The Babbling Bimbos of  The View

I’m thinking of starting a petition for Joy Behar to leave her body to science.  If we can analyze the inert matter she has between her ears we might be able to find a cure for it.

Get up off your lazy dumb asses and help fix what you screwed up!!

Your children’s future is at steak!

Fidel Castro......... Barack Hussein Obama II .... Hugo Chavez

The most difficult part of this post was deciding where Barrack Obama’s photo belonged in relation to Castro and Chavez. Was he to the right of Castro? To the left of Chavez? They all believe in government control over the private sector. All three want to control the auto industry, the oil industry, and the press. Castro and Chavez have already accomplished this. Obama didn’t have to lift a finger to have ninety percent of the media in his corner. All three want single payer, government controlled health care. Castro and Chavez have already done this. Obama has openly expressed his desire for a single payer government controlled health care system. And with the passage of health care reform; thank you Congressional socialists, he is well on his way to doing just that.
How many times have we heard the left wing mantra,” We are the only industrialized nation in the world without national health care”.  Well, the fact is, we are, or were,  the most successful, prosperous, and strongest industrialized nation in the  world because WE DIDN’T HAVE  NATIONAL HEALTH CARE!  For those of you who support Universal health care in the United States consider this:  The largest employer in the world is  Indian Railways,  of India, a developing third world country. The second largest employer in the world is the disaster known as The National Health Services of the United Kingdom.  The NHS has all but bankrupted the United Kingdom.  Once, one of the most powerful nations of the world, proud and free; it can now only be described as bordering on third world status. A tiny Nation of only 61 million people.  
The third largest employer in the world is The People’s Liberation Army of Communist China.   We know where their priorities are.  The fourth largest employer in the world is  WalMart.  That’s right, the world’s most successful privately owned US based company is in fourth place,  behind the National Health Services of  The United Kingdom.   That should scare the hell out of all 300 million Americans.

You were so busy applauding our first Black President, you ignored the fact that he was just another left wing politician. Nothing special; just a left wing lying socialist with a good speech writer. It is a great shame that such an historic event resulted in the election of such a pathetic excuse for a leader in the White House. The men and women of our armed forces have fought and died for our freedom;to defend us against communism and socialism. Yet we in this country elected the likes of Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other socialists to the highest offices of American government. Yes, we simply voted them in. Well if by the grace of God we can reverse the damage that will be done to this Country by these enemies of freedom; We must never let this happen again!
I thought the list of prominent Americans listed below speaks for itself. But after speaking with  friends and acquaintances lately, I have learned to take nothing for granted.  If  you read the “about me ” page of this blog, you know I have made a stark turn around from being a Liberal Democrat during my youth, to a staunch Conservative in my adult years.

I credit that change to listening to, and reading the teachings of a former actor, who decided he had something more to give his country. He was honest, fearless, and communicated his core principles with grace and humor.  His name was Ronald Reagan. He was a Conservative Republican.  He never understood racism and bigotry.
Below is a list of other Conservative Republican Americans who also have influenced me.  They too, did not understand racism or bigotry.  As a Conservative American,  and a musician, I do not understand racism or bigotry. Black Americans have pioneered virtually all of the  music we consider to be American.  The gifts bestowed on this country by Black Americans in music, art, and the culture of America are too many to list here.

It took me quite some time to realize that what people say, is often not what they truly believe.  What they truly believe,  they are all too often reluctant to say.  Liberalism and the Democrat party have become the new slave masters in this country.  I fail to understand how the majority of Black Americans align themselves with the party of slavery, and the party of segregation; the Democrat party.  The liberal Democrat party pits one race against  another.  It sees America as nothing more than separate groups, black , white, brown, red, and yellow.  Each of these groups must be solicited until they are bought and paid for.

Yes, there have been individual success stories that have emerged from programs such as affirmative action.  But in the process such programs have destroyed black families and our educational system.  When you tell people that ” don’t worry, we know you are not capable of taking care of yourself;  We’ll do it for you”.   What message does that send?

Racism, and bigotry, go hand in hand with hypocrisy.  I detest hypocrisy.  I detest racism.  I detest bigotry.  I detest people who turn racism and bigotry into a business.   I lament the fact that many Americans are quite familiar with the names Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and yes, Barrack Obama.  Yet many of the names listed below elude them.

The difference is;  Each of the men and women listed below endured far more degradation,  abuse,  and personal ridicule than all the Al Sharptons of the world.  They fought racism by example.  They achieved greatness in their endeavors through hard work.   They were not parasites who achieved success off the misery of others,  like Jackson, Sharpton, and yes Barrack Obama.
The men and women listed below considered themselves proud Americans first.  And to the surprise of most Liberals and Progressives,  they were all Conservative Republicans.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Walter Williams

Alveeda King

Ken Blackwell

Thomas Sowell

Larry Elder

Erika Harold

Roy Innis

J.C. Watts

James Meredith

Clarence Thomas

Jackie Robinson

Lynn Swan

Booker T. Washington

True Conservatism is color blind.

True Americanism is color blind.

Yeah I have taken a great deal of heat on this post since it was put up in mid October.  I haven’t listed the comments because they were written by ill informed  people who have no clue.  ”How could I link these two issues together?”  That was the bulk of the Emails.  My response was… It’s quite simple to understand for any human with a working brain.  So, here we go again.  Listen up!!

I am a student of science.  I respect the scientific method of reaching a conclusion.  Unfortunately,  science did not play any part in either of these conclusions.  The EPA released the results of their study on second hand smoke before they even began their study.  They blamed the death of 3,000 Americans on their exposure to second hand smoke.

I have long believed the Global warming  crowd has been as fraudulent about their science as well.  And now the word is out.  Neither of these issues has anything  to do with actual science.  It is all about  taking our rights away.  WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!

I waisted almost half of my life as a liberal democrat. All that changed in the late 70′s. My blog site is toostupidtovote.us which explains how I got from where I was then to where I am today. I got involved last year for a man I truly believe in. I worked the phones, went door to door, and contributed as much money as I could to support him. We’ve been screwed by Democrats, as well as ‘so called’ Republicans in New Jersey. And after years of being a registered Conservative in this state, I have a question.
Is a liberal Republican better than a liberal Democrat? The answer is… NO. If you take the time to delve into the policies of Jon Corzine and Chris Christie, you’ll find that no matter what they say, they agree on more issues than they would admit to voters.  Christie’s token tax cuts will do nothing to spur growth in New Jersey.   A race between Corzine and Christie will be close.  The one man who had a chance to turn New Jersey away from it’s journey to socialism was Mayor Steve Lonegan. But, Rino Republicans such as Rudy Guilliani, and the RNC itself, gave their support to Christie. They think they are smarter than us. They think that the Republican party needs to move even farther to the left, in order to expand the party. Well guess what? They are wrong! There are far more voters in this country who consider themselves conservative, than liberal socialists. The 2006 and 2008 elections have taught them NOTHING! No matter who wins, Christie or Corzine, Lonegan gave New Jersey voters a clear choice, and excited voters.  With Corzine’s negatives, and Lonegan’s positives,  Lonegan would have been a sure win.

We do not need to form another party. I agree that doing so would condemn us to decades of socialist Democrat rule.  But if Christie wins, will it send a message to Congress and the White House?  Maybe.  The real message should be sent to the Republican Party. We need to take back the Republican party by backing conservative candidates, and throwing out RINO Republicans! What am I going to do on November 3rd? I’m writing in my vote for Steve Lonegan. Why? Because Chris Christie will cut our taxes by a whopping 1%. Thanks for nothing. It’s time to stand up against both parties. We should not stand up for the RNC, when they don’t have the guts to stand up for us. It’s time to take back the Republican party in the name of Ronald Reagan conservatism or let them fall by the wayside. If New Jersey is destined to be governed by a liberal, I would rather that liberal be a Democrat.

The Queen of National Health Care

The King of Global Warming

This post will be ongoing because I am tired of stupid people who believe the bull shit they have been fed.

You may ask what do Hillary Clinton and Al Gore have in common? Well they both had their own personal agendas. Clinton’s was universal health care, and Gore’s is global warming .  Hillary had quite a dilemma. First, she had to sell universal health care to Congress and the American people. Well, that shouldn’t be too difficult. After all, every American is entitled to health care; are they not? But how to pay for it. That was the question. Where would the money come from? In order to grab money from BIG TOBACCO ”  we need to show that second hand smoke is killing others”. Unfortunately Hillary’s timing left much to be desired. Her National health care plan would have to depend on higher taxes on Americans. Even after instituting a no smoking policy at the White House and directing the EPA to commit fraud on the American People concerning second hand smoke; It was too late to achieve what she wanted. The whole second hand smoke issue was contrived as an instrument of control. Up to this point, the right to smoke was an obstacle for liberals. After all, no one cares if smokers kill themselves.  Well consider this.  From 1880 through 1960 your odds of contracting cancer were approximately one in fourty four. Over  sixty percent of the population smoked.

Today your odds of contracting cancer are about one in five.   And  today,  less than thirty three percent smoke.  DO THE MATH PEOPLE!!!

Every legitimate study has determined that second hand smoke has no harmful effects on anyone.

And you should always follow the money.  That’s the way to pay for universal health care.   And consider this.

The EPA,  in 1993 attributed the lung cancer deaths of 3,000 Americans who didn’t smoke, to their exposure to second hand smoke, with no basis in fact.

This is 2009.  Far fewer Americans smoke.  Far fewer Americans are exposed to “so called”  second hand smoke.  and yet, nearly 12,000 Americans who never smoked nor were exposed to second hand smoke died from lung cancer.

An additional 12,000 Americans died of throat cancer.  Yeah, they didn’t smoke either, nor were they exposed to “so called second hand smoke”. When you add the tens of thousands of deaths from bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, stomache cancer, heart disease, and stroke; all of which have been blamed on smoking or exposure to second hand smoke, you need to ask yourself ;how are any of us still living?

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
In December of 1992 the EPA released it’s now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS (SECOND HAND SMOKE) causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.
Note: Although the official date of this report is December, 1992, it is commonly referred to as the EPA ’93 study, probably because it became widely available in ’93.
This was, and remains, a powerful weapon in the anti-smokers arsenal. If a smoker is only hurting himself, he can argue that it’s no one else’s business. But if he is hurting everyone around him, all kinds of restrictive legislation can be justified.
Did this study show SHS is deadly? Let’s examine the facts carefully.
Fact: In 1992 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year.
Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.
After reading each of the following facts, ask yourself “Does this fact make the study more credible, or less credible?
Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.
Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.
Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a few important studies can skew the results considerably.
The term “Meta Study” is often used to describe this type of report, but the word “study” is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report.
Fact: The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies. The EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates.
Fact: The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30.
Fact: On page 3-46 of the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, “this would translate to the equivalent of about one-fifth of a cigarette per day.”
Fact: Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.)
Fact: In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA report.
The CRS was highly critical of both the EPA’s methods and conclusions.
Fact: According to the CRS “The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, to determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies.”
Questionnaires can be notoriously inaccurate, as discussed in Statistics 102, but in this case some of them were not even filled out by the people being studied, but by “surrogates.” In other words, some of the information was unverified hearsay.
Fact: On page 23 of the study, paragraph 3, the CRS noted that out of 30 studies, only five found a statistically significant risk at the 95% confidence level, and one showed a statistically significant negative risk (a protective effect). The remaining 24 studies showed no statistically significant increase or decrease in risk.
Fact: Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA’s study. The EPA used data from one uncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored the other two, Brownson and Kabat.
Fact: The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk. The CRS report referred to it as “a positive risk that was barely statistically significant.” (p. 25)
Fact: The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed “no risk at all.” (p.25)
Fact: The “scientists” who conducted the Fontham study refused to release their raw data for years. They were finally forced to when Philip Morris won a lawsuit to gain access to it.
Most researchers routinely make their raw data available after studies have been published. Does Fontham’s refusal to make the data available make them more credible, or less credible?
Fact: The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level.
Fact: Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn’t come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they changed the CI to 90%, which, in effect, doubled their margin of error.
Fact Worth Repeating: Instead of using the 95% confidence interval, the statistical standard that has been used for decades, the EPA doubled their margin of error to achieve their pre-announced results.
Would any legitimate epidemiologist keep their job if they were caught doubling their margin of error to support a pre-announced conclusion?
Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman’s terms that means:
• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 19%.
• Where you’d usually see 100 cases of cancer you’d see 119.
Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as an unimportant result. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable.
Facts: In review: The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results.
Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.
Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study – declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long.
Fact: Osteen used the term “cherry-picking” to describe he way the EPA selected their data. “First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA “cherry picked” its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA’s a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA’s excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA’s purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA’s Risk Assessment Guidelines.”
Fact: Osteen found other deep flaws in the the EPA’s methodology. In his judgment he stated: “The record and EPA’s explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA’s controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA’s conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer.”

Fact: The following is another direct quote from Judge Osteen’s decision: “In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA’s conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency’s research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA’s demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen.”

Most of the media ignored the judge’s decision.

When confronted with this decision, many anti-tobacco activists and organizations harp on the fact that Judge Osteen lives in South Carolina. The obvious implication is that he’s influenced by the tobacco industry in his state. It may also be an appeal to the “stupid southerner” stereotype.

Fact: Judge Osteen has a history of siding against BIG TOBACCO on tobacco cases.

Fact: In 1997 Judge Osteen ruled the FDA had the authority to regulate tobacco.

So much for his alleged bias.

Fact: Although this study has been thoroughly debunked by science and legally vacated by a federal judge, it is still regularly quoted by government agencies, charity organizations and the anti-smoking movement as if it were legitimate.

Fact: Anyone referring to EPA classifying ETS as a Class A carcinogen is referring to this study.

Opinion: You should seriously question the credibility of anyone who refers to this study, or any of the conclusions that it reached, as if they were facts. That includes everyone who refers to the EPA’s ruling that ETS is a Class A Carcinogen. Once they do, every subsequent statement they make should be considered highly suspicious until it is thoroughly verified.

Fact: Most of the information on this page was gleaned from Judge Osteen’s 92 page decision, the CRS report, and the EPA’s study.

Fact: The EPA fought to have Osteen’s decision overturned on technical grounds. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen’s court did not have jurisdiction.

Fact: In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism on the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.

If you doubt anything I have presented in this post you can find the judge’s entire decision here. The CRS report is available here. The EPA report over six hundred pages long, and we recommend you order a hard copy. It is available to US citizens at no charge. Call (800) 438-4318 and ask for document EPA/600/6-90/006F. The title of the report is “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.” It is also available as on line as a pdf file. Note: this is a four megabyte file.

Fact: Carol Browner, the former head of the EPA, still insists that this study is valid!

Special thanks to the Liberty News Network and Forces International for what they do.

The biggest story of the last couple of weeks would have to be the Acorn ( the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) scandal. Yes, you may have heard that dozens of Acorn employees have been indicted for voter registration fraud across the US. You may have heard that the brother of founder Wade Rathke was discovered to have embezzled almost a cool million from Acorn’s war chest; only to be bailed out by George Soros coughing up the cash to keep Rathke out of prison. You may know that the SEIU, the same union that sent union thugs to town hall meetings to intimidate stay at home mothers and senior citizens from opposing Obamacare, is closely tied to Acorn. You must have heard that Congress is in the process of cutting off funds to Acorn. Of course, the funds I’m talking about are our tax dollars. You see Acorn is a non-profit organization. They have received over fifty million dollars up to now, and were set to receive over EIGHT BILLION more from the stimulus package over the next several years. President Obama has had close ties to Acorn for years.
Well maybe you haven’t heard. You see none of the main stream media other than FOX has covered the story. For the past couple months twenty year old Hannah Giles, and twenty five year old James O’Keefe armed with a few thousand dollars , a video camera, and more journalistic smarts and integrity than CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC combined, set up their own sting operation.
They uncovered the true nature of ACORN –. No problem with under age sex slaves, misuse of taxpayer funds, the condoning of other illegal activity, and its connections to Barack Obama. They will never win a Pulitzer prize, but they have shown all major news outlets what journalism used to be.
Barack Obama has denied serious involvement with ACORN. That’s curious, because if you go the the administrations newly launched website www.Serve.gov and typing “ACORN” into the search field entitled “What interests you”, you’re taken to allforgood.org where you can choose from a list of volunteer opportunities, including “health care activist.” This particular “volunteer” opportunity is with the Tuscon ACORN office. But hurry, I have a feeling this will become a dead link very soon.

CARTER’S OWN WORDS