he warned Netanyahu against targeting Iran's nuclear facilities. Obama's approach to Iran is eerily similar to that of Jimmy Carter, whose actions contributed to the fall of that nation into the control of Islamic radicals.

This summer, the door to greater individual freedoms in Iran was firmly closed shut when Obama announced the U.S would not meddle in Iran's election and he offered no encouragement to democracy activists who protested the obviously stolen elections. His silence was deafening when regime security agents savagely attacked and killed countless Iranians who took to the streets.

In contrast to his deference to anti-American leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega, Obama strong-armed Netanyahu on key Israeli matters. In addition to snubbing the Israeli Prime Minister's requests to meet, Obama demanded an end to Israeli settlements and insisted on the creation of a two-state Palestine solution.

Obama abandoned NATO members Poland and the Czech Republic by canceling the central Europe missile defense plan just as rogue nations North Korea and Iran make advances in nuclear and ballistic missile production. The cancellation was demanded by Moscow authorities who have adopted a more confrontational posture toward the west.

Solidarity with freedom-loving East Germans has been a staple of the American presidency for nearly 50 years. John Kennedy pronounced himself a Berliner. Ronald Reagan demanded Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev "Tear down this wall!" Yet, this bricks and mortar icon of first, Soviet totalitarianism, and then, second, the end of Soviet domination did not make the cut as Obama chose not to attend the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall. In the summer of 2008, Obama altogether skipped mentioning the role of the U.S. -- or even the West, for that matter -- in bringing down the wall, instead crediting "a world that stands as one."

Obama's disagreement with American values and institutions is evident in domestic issues. He has stocked his administration with wild-eyed radicals who believe foreign law trumps the U.S. Constitution (Harold Koh); include an avowed Marxist and "truther" who believes George Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attack and is also an ardent supporter of cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal (Van Jones); and include a devoted admirer of Mao Tse-tung who slaughtered as many as 75 million people (Anita Dunn). (In contrast, George W. Bush's Attorney-General nominee John Ashcroft was savaged by the news media for being an Evangelical Christian.)

Three weeks after America's first black president was sworn in, the nation's first black Attorney-General who was hand-picked by Obama, called America "a nation of cowards" for some perceived race relations shortfall. The understood meaning of Eric Holder's comments is that white people are still racists. However, the reality is the people most preoccupied with fomenting the racial divide are those who populate the ranks of the Obama Administration.

Obama's Homeland Secretary designated military veterans as terrorists-in-waiting to be equally as dangerous as other domestic terrorists including pro-lifers and citizens opposed to the flood of illegal aliens.

One of Obama's very few suggestions to cut into his $1.4 trillion budget deficit was to have servicemen and women pay for their own war injuries. He's all for providing free health care to illegal aliens but believes wounded warriors should foot their own hospital bills. In fact, the Defense Department is about the only sector of government in which Obama has proposed slashing spending.

Hours after a belligerent "African-American Studies" Harvard professor engaged in behavior unbefitting anyone let alone a professional man, Obama accused the exceedingly tolerant Cambridge police officers as having "acted stupidly" and then digressed into how people of color have been unfairly treated by white America.

Bush was prolific in quietly and privately visiting the military wounded and family of the fallen. In contrast, Obama attempted to make political capital of his one visit to Dover Air Force Base. Obama's motives were so transparent that families of 17 of the 18 fallen denied permission for Obama to engage in a photo-op alongside the returning caskets.

In May, Obama immediately issued a statement that he was "shocked and outraged by the murder" of a Kansas doctor specializing in partial-birth abortions. He called it a "heinous act of violence." Attorney-General Holder mobilized U.S. Marshals nationwide to provide protection to abortion clinics.

But Obama remained silent the very next day when two U.S. soldiers were gunned down by a Muslim extremist outside a Little Rock recruiting station. After repeated prodding for a presidential comment, the White House faxed an after-hours statement to select media outlets two days later offering a tepid remark that Obama was "saddened" without even mentioning the soldiers were murdered.

Five months later, another Muslim fanatic gunned down nearly four dozen Americans, killing 13, at the Ft. Hood army base. It was an act that demanded the most serious demeanor of the military's Commander-in-Chief. Yet, Obama referenced the massacre in the most insincere fashion just seconds after a jocular shout-out to an audience member during a public speaking engagement. It was the equivalent of attending a funeral in swimwear while en route to the beach.

The odd inadvertent comment or occasional verbal faux pas can be explained away as just that. However, Obama has a lifetime of comments and actions including 10 months as president that belie his real attitude toward the U.S. The difference between Obama and his immediate predecessors such as Ronald Reagan, the George Bushes and Bill Clinton who actually revere and honor the greatness of America and its citizens and institutions cannot be overstated.

Mark Hyman is a commentator appearing nationally on the television stations of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The Plan, The Scam, The Man

The Plan, The Scam, The Man, Don't ya just love it when a plan comes together?

The Scam

Here is what a learned friend had to say about my Democratic Math e-mail. It's even worse apparently than I first thought:

It's way worse than that. Ignore all the gas crap and just look at how the stupid car buyer got taken to the cleaners:

If you traded in a clunker worth $3500, you get $4500 off for an apparent "savings" of $1000.

However, you have to pay taxes on the $4500 come April 15th (something that no auto dealer will tell you). If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1350 on that $4500.

So, rather than save $1000, you actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for. Now you have 4 or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, that was costing you less to run than the payments that you will now be making.

But wait; it gets even better: you also got ripped off by the dealer. For example, every dealer here in LA was selling the Ford Focus with all the goodies, including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc for $12,500 the month before the "cash for clunkers" program started.

When "cash for clunkers" came along, they stopped discounting them and instead sold them at the list price of $15,500. So, you paid $3000 more than you would have the month before... (Honda, Toyota , and Kia played the same list price game that Ford and Chevy did).

So let's do the final tally here:

You traded in a car worth: $3500
You got a discount of: $4500
Net so far +$1000
But you have to pay: $1350 in taxes on the $4500
Net so far: -$350
And you paid: $3000 more than the car was selling for the month before
Net -$3350

We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, etc.) on the extra $3000 that you paid for the car, along with the 5 years of interest on the car loan, but let's just stop here.

So who actually made out on the deal? The feds collected taxes on the car along with taxes on the $4500 they "gave" you. The car dealers made an extra $3000 or more on every car they sold along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies. The manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month before. And the poor, stupid consumer got saddled with even more debt that they cannot afford.

Obama and his band of merry men convinced Joe consumer that he was getting $4500 in "free" money from the "government" when in fact, Joe was giving away his $3500 car and paying an additional $3350 for the privilege.

Think this was stupid for those who were crazy enough to swallow this wonderful scheme?

Just wait until we get health care with no additional costsover what most of us now pay for health insurance and the best medical care in the world. Think that scheme might be designed by the same people who came up with Cash for Clunkers?

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Who is WE?

President Barack Obama said in Turkey : "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
I found this very interesting.
Do you know the Preamble for your state? .. ..

Be sure to read the message at the bottom!

Alabama 1901, Preamble

We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..

Alaska 1956, Preamble
We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble
We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Colorado 1876, Preamble
We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...
Connecticut 1818, Preamble.
The People of Connecticut , acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble
Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...
Florida 1885, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble
We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble
We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings..
Illinois 1870, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble
We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble
We, the People of the St ate of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble
We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble..
We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..
Louisiana 1921, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble
We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble
We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble
We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble
.. We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution..
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
Mississippi 1890, Preamble
We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble
We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...
Montana 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of Montana ,grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..
Nebraska 1875, Preamble
We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble
We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art I. Sec. V
Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble
We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble
We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
New York 1846, Preamble
We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble
We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
North Dakota 1889, Preamble
We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble
We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2.
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble
We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance....
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble.
We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
South Carolina , 1778, Preamble
We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble
We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ...
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI..III.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble
We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble
Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI
Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble
We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble
Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ..
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble
We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility..
Wyoming 1890, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state
constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong! If you found this to be 'Food for thought' send to as many as you think will be enlightened as I hope you were.

(Please note that at no time is anyone told that they MUST worship God.)